With regards to how much of our dynamics and differential equations classes it appears my classmates and I retained, this is an oft used quote by my vibrations professor. I bring this up mostly because this class is probably the best engineering class I have ever taken. To this point it is also the hardest engineering class I have ever taken.
Why? Is the material so much different from other classes I've taken? No, it's actually quite similar to other classes I've taken. It is mainly modeling systems, developing a differential equation, then setting up the equation so it is solvable, at least within reasonable approximation. By my count I've had three courses directly dealing with these subjects, not to mention the math classes leading up to them.
Perhaps I'm too overloaded this semester? No, actually this is the easiest semester of my college career scheduling wise. I intentionally set up my schedule to give myself a solid footing at a new school so I can push through to the finish. I knew I had labor intensive classes this semester, so in addition to working out a favorable class schedule, I am also not working this semester.
Well then why is it so hard, you ask? It is mainly because of this professor. No, not because he doesn't know what he's talking about. He knows it inside and out and I am extremely impressed. Nor is it a language barrier similar to a couple I have encountered in the past. Rather it is his teaching style. It is markedly different from every other teacher I have had thus far in my engineering career. It is taking quite a bit of getting used to, but I do believe if more professors taught using the methods of Dr. Anil Rao, the world would be better for it.
The fundamental difference comes in the distinction between getting an answer and getting a solution. Engineering students are taught, pretty much from the start of elementary school, that they need to get the same answer that is in the back of the book. I myself have done this many times where I'm not quite sure what is going on in a problem, but if I plug the given information into enough different given equations, eventually I'm going to get the answer I'm supposed to. But what does that answer tell me? Absolutely nothing. Could I explain to somebody why I got that answer and why what I did was right? What a preposterous idea. If given another problem could I identify similarities and use that knowledge to help me instead of doing the whole stupid plug and chug process again? Don't I wish. Therein lies the fatal flaw in the way most engineering classes are taught.
What Dr. Rao requires of us is to take every step, from step zero to step seven hundred and work it out in gory detail, every time. But doesn't that take more time? Naturally, but when I get a solution at the end, I know it is right, I know why it is right, and I can show you every step I did to prove it is right rather than basing it on a sheet full of equations the teacher gave us from the book. After doing several of these problems you also get another revelation: all of these problems are the same. But surely that can't be true! It is true and don't call me Shirley. You model the system making appropriate assumptions and simplifications, justifying each of them. This includes defining reference systems that not only describe the system well, but omigosh, they make the math and subsequently your life much easier. You decide which law you are going to use to describe what you need to, lately it has been Euler's Laws for rigid body motion (that's what she said), then derive all the information needed to solve it. Drop it into a differential equation and solve. Poof, done.
I know, that sounded exceedingly complicated and probably made a couple of the liberal arts majors want to cry, it really isn't as bad as it sounds, and can really be quite interesting. Each time I walk out of that class, it feels like information overload, but I know as I process it all, it is going to help me be a better engineer, rather than having to figure that out down the road when my mentor tells me I have no justification whatsoever in my thesis and not to come back until I can explain what I did instead of hiding it in a bunch of technical jargon.
It kind of goes back to "If you didn't have time to do it right the first time, how on earth are you going to find time to do it again to fix it?" It's all about thoroughness. Do it right, it works out. That's one of the nice things about engineering. I wish more stuff was like that.
So goodnight y'all. Fait des beaux reves.
-Z
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
A picture is worth a thousand words
What makes a great picture? What makes a picture not only catch the eye, but also have an impact on the soul? When does a picture tell a story instead of just recording an event? These are really questions that can be debated ad nauseum, but as a general rule, a picture can't be great before it is good. This aspect I can comment on.
When someone looks at one of my pictures and says, "Wow, those are good! You must have an awesome camera." I want to punch them. You wouldn't associate a painting with how good the brushes are, or the taste of a meal with how good the pots and pans are. Why would you do the same thing with photography? It is true, it is easier to take good photographs when you are using better equipment. But, it is also true that you could hand me a $50,000 Hasselblad and hand Ansel Adams a $200 point and shoot and he would outshoot me any day of the week, and he's dead!
There is still a large amount of skill involved in taking a good picture. Advances in technology have brought up the baseline so it is easier for more people to take passable pictures without thinking about it. This also means that to distinguish themselves, the top echelon of photographers also has to improve to justify getting paid for their work. Occasionally someone with a point and shoot will take an awesome picture under good shooting conditions. The separation comes when a photographer is contracted to take many good pictures on a specific day no matter what the shooting conditions. The consistency and ability to perform no matter what is where the skill and training come in, with a little help from equipment.
The basis of all photography really goes back to an understanding of light. Light is like sound for a musician. Light is like ingredients to a cook. Light is like words to a poet. Without an understanding of how it works, it is impossible to use it to its full potential. The hardest thing to wrap your mind around is the quality of light. It is not an absolute scale, nor is it even a one-dimensional scale. It deals with many aspects of light, such as intensity, direction, contrast, color, variability, and consistency. Some of these qualities are more important than others and where in that scale you want to be depends on the type of shooting you are doing. What may be ideal light conditions for a senior portrait of a teenage girl may yield a flat, uninteresting shot of a racecar on the track. Even within the same type of shooting, portraits for example, the desired qualities may change. The lighting setup for the lead singer of a heavy metal band would probably make a middle-aged soccer mom want to cry.
There isn't really one cohesive idea that runs through this post. Actually, it's a rather scattered collection of thoughts loosely connected by a camera, but it gives me something to do in between classes that breaks up the studying. For those that know me well, you probably followed this post like one of our conversations, all over the place, but you got the general idea. For those of you that don't think like me, I'm quite sorry and if you need me to clarify I am more than happy to do that too. Hope everybody has a great day. Au revoir.
-Z
When someone looks at one of my pictures and says, "Wow, those are good! You must have an awesome camera." I want to punch them. You wouldn't associate a painting with how good the brushes are, or the taste of a meal with how good the pots and pans are. Why would you do the same thing with photography? It is true, it is easier to take good photographs when you are using better equipment. But, it is also true that you could hand me a $50,000 Hasselblad and hand Ansel Adams a $200 point and shoot and he would outshoot me any day of the week, and he's dead!
There is still a large amount of skill involved in taking a good picture. Advances in technology have brought up the baseline so it is easier for more people to take passable pictures without thinking about it. This also means that to distinguish themselves, the top echelon of photographers also has to improve to justify getting paid for their work. Occasionally someone with a point and shoot will take an awesome picture under good shooting conditions. The separation comes when a photographer is contracted to take many good pictures on a specific day no matter what the shooting conditions. The consistency and ability to perform no matter what is where the skill and training come in, with a little help from equipment.
The basis of all photography really goes back to an understanding of light. Light is like sound for a musician. Light is like ingredients to a cook. Light is like words to a poet. Without an understanding of how it works, it is impossible to use it to its full potential. The hardest thing to wrap your mind around is the quality of light. It is not an absolute scale, nor is it even a one-dimensional scale. It deals with many aspects of light, such as intensity, direction, contrast, color, variability, and consistency. Some of these qualities are more important than others and where in that scale you want to be depends on the type of shooting you are doing. What may be ideal light conditions for a senior portrait of a teenage girl may yield a flat, uninteresting shot of a racecar on the track. Even within the same type of shooting, portraits for example, the desired qualities may change. The lighting setup for the lead singer of a heavy metal band would probably make a middle-aged soccer mom want to cry.
There isn't really one cohesive idea that runs through this post. Actually, it's a rather scattered collection of thoughts loosely connected by a camera, but it gives me something to do in between classes that breaks up the studying. For those that know me well, you probably followed this post like one of our conversations, all over the place, but you got the general idea. For those of you that don't think like me, I'm quite sorry and if you need me to clarify I am more than happy to do that too. Hope everybody has a great day. Au revoir.
-Z
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Concerning Photography
The question has been raised earlier this week as to classifying a photographer as pro, amateur, sub-amateur, etc. As I was called out in said post, I felt compelled to respond in kind. Yes, I know I haven't finished the posts from the wedding or El Salvador. Chill, I have one final left before Christmas break, then I'll get rolling again.
What is a "Pro" photographer? What is an "Amateur" photographer? Perhaps we might even have to start more basic than that with what is a "photograph"? This is a question I often pose my customers looking at SLR cameras when I'm actually supposed to just be selling them a camera. In my mind, there is a significant difference between a "snapshot" and a "photograph". To me, a photograph indicates a conscious effort to analyze the composition of the photograph, be aware of elements in the background that may be distracting, get the focus correct, and last but not least, expose the picture correctly. When you take these elements into account, you begin creating art instead of letting the camera capture what it may. At this point you are taking control of the camera and light and manipulating how you see and capture them to create a desired image. Now, this is not to say you must know how a given picture is going to turn out after you press that little button, but it generally helps to have some idea, even if it's an idea of how to do trial-and-error adjustments for the shot you're about to do.
Now, given that definition, what is a photographer? I believe a photographer is someone who continually strives to better the photographs he or she creates. Whether it is through shooting, or reading, or observing another photographer, you are trying to create the most accurate representation of your idea possible. Ask any photographer if they have ever created the perfect picture. Unless they are extremely arrogant or extremely naïve, they will probably say no. But that does not mean there are not excellent photographs out there. What would be the point of doing something if you could never do it well?
Now the designation of a professional vs amateur is also very vague. A professional has a rather strict definition when it comes to careers, including mainly doctors, lawyers and military officers. But in a field such as golf, you become a professional as soon as you get paid to play. One of the greatest golfers who ever played, Robert Trent (Bobby) Jones, was an amateur his entire career. There is also a great deal of difference in skill between professional golfers on local circuits and Tiger Woods, Ernie Els and Arnold Palmer. People insist on assigning labels to things that are completely unrelated to what they are trying to judge. People often ask me at work if I am a professional photographer. I respond that I love taking photographs, I love studying and learning about photography, and I am available for hire for portraits, weddings and other events. I don't compare myself to Ansel Adams or Annie Leibovitz. Here is my card with my website at the bottom if you would like to take a look at my portfolio and judge for yourself whether you would consider me a professional.
Questions, comments, concerns? I know I haven't totally covered this topic and my explanation has been somewhat haphazard, but alas I am not getting paid to write this, nor am I getting a grade. I would still love to know what you think, but until then, I need to get some sleep so I can head back to Gainesville tomorrow to work and study.
-Z
What is a "Pro" photographer? What is an "Amateur" photographer? Perhaps we might even have to start more basic than that with what is a "photograph"? This is a question I often pose my customers looking at SLR cameras when I'm actually supposed to just be selling them a camera. In my mind, there is a significant difference between a "snapshot" and a "photograph". To me, a photograph indicates a conscious effort to analyze the composition of the photograph, be aware of elements in the background that may be distracting, get the focus correct, and last but not least, expose the picture correctly. When you take these elements into account, you begin creating art instead of letting the camera capture what it may. At this point you are taking control of the camera and light and manipulating how you see and capture them to create a desired image. Now, this is not to say you must know how a given picture is going to turn out after you press that little button, but it generally helps to have some idea, even if it's an idea of how to do trial-and-error adjustments for the shot you're about to do.
Now, given that definition, what is a photographer? I believe a photographer is someone who continually strives to better the photographs he or she creates. Whether it is through shooting, or reading, or observing another photographer, you are trying to create the most accurate representation of your idea possible. Ask any photographer if they have ever created the perfect picture. Unless they are extremely arrogant or extremely naïve, they will probably say no. But that does not mean there are not excellent photographs out there. What would be the point of doing something if you could never do it well?
Now the designation of a professional vs amateur is also very vague. A professional has a rather strict definition when it comes to careers, including mainly doctors, lawyers and military officers. But in a field such as golf, you become a professional as soon as you get paid to play. One of the greatest golfers who ever played, Robert Trent (Bobby) Jones, was an amateur his entire career. There is also a great deal of difference in skill between professional golfers on local circuits and Tiger Woods, Ernie Els and Arnold Palmer. People insist on assigning labels to things that are completely unrelated to what they are trying to judge. People often ask me at work if I am a professional photographer. I respond that I love taking photographs, I love studying and learning about photography, and I am available for hire for portraits, weddings and other events. I don't compare myself to Ansel Adams or Annie Leibovitz. Here is my card with my website at the bottom if you would like to take a look at my portfolio and judge for yourself whether you would consider me a professional.
Questions, comments, concerns? I know I haven't totally covered this topic and my explanation has been somewhat haphazard, but alas I am not getting paid to write this, nor am I getting a grade. I would still love to know what you think, but until then, I need to get some sleep so I can head back to Gainesville tomorrow to work and study.
-Z
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)