Reading mode: Light Dark

Monkeys on typewriters

Go to last post
R

rander3127

Veteran Member
Messages
4,628
Reaction score
1
Location
CA
I quoted this from your link:
rander3127 said:
rander3127 said:
'The line between professional and amateur is definitely becoming blurred. It is not a case that professional standards are slipping but rather that amateur photographers are getting better and raising the bar.'
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
...and fail to see where your 'monkey' scenario fits in.

Sounds like the rhetoric I hear from film zealots who need a mini-lab full of film processors and lab techs just to produce a print.

15 years ago it took an army of pre-press techs to convert a 24mm x 36mm kodachrome slide into grainy, half tone magazine print. Now an amatuer with an $800 dSLR and a laptop computer is only limited by their raw technique and imagination. So, what exactly is your point?
 
rander3127 said:
--Remember the old odds theory that said if you let a group of
monkeys bang away on typewriters, eventually one would produce the
works of Shakespeare? Well, maybe the rapidity of image-making
with digital gear is allowing amateurs to aspire to the same thing?
Click to expand...
Interesting thought. How many different images can possibly be produced by, say an 8 MP sensor, before every possible image that can be produced has been recorded? Are we close yet?

--mamallama
 
In the interest of linguistic accuracy, it should be noted that monkeys (or anything else) could bang out on a typewriter for the life of the universe and NEVER produce Shakespeare's plays or anything readable for that matter, including this post. Human language operates on rules that allow for a number of kinds of infinite strings, from an unlimted number of modifiers to an unlimited number of clauses ("this is the cat that swallowed the rat that ate the cheese that..." etc.). The life of the universe is a very long time, but then so would be an infinite strng of the letter 'a'.
rander3127 said:
--Remember the old odds theory that said if you let a group of
monkeys bang away on typewriters, eventually one would produce the
works of Shakespeare?
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure I get your analogy.

The distinction between "amatuer" and "professional" has to do with whether one makes money -- not how well one makes photographs.

There are many very fine amatuer photographers in this world, and also a good many professional hacks.

--
J.R.

Somewhere south of Amarillo

http://jrsprawls.com
http://fotolocus.com
 
for 8-bit JPEGs, I think (though I'm not sure) that it'd be 256^n with n = number of pixels of the final image, which would be much higher than the number of atoms in the universe for a 8 Mpx image, or heck, even for a 320x240 one =D

though if we consider two images, one being the exact copy of another one except for one of it's pixel values being, say, 254 instead of 255 as the same image, then we'd need a new equation which would obviously give us a considerably lower number of possible images, but I'm too tired to see which equation would give us that result =D
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/Draek
 
Scott Eaton said:
Scott Eaton said:
Scott Eaton said:
'The line between professional and amateur is definitely becoming blurred. It is not a case that professional standards are slipping but rather that amateur photographers are getting better and raising the bar.'
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
...and fail to see where your 'monkey' scenario fits in.

Sounds like the rhetoric I hear from film zealots who need a
mini-lab full of film processors and lab techs just to produce a
print.
Click to expand...
Yep. Assuming that the report is true, what it shows is that digital technology has made it easier for amateurs who were previously limited by things like the cost of film and the expense in time and money of custom processing options. I can make a much better color print at home these days than I ever could in a wet darkroom.
Scott Eaton said:
15 years ago it took an army of pre-press techs to convert a 24mm x
36mm kodachrome slide into grainy, half tone magazine print. Now an
amatuer with an $800 dSLR and a laptop computer is only limited by
their raw technique and imagination. So, what exactly is your point?
Click to expand...
And depending on the kind of image, you don't even need the $800 DSLR.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
Jay Turberville said:
Jay Turberville said:
Jay Turberville said:
Jay Turberville said:
'The line between professional and amateur is definitely becoming blurred. It is not a case that professional standards are slipping but rather that amateur photographers are getting better and raising the bar.'
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
...and fail to see where your 'monkey' scenario fits in.

Sounds like the rhetoric I hear from film zealots who need a
mini-lab full of film processors and lab techs just to produce a
print.
Click to expand...
Yep. Assuming that the report is true, what it shows is that
digital technology has made it easier for amateurs who were
previously limited by things like the cost of film and the expense
in time and money of custom processing options. I can make a much
better color print at home these days than I ever could in a wet
darkroom.
Jay Turberville said:
15 years ago it took an army of pre-press techs to convert a 24mm x
36mm kodachrome slide into grainy, half tone magazine print. Now an
amatuer with an $800 dSLR and a laptop computer is only limited by
their raw technique and imagination. So, what exactly is your point?
Click to expand...
And depending on the kind of image, you don't even need the $800 DSLR.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Click to expand...
Jay-

also the cost of just reading about photography and technique has dropped quite low.

just imagine the old days, when ppl had to buy books on the subject, which were often expensive because of the cost of printing color. Now we can use the internet to look at thousands of color images for no cost.
 
Draek said:
for 8-bit JPEGs, I think (though I'm not sure) that it'd be 256^n
with n = number of pixels of the final image, which would be much
higher than the number of atoms in the universe for a 8 Mpx image,
or heck, even for a 320x240 one =D

though if we consider two images, one being the exact copy of
another one except for one of it's pixel values being, say, 254
instead of 255 as the same image, then we'd need a new equation
which would obviously give us a considerably lower number of
possible images, but I'm too tired to see which equation would give
us that result =D
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/Draek
Click to expand...
Draek-

i guess we'll find out! in a few years or decades there will be hundreds of millions, in not billions, of cameras out there snapping away.
 
If I produce a good image, it is a random accident and not because of my superb composition skills or that magical ability to deal use the light (note: I have neither). When enough random people with no real skills produce enough digital images, some of those images will be legend......
 
rander3127 said:
--Remember the old odds theory that said if you let a group of
monkeys bang away on typewriters, eventually one would produce the
works of Shakespeare? Well, maybe the rapidity of image-making
with digital gear is allowing amateurs to aspire to the same thing?
Click to expand...
Not in practice. Monkeys may be able to take the pics but pp would be impossible. They would constantly be crapping all over the keyboards and theyd stop functioning pretty quickly up in no time.

Unless of course you have an unlimited supply of keyboards.

--
Roger the cabin boy.
 
mamallama said:
Interesting thought. How many different images can possibly be
produced by, say an 8 MP sensor, before every possible image that
can be produced has been recorded? Are we close yet?

--mamallama
Click to expand...
In my favourite mountain resort there is a waterfall I always photograph when I visit. Sometimes it is in flood, sometimes it has very little water, sometimes it is overcast, I take images at sunset, sunrise, summer, winter., snow, iced-up, vegetation depends on time of the year... None of these images look the same even though it is of the same place from the same angle...

Are we close yet of gathering all images.... at all possible lighting situation...
 
The proverbial "lucky shot" in operation here that now with the accessibility, ease of use and number of people snapping away is becoming more of a factor.

"Millions of monkeys on typewriters" is a great metaphor.
It helps to explain how nature and many other social phenomenons operate.
Is a key driving force on Evolution.

This principle woks at all levels.

Many scientific breakthroughs have been achieved mostly by sheer accident not intelligence or intent. (ie CCD sensor.)

Most successful business in the huge fertile jungle of the USA have been arrived to national scale this way. Once they are that big is just a matter of will to take on the rest of the world.

Even though humans are relatively more intelligent than monkeys.

The intelligence and creativity of a genius really pales in comparison to what it really takes to create master pieces by Design and truly tackle and understand the infinite complexity of the world.

A talented photographer is still a monkey with a camera, just a bit more intelligent or experienced and with a better typewriter.

Even the most talented photographer will admit "luck" as one of the big factors for a great photo.

--
 
Forget typewriters.. just give the monkeys cameras and there's no doubt we'll get some very interesting images. Chimping will be appropriate, and the viewpoints will certainly be diverse!
He's a link with a self portrait taken by Koko:
http://www.koko.org/news/Events/event_051018_ASME_Award.html

She also used a camera several other times, such as when Mr Rogers paid her a visit:
http://www.koko.org/world/journal.phtml?offset=15
Sue
--



http://www.pbase.com/artshot
http://www.beatricedesignsinc.com
 
once said:

"If you have a room with an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of type writters, the smell would be unbearable."

Another comedian said "If you have a room with an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of type writters they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespear. Well the internet has proved that theor wrong."
 
The fact that one is an amateur photographer means he is not a professional not that he has no clue what he is doing

A large number of 'professional photographers' (which means they make money with it not that they are good at it) does not produce good work but rather simply knows how to sell themselves

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top