Sunday, February 13, 2011

Architect Ideas, Feb 2nd, 2011

We know that a software system can be divided into front-side and back-side. Previously, many people agree that the back-side should take the key role of the development workflow, and somewhat, will decide the software development to live or to die.
Now, I found there are some different thought about it. Roughly, we can normally divide a software system into three layers, like many other schools of thought have done. The first is UI layer, the second is control layer, and the third is persistence layer. We regard the OS, DBMS and so on as other things, since generally we, as application developer do not handle more them – what we should do about them just develop some adapter layer to abstract them integrate into our developing system, and screen the differences from multiple persistence system, including in DBMS and OS-this is what we call as persistence layer-this is not data model layer as that is traditionally accepted popularly as the concept persistence layer. Now we don’t abandon the data model concept, it’s useful, but it is not just regarded as layer – yes, sometimes it really works as if a “layer”, but to design a data model layer usually isn’t a better solution for the architecture strategy. Both business logic and data model, which usually is bound with the business logic so firmly, are included in the control layer.
So, there are still three layers, but have different workflow “Hermeneutics”.
  1. You should think your application logic leading by UI layer, and build some prototypes
  2. The first abstracting should occur at control layer, but this abstraction is dynamic, somewhat like evolution. The abstracting process like this type usually can’t lead to a stable unified framework, instead that more and more frameworks based on the more and more application logic will be evolved , to adapt different application domain, with their data models framework.
  3. Another abstracting exits where the persistence layer is. But this is a type of relatively stable abstracting, and differs from that in the control layer.
Based on those different ideas about the application software architecture, naturally, different design and development strategies should be developed. The first thing we can conclude is: for single application, the UI design and implementation will decide the project to live or to die, and the control layer abstracting enough or not, will decide the software to live or to die. As to persistence layer, it will just influence your system’s performance and compatibility, if you didn’t fail to design and develop it too much.
In the web world, there has been an outstanding sample to see the effect of the idea UI(presentation layer logic) lead and organize the control layer and perhaps, persistence layer logic, which make the project more simply and more successfully, in addition to more readily : PHP based web application.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

关于镜头的润和锐以及镜头成像素质的评论

俊安国学 回复 ideaarchitect
久违上网,见先生耐心细致的回复,很是感激~看来不但得锐,还得润。对XGP的评论更是使我大解疑惑。您说钢炮、像皇这俩不是数码时代的头,是更适合胶片机的意思吗?若用在D700上会不会好一些、更匹配一些呢?(就您说的那些弱点对比D90等来说)还是说对无论全副与非全副的数码相机,都无本质差别?另外一个问题:你说钢炮“其锐,因为焦段而得到强化”,我的理解是80~200这个焦段比24~70焦段同素质的镜头更具锐度、解析力?是这样吗?


不客气。最近我已经移情,玩别的东西了,对于摄影已经不像以往那么有热情。如果你对摄影感兴趣,我个人推荐你去佳友在线、poco网和橡树网,那里的流氓比较少,装腔作势的“艺术家”也比较少,枪手也比较少,气氛比较理性。


由于你提出的话题都比较具有争议性,所以,我不得不详细回答,呵呵,如果回答的不周密,就会引起误解,而这,是我颇不愿意看到的。


说到镜头的指标,我个人觉得不能用锐或者润一言以蔽之。我觉得看镜头,首先要看这枚镜头的成像风格,然后再在这个前提下看看这枚镜头的锐或者润是有利于这种成像风格的发挥,还是不利于这种成像风格的发挥。我个人觉得就XGP和老人像镜皇而言,在数码上存在色彩比较单薄的问题,这个不是D80D90还是D700就能改变的,而DZP色彩就明显丰满得多——因此感觉上似乎没有XGP锐,实际上XGP的锐的感觉一部分是因为其色彩单薄导致的画面层次简单化造成的错觉,测评的结果说明(DZP的photozone测评我稍后将会摘译,并在本博客贴出,你有兴趣到时候可以来看看),其实XGP未必比DZP锐。我说钢炮“其锐,因为焦段而得到强化”,不完全是“80~200这个焦段比24~70焦段同素质的镜头更具锐度、解析力”的意思。当然,某种程度从理论上的某些方面分析,对于35mm全画幅单反系统,80-200这个焦段是黄金焦段,容易设计出好镜头,但是更主要的是在这个焦段的画面的被摄主题往往比广角的被摄主体简单(比如大头照),再加上透视压缩效应,所以看上去画面似乎比广角镜头的画面更容易给人一种比较锐的印象——这些都是我个人的原创理解,你听上去肯定会觉得有些意外,但是我的感觉就是这样的。


现在的情形,我觉得购买D700是不合时宜的,我称它是一个残障的机器,但是尼康的大灯泡(14-24/28)和DZP,我觉得是非常值得购买的。尤其是大灯泡,可称是尼康光学设计有史以来的奇迹,如果玩尼康,不收藏一枚是比较可惜的。不过许多业余玩家玩摄影,主要是风光人像摄影,所以就会比较少有机会用到14-24这个焦段,所以作为业余玩家,买不买这个光学奇迹,其实是蛮纠结的。

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Three Principles of Photographic Composition

1. Technique
Photograph, especially DSLR photograph, probably is an art based on technique. If you write, reasonably you should know how to fill the ink, and if you draw, reasonably you should know what the different pigment feature is. Similarly, when you compose to photograph something, you’d better know some techniques about it. Thus, you can master the photographic composition arbitrary.
Photograph is an art about creative finding. Firstly, to find, then to compose, and finally, to take, this is the sequence. If you find a creative finding, it means you now in the so-called “art” domain. It is said the art usually is not a trivial matter…So, many of photographic composition techniques are related to what you can find, especially, what you can creatively find. Mainly, as following:
1.1 The Golden Section
You should know not only what the golden section is, but also know how they occur, hide or compose in the landscape or in your idols’ position. Following the golden mean theory you can find where are the aesthetic balance in your picture.
1.2. Framing
Take advantage of what you find in your landscape, or in your idols’ position, to frame your view, this makes your picture somewhat have a formalism aesthetic taste. If you think you are a “photograph artist”, you not just imagine the framing as rectangling. Yes, the framing could be circling, bloting something out and so on. It could be a abstract shape, and could unbalance too. But, maybe, don’t forget golden section.
1.3. Crossing lines/diagonals
they could help you find and make your view focus where the golden section is. So, as an “art” photographer, locating the crossing lines/diagonals in the landscape and idols’ position, it’s the big job.
1.4. Lighting
The spirit of the photograph is the light. No matter it’s sunlight, moonlight, flashlight and so on. Handling the light, you can create golden section, you can frame and cross your view.
1.5. Depth-of-Field and Focus
You can compose the depth-of-field and focus in different way. This technique create different longitudinal composition effects. You can take advantage of it to frame, cross and so on, and make your pictures produce somewhat three-dimensional feeling.
1.6. Normal Focus Length and Perspective
For the 35mm full frame DSLR’s no-cropped pictures, the lens’ perspective at 50mm focus length, is very similar with viewers’ perspective. More than 50mm, the lens’ perspective will be lengthened, and less than 50mm, the lens’ perspective will be compressed. Naturally, focus distances is  important too. You can change the focus length, maybe, and focus distance, to figure out where the different frame locates in your perspective.
1.7. Depth-of-Field Separation
You can change the depth-of-field, to separate the subject from its background, it usually means, the blurred background forms a frame. This is one of big jobs the DSLR aperture has.
1.8. Contrast Separation
Not only depth-of-field can separate the subject from background, but also contrast can do so too. How to enhance or reduce contrast? What’s your answer? Just photoshop? no, not just photoshop.
1.9. Compressing
Compression is a function of focus distance and enlargement, but view frame make the focus length effective too. however, different perspective “feeling” make your picture as if with different “frames”
1.10. Lyers
Using some techniques, such as Depth-of-Field Separation, Compressing, you can divide the landscape into some layers longitudinally. Because of layers, the picture is not only worth paying first look, but also worth paying second look.
All these are the photograph composition techniques, but all photograph composition techniques are not just these. But, could you know where these techniques can be applied correctly? It’s decided by your feeling completely. Maybe it’s why an artist is different from a photographer.
If you are interested, perhaps the example of abstract art should be helpful. Because they have abstracted the fine taste from the messy and concrete world.
2.Three Principles of Photographic Composition
The three principles of photograph composition is the strategy  and spirit. They decide how to apply all those photograph techniques. There are two types: one is for normal style, another is for dramatic taste.
2.1 Three Principles of Photographic Composition, Normal Type
  • Balance-just make your picture’s view balance.
  • Focus-just make your picture’s subject focused (emphasized).
  • Harmony everything else-just prevent your picture’s background from mess and monotone.
Three principle of normal type usually should work  together to bring into effect.
2.2 Three Principles of Photographic Composition, Dramatic Type
  • Shock-is any more balance needed? No, just shock it! It’s cool.
  • Messy-what is the decisive moment? Isn’t it the clearness from mess? And what is the indecisive moment? Isn’t the mess from the clearness?
  • Deformation-nothing more, just because somewhat the deformation is also a dramatic art.
Three principle of dramatic type could work  independently.
3. All in All
All in All, the unique key is expressing. In order to express, any technique and any principle may be abandoned. What is the most perfect composition? Just don’t compose it.
Cartier-Bresson told the Washington Post in 1957, "Photography is not like painting," There is a creative fraction of a second when you are taking a picture. Your eye must see a composition or an expression that life itself offers you, and you must know with intuition when to click the camera. That is the moment the photographer is creative," he said. "Oop! The Moment! Once you miss it, it is gone forever."