#16
Post
by apochronaut » Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:57 pm
I spent 6 years in art school, after spending 2 years in biology. I wasn't very good at either, for different reasons. I was driven out of science, because I didn't have the singleness of mind ,to hone in and to persist in it and I left the artistic world because it was packed full of ego trippers, many of whom were also fools. My perception now, 40 years later,is that pure science is dominated by people who presume they know nothing and pure art is dominated by people who think they see everything. One takes a lot of work to climb out of, the other takes a lot of work to climb down from. Getting into the middle ground between those two, is the challenge and those that can do that are rare individuals. Gerald Domingue might be one , worthy of discussion here, Ernst Abbe too, Temple Grandin. These are a few I can think of offhand .
The problem here, is part and parcel of the above. The scientist should look to present data that have proofs, in order that they can be shared for the benefit of all. The artist should present opinion that needs no proof , so that it can stimulate thought for all. The word all, is the important word here.
It is very hard to become a scientist. You need to have your ducks in a row, otherwise your peers will notice that you don't and point that out.
It is very easy to become an artist, All you need to do is proclaim yourself as one. Your peers may still point out that you don't have your ducks in a row but it doesn't really matter because you have artistic license. I suppose the phrase " successful artist " or some other catch phrase might come to mind, which tends to cover for that slight deficiency in qualification that the burgeoning world of artists holds dear.
The thing is you never really hear the term "successful scientist. " . You kind of are or you are not one. So, what this really means is that , when an artist, whether, self proclaimed or peer revued , branches over into the world of science, they too need to have their ducks in a row .
So, this little muddle here, is what it is . I don't think anyone need apologize or change their line of reasoning on anything here. The test was not the best test, plain and simple. Maybe the next one is more controlled. I did try to view the re-dos but I couldn't get them to download, otherwise I would have viewed and possibly commented on them .
I would like to add this. The use of a microscope ocular , as a camera lens is something I know a little about. I have , probably, 500 objectives at the moment and around 200 eyepieces. So, I have had the opportunity to test a good many of them for afocal photography and can assure you that many of them are completely unsuitable and many of them are very suitable and that suitability can vary widely, depending on the stand employed and the objective match employed. That's why I am a stickler for that. Good results depend on accurate matching. There are theoretical rules, that govern the optical and photographic performance and those theoretical rules can be used to fairly closely predict, an outcome of matching. To use those theoretical rules , however, you need optical data, not the name of a manufacturer but optical data. The data given on objectives is pretty clear and concise. You can make a lot of assumptions based on that data but there are always things missing, which makes the extrapolation of such tests difficult. One piece of info. always missing on infinity objectives for instance is the tube length( most seem to be 180 or 200) and are the objectives fully or only partially corrected. Eyepieces are a whole other thing. Aside from the known characteristics of a huygens eyepiece as opposed to a ramsden, the eyepieces made since the 1950's ,most of which have W.F. designations or komp., or plancomp, or kpl or whatever on them, are mostly proprietary designs, with corrections for specific optical aberrations inherent in the system they were designed for. Sometimes you can swap them into another system and sometimes you cannot, so due to these technical factors the post that started this thread was a specific test that purported a conclusion that was already known and had no practical value outside of the specifics of the test and the education of the tester. No one needs to apologize for it or their response to it.
