Tom’s Graphic Design Journal

I saw a wonderful post today with a question if design skill is something that we are born with (article).

My response was that it's taught obviously. I still maintain that point of view, but I do believe that genetics plays a role in how quickly or easily we learn skills. This would include art and design. Take someone's IQ for example: Even someone who studies hard can surpass someone with a higher IQ in an educational environment.

The same is true for art. Someone may be born with the ability to percieve light and balance better. There are other natural deficiencies that we may have that can affect our balance, etc. Some people can also have physical handicaps that could affect their ability to draw or see for instance. All that abnormal stuff aside, we can still be taught...and we visually learn from the minute we are born.

My point is that visual communication, just like learning a language, must be learned. We aren't born and say, "Hey baby what's up? Give me some milk." I think we might have problems if that were the case. So design skill is a learned behavior because we put rules and definitions to it. The word "red" could mean anything, but if you speak English, then you know what red means. It's associated with a color, however, we all may percieve that color in a different way.

We couldn't be born with the sense to know rules that we set as humans. "kerning" is something just as defined as a language. Well, typography is working with language. If you aren't born knowing how to speak, then how could you think that you are born knowing how to manipulate a language you don't even understand?

You don't. You learn. Whether someone tells you - or whether you see it and understand it quicker than someone else is up to each person.

The past few days have been beautiful. The weather is starting to change, the air is cooler and the days grow shorter. I have a terrible time during the winter months, but hopefully I can keep myself occupied this winter with enough work that I won't have to worry about anything else. As sad as I am to see the summer go, I am looking forward to the fall for taking photos. Hmm...can we skip winter and go straight to spring?

Anyway, I've taken some more photos with my new lens and I'm very happy I decided to go with it over the other lenses.

So....after all that research and debate, I get to the camera show and I'm presented with another option. The Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 with image stabilizer. Damn. "Why add another element to my equation?" I asked my friend. I was in a nice self debate on two Sigma lenses, the 18-50mm and the 24-70mm, both f/2.8.

Well, I got the Canon lens. It was technically more expensive, but I found a "used" one that was barely touched and still had the warranty card...score! So I was able to get the lens for $50-$100 below street price and within the price range I was figuring on for the Sigma.

I tried both lenses and I suppose due to the weight, size, and no image stabilizer, I couldn't get as clear shots from the Sigma as I could get (right away) on the Canon. I of course was inside a building for the show. I could not fully test either lens for quality in optics. I had no idea if the Canon lens had better glass than the Sigma. I heard wonderful things about the Sigma...However, I also heard 50/50 people complaining about getting a "bad copy." Umm....That pretty much did it for me. I wasn't going to risk getting a bad copy of a lens. So the Canon it is! Aside from the fact that it covers the zoom range I was looking for -- hence the whole debate between both Sigma lenses.

I tested it at my friend's place. His garden is FULL of very colorful things; flowers, butterflies, humming birds, and more. The real benefit aside from indoor low-light shooting with that image stabilizer is the fact that stacking filters becomes easier. So I had no apprehension about putting on a polarizer and an enhancing filter despite the fact that quality light in the day was leaving. I loaded the images now and saw that I could hand hold shots at even 1/20th of a second! WOW! With 100% PERFECT clarity. The quality of the glass is good, yay! Maybe not L quality, but unless that L had image stabilization (do they?) it wouldn't have been this clear for this shot because the exposure was 1/20th of a second (the image here was shot at ISO 100, f/8, 1/20th sec. @ 28mm with a circular polarizer and enhancing filters). At least not without a tripod or monopod. In photoshop I zoomed into as much as 400% and while you could see all the pixels of course, the image still looked great! At 200% it looked like many of my photos shot with other lenses do at 100%.

So I'm glad I went with this lens. I only wish it was a constant f/4 throughout the range. However, I can live with one stop at the far end of 85mm. The lens should cover a wide variety of applications; portaits, landscapes, product shots, etc. It also has a "macro" feature, though it's not that wonderful. I just consider it a fun bonus for trying while not effecting quality elsewhere negatively.

This one was too funny. A friend of mine sent me an e-mail full of images that you "don't see everyday." I'm not a fan of sticking anything to my car, but if I was going to it would be this. I would probably have more checks for the bicycles because there are so many of them where I live and they are extremely annoying. They will take up the entire lane and won't move. "Sure jackass, like I want to drive my car 10mph...." -- or they wave you to pass them in the other lane -- "Sure jackass, I really want to pass you now on the curve where I can't see oncoming traffic." Completely out of control.

At least it's not as bad as Cape May. Apparently they started ticketing bicycles and really had to do something because it was so bad. However, the one good thing about winter is there won't be any more on the road...or if I'm lucky, I'll move and won't have to deal with driving at all.

So I want a new lens for my camera (Canon 20D). I've had it over a year now and LOVE it, but the stock lens is basically something you throw away. Eh, good in a pinch, good to make sure dust doesn't get on your sensor. It's poorly constructed, plastic (lol, the barrel not the lens that IS glass - but one might wonder), and just isn't doing it for me. So I need a new lens that covers a similar or greater range and is much sharper.

So at first I found out about the Sigma 17-70mm with macro. Holy crap! I thought, this would cover a great range! I have the Sigma 50-500mm and I heart Sigma. I took this photo of a dragon fly with the 50-500mm, hand held! That is not a typical result -- it is a VERY hard lens to shoot with in my opinion because it's pretty heavy and it's slow. So you need a lot of light, or a tripod. However the range that it covers is great and I wouldn't trade it up for anything short of a Canon L lens that had almost as much zoom and/or a faster telephoto lens...but then we're just talking astronomical cost. Like $4,000 to $7,000 depending. So, I figured the 17-70mm would cover and even overlap a little (which is fine because to be honest, that 50-500mm is HEAVY and if I want portrait shots, it's easier to carry the smaller lens).

I'm undecided because I heard that 17-70mm wasn't so sharp. It also is a 2.8-4.5 and I heard you don't get f2.8 for very long. Also apparently no manual override for the focus. BOOH. SO....I'm thinking about the Sigma 17-50mm. No macro, but apparently the 17-70mm's macro is poo. I wouldn't be surprised because it's asking too much of a lens. Sadly something gives when you try to do it all. So. Then I saw the Canon L lens that's comparable...I think maybe 17-40mm? Anyway, it's twice as much as the Sigma 17-50....BUT it's an L lens...Come on. Must be good. Well.......I was reading some people actually like that Sigma over the Canon! Wha wha wha whaaa??? Ok so now I'm by no means made of money - AND people are liking that Sigma...hmm...I just may go with it. It's a tough one. The other thing not in favor for the Sigma is it has some harsh chromatic abberations....BUT that's to be expected with digital when you're shooting wide open at 2.8...That Canon L lens only goes to f4... So.... I don't know. Anyone have any thoughts out there?