Do you have a unique or "classic" book?

Nigel, it's horrifying to me that our major universities here now offer remedial reading/writing courses for native English speakers.

My niece passed high school maths 20+ years ago without knowing the difference between a fraction and a decimal, or how to convert one to the other. Frightening really. She holds several university qualifications ...

Our species is very good at forgetting (e.g. Tourette's syndrome - after discovery, forgotten for about a hundred years ... ), and failing to recognise what is plainly before our eyes.

JaKing wrote:

tedolf wrote:

JaKing wrote:

Siegfried, while I don't have your specific book, I have several shelves that include most of the others mentioned so far. All of Ansel Adams technical writings and several of his photography books. Quite a few of the 1950s era - e.g. Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, the Leica manual, etc.

Much of mankind's knowledge is 'locked up' in books - reading is the 'key'.

Funny thing is, when you suggest that someone read a book, even a specific book, you are branded as being "elitist" and "not helpful", especially in the Beginner's Forum.

Tedolph

Same thing is happening in our schools here. The education union considers the expectation that teachers can read, write, spell and do arithmetic to be a harsh imposition. Teachers who cannot spell see nothing wrong when a child cannot spell.

Don't start me on journalists! They appear to want total freedom to write whatever they like (often badly) , with no attached responsibility or liability at law ...

I'm not sure which country you are talking about.

In the US, the media is not regulated because it was designed to keep an eye on the powerful/government. And in many cases it's been very successful. That arrangement has worked well.

Unfortunately, media consolidation (and corporate ownership) has eroded local news and put the news corporations in bed with government. There has also been a gradual easing of ownership restrictions. That's very bad news if we want an educsted population. I think one company provides news for about half the country. That should scare anyone, especially when you consider how the Founding Fathers viewed the importance of news. Newspapers used to be delivered free via USPS.

Then, you have the capitalistic needs for news outlets to turn a profit (each year) which leads to less quality but bigger returns for the owners.

As far as liability, you are very wrong. News organizations can be sued for libel, and often are. Sometimes they lose, but I think they more often win.

Journalists do make mistakes. They are human and rely on other humans for information. Sometimes sources are wrong. They key is whether they journalists admit/correct their mistakes. Credible news sources do.

Now don't confuse journalists with commentators who provide options. Bill O"Reilly was good at blurring the lines when it worked in his favor.

I have concerns when someone with a video camera (yet no training, experience or job) claims to be a journalist when they are really an advocate. It's like q gas station attendant claiming to be a mechanic.

I don't shoot any video at all these days. years ago though I took some video classes at a local community college. I learned a lot and wish that I had dome more with it after I finished with those classes. One thing that stuck with me, beyond anything technical was the importance on following, or at least being aware of certain aesthetic rules. There are certain ways to shoot and edit (the editing part is maybe even more important!) that just make a piece flow... They make the action happening understandable and mean that it isn't a chore to watch. I think that this kind of aesthetic stuff is even more important than anything that's purely technical.

When I was taking those courses a friend of mine told me that learning that stuff was a waste of time and that anyone could pick up a video camera and figure out the same kind of stuff. he reasoned that since we're all consumers of film and video that so much of it, at least as far as the aesthetic part was kind of ingrained in us. He was really proud of a video that he made, but I found jarring, difficult to follow and pretty much a chore to watch. I think that the point for me was as much as we might think that we know what goes into telling a story with video, most folks unless they really learn the theory of why certain things are shot certain ways, they're going to miss important stuff that's really necessary to create something that someone might want to watch.

So... yes, books, even old ones can be useful, for photography or vide as they show aesthetic theory kind of stuff and that really never changes.

Seedeich wrote:

David Kieltyka wrote:

It's interesting to see what aspects of photography were valued & emphasized at the time compared to what we value & emphasize now. For example, in the section on using fast lenses (the 50/1.5 & 85/2 Sonnars) the discussion is all about taking pics in low light. Shallow depth of field: zero mention.

I wonder why they don’t mention DoF.
Maybe they are interested in praising the low light capabilities of the fast lenses.
Better not mention, that you can’t get sharp images at the same time.

Depth of field was certainly discussed in the books, from which I learned photography in the 70’s.

Because they understood that super shallow DOF was unappealing and to be avoided.  If you had to use a very fast F stop for low light, super shallow DOF could be avoided by subject to camera distance.  No one was seeking shallow DOF.  That is a modern fetish.

Tedolph

The oldest book I own is an 1850 edition of Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens. At the time this edition was printed, Charles Dickens was only 38 years old.

I bought it for $3 in a Lifeline bookstore about 15 years ago. It’s not in great condition, but still in one piece.

I have read Oliver Twist, just not this copy. I don’t want it to fall apart. It’s not valuable though, because it’s not a first edition. Old books are only really valuable if they’re a first edition or extremely rare/ancient. After doing a bit of research I figured it was probably worth about $150. But that was 10 years ago. It might be worth slightly more now.

Boss of Sony wrote:

The oldest book I own is an 1850 edition of Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens. At the time this edition was printed, Charles Dickens was only 38 years old.

I bought it for $3 in a Lifeline bookstore about 15 years ago. It’s not in great condition, but still in one piece.

I have read Oliver Twist, just not this copy. I don’t want it to fall apart. It’s not valuable though, because it’s not a first edition. Old books are only really valuable if they’re a first edition or extremely rare/ancient. After doing a bit of research I figured it was probably worth about $150. But that was 10 years ago. It might be worth slightly more now.

Might be worth a lot...personally I think its worth so much when it stays in the family....then again the next gen might not have the same sentiment?

Lots of joy and have fun........we can always teach the next gen those special values important to us, right?