Welcome to the photo technology (soon to be Photo Science) forum

Started Sep 28, 2013 | Discussions
Simon Joinson
dpreview AdminPosts: 4,417Gear list
Like?
Welcome to the photo technology (soon to be Photo Science) forum
Sep 28, 2013

I thought i'd just introduce this forum with an idea of why I decided to create this forum.

There has never been a natural home on dpreview for the kind of deeply technical discussions about the theoretical science and practical application of technology that often arise in the many forums on dpreview.

Those of you with a deep knowledge - or unwavering curiosity about - the material, optical and electronic engineering science behind digital image capture represent an valuable part of our community, and this forum is yours to use as you wish. For the moment there will be no community moderators (though if you want one once the forum gets going, please let me know).

I would like to also think this forum could be a place where the less technically minded can come to get answers to their questions - if they do come, please treat them gently.

This is the only reason this forum was created. There's no hidden agenda (and I'll look at the positioning of the forum next week if it's felt that it is too far down the list), and there's nothing to stop you talking science in other forums (especially if answering questions/contributing to threads). But if you want to start a discussion about a scientific matter, and are not just creating a poll designed to show how misinformed the majority of respondents are (the apparent 'entertainment value' of proving you're smarter than the average bear) please do it here. We will, over time, move the most useful technical discussions we find around the forums into this one.

So, enjoy!

Simon

-- hide signature --

Simon Joinson, Editor-in-chief
dpreview.com
connect.dpreview.com

 Simon Joinson's gear list:Simon Joinson's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +10 more
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,580
Like?
Nice!
In reply to Simon Joinson, Sep 28, 2013

Simon Joinson wrote:

I thought i'd just introduce this forum with an idea of why I decided to create this forum.

There has never been a natural home on dpreview for the kind of deeply technical discussions about the theoretical science and practical application of technology that often arise in the many forums on dpreview.

Those of you with a deep knowledge - or unwavering curiosity about - the material, optical and electronic engineering science behind digital image capture represent an valuable part of our community, and this forum is yours to use as you wish. For the moment there will be no community moderators (though if you want one once the forum gets going, please let me know).

I would like to also think this forum could be a place where the less technically minded can come to get answers to their questions - if they do come, please treat them gently.

This is the only reason this forum was created. There's no hidden agenda (and I'll look at the positioning of the forum next week if it's felt that it is too far down the list), and there's nothing to stop you talking science in other forums (especially if answering questions/contributing to threads). But if you want to start a discussion about a scientific matter, and are not just creating a poll designed to show how misinformed the majority of respondents are (the apparent 'entertainment value' of proving you're smarter than the average bear) please do it here. We will, over time, move the most useful technical discussions we find around the forums into this one.

So, enjoy!

Simon

Well, it's most certainly worth a shot, and, for the record, I think it's a good idea.

If I may be so bold as to suggest, maybe a counterpart to this forum, like "Photography as Art", where people can discuss photography from an artistic perspective without the bother of the technical stuff.  Then put the two forums next to each other in the forum list, so as to attract people to both, based on their interests.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Marty4650
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,700Gear list
Like?
Not a good idea.... a great idea
In reply to Great Bustard, Sep 28, 2013

This new forum is a brilliant idea.

Now, the exposure and equivalence folks can have their own home, rather than clogging up the other forums with repetitive threads and polls.

And it will be much easier to avoid those posts.

Hats off to Dpreview!

 Marty4650's gear list:Marty4650's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Macx
Senior MemberPosts: 1,396Gear list
Like?
Re: Nice!
In reply to Great Bustard, Sep 28, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Well, it's most certainly worth a shot, and, for the record, I think it's a good idea.

If I may be so bold as to suggest, maybe a counterpart to this forum, like "Photography as Art", where people can discuss photography from an artistic perspective without the bother of the technical stuff. Then put the two forums next to each other in the forum list, so as to attract people to both, based on their interests.

I wonder, what's the third dimension in this "photography triangle"?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,580
Like?
I think you missed it.
In reply to Marty4650, Sep 28, 2013

Marty4650 wrote:

This new forum is a brilliant idea.

Now, the exposure and equivalence folks can have their own home, rather than clogging up the other forums with repetitive threads and polls.

Equivalence and tech talk will still exist in all the other tech forums, for example, when someone talks about the "DOF advantage" of smaller sensors, but just that there's a dedicated forum now for tech talk besides correcting the misconceptions that come part and parcel with "common wisdom".

And it will be much easier to avoid those posts.

It always has been easy.  It's just that those most against it prefer to "entertain" than avoid.

Hats off to Dpreview!

I do think it's a great idea, and hope they create a "Photography as Art" forum, too, which, of course, will be completely filled by all the wonderful photos taken by those who bitch and moan about tech posts.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,580
Like?
Re: Nice!
In reply to Macx, Sep 28, 2013

Macx wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Well, it's most certainly worth a shot, and, for the record, I think it's a good idea.

If I may be so bold as to suggest, maybe a counterpart to this forum, like "Photography as Art", where people can discuss photography from an artistic perspective without the bother of the technical stuff. Then put the two forums next to each other in the forum list, so as to attract people to both, based on their interests.

I wonder, what's the third dimension in this "photography triangle"?

  • Photo Science Forum
  • Photography as Art Forum
  • Off Topic Forum

I mean, as much as people bitch and moan about tech posts, and as few photos that we see posted that could qualify as "stunning", well, I guess it's all "off topic"! 

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Eric Fossum
Contributing MemberPosts: 811
Like?
Re: Welcome to the photo technology (soon to be Photo Science) forum
In reply to Simon Joinson, Sep 28, 2013

There is a big difference between "science" and "technology"  Science changes slowly, and is about the physical principles that underlie our universe.  Technology is the application of science and engineering to mechanical, electronic, and optical devices, for example.

Calling this forum Photo Science would be generally incorrect, although I understand that many readers may not differentiate between the two words.

You might as well call it Photo Science and Technology.

-EF

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iliah Borg
Forum ProPosts: 16,083
Like?
Re: Nice!
In reply to Great Bustard, Sep 28, 2013

"Photography as Art"

tekhne - "art, skill, craft, method, system", same root as texture. Art is the first meaning

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gollywop
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,642
Like?
Re: Welcome to the photo technology (soon to be Photo Science) forum
In reply to Simon Joinson, Sep 28, 2013

I agree:

  • This new forum is a good idea
  • Eric Fossum is correct that it ought be called Photo Science and Technology

I also think there is no need to move its place in the forums list.  It actually makes it easier to find at the end than if it were stuck somewhere in the middle of something.

I still have problems finding Micro Four Thirds Talk because it is out of alphabetical order.  

-- hide signature --

gollywop

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Marty4650
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,700Gear list
Like?
Perhaps, but
In reply to Great Bustard, Sep 28, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Equivalence and tech talk will still exist in all the other tech forums, for example, when someone talks about the "DOF advantage" of smaller sensors, but just that there's a dedicated forum now for tech talk besides correcting the misconceptions that come part and parcel with "common wisdom".

You may be right, but it is also possible that all of your educational, entertaining and enlightening equivalence threads could be moved to this new forum by the moderators. Then, you and like minded souls could blissfully educate and inform each other there. You could start even more annoying polls about exposure. You will have your paradise.

It just depends on how well the moderators do their jobs.

I suppose we shall see....

 Marty4650's gear list:Marty4650's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iliah Borg
Forum ProPosts: 16,083
Like?
Re: Perhaps, but
In reply to Marty4650, Sep 28, 2013

you and like minded souls could blissfully educate and inform each other there.

I see you visiting

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dholl
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,116
Like?
Science, Art & Technique
In reply to Macx, Sep 28, 2013

Macx wrote:

I wonder, what's the third dimension in this "photography triangle"?

plain old "technique".

I put myself in that third, as I most enjoy discussing which lenses I used on what camera, the settings and techniques used to get the shot, and learning from others' techniques. We talk less about the finished photo as an artform and more about the gear and technique involved. We certainly don't care about how the technology of the gear works (the science behind it), but we do care about how to use the tools.

The musician scene has a similar triangle: the engineer, the artist and the producer.

So the triangle here is Science, Art & Technique.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,580
Like?
+1 for Dr. Fossum's suggestion.
In reply to Eric Fossum, Sep 29, 2013

Eric Fossum wrote:

There is a big difference between "science" and "technology" Science changes slowly, and is about the physical principles that underlie our universe. Technology is the application of science and engineering to mechanical, electronic, and optical devices, for example.

Calling this forum Photo Science would be generally incorrect, although I understand that many readers may not differentiate between the two words.

You might as well call it Photo Science and Technology.

-EF

I mean, if we can't be pedantic here, where else can we be? 

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,580
Like?
Possibilities.
In reply to Marty4650, Sep 29, 2013

Marty4650 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Equivalence and tech talk will still exist in all the other tech forums, for example, when someone talks about the "DOF advantage" of smaller sensors, but just that there's a dedicated forum now for tech talk besides correcting the misconceptions that come part and parcel with "common wisdom".

You may be right, but it is also possible that all of your educational, entertaining and enlightening equivalence threads could be moved to this new forum by the moderators.

Perhaps. However, I don't see a thread like the one with a subthread like this:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52233095

or threads like this:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52239739

being moved here.

Then, you and like minded souls could blissfully educate and inform each other there. You could start even more annoying polls about exposure. You will have your paradise.

Yes, I'm well aware that there are throngs of people who not only do not want to be educated, but take a perverse form of pride in not understanding.  You know, like when someone says, "I'm not good at math" with a certain "pride", when they'd never say something like, "I'm not good at reading".  It's an interesting phenomena.

It just depends on how well the moderators do their jobs.

Truth be told, I think that the mods have been doing a fine job for the most part.  Of course there has been the occasional exception, but who would expect perfection?

I suppose we shall see....

Indeed.  Myself, I'm optimistic.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,580
Like?
I like that.
In reply to dholl, Sep 29, 2013

dholl wrote:

Macx wrote:

I wonder, what's the third dimension in this "photography triangle"?

plain old "technique".

I put myself in that third, as I most enjoy discussing which lenses I used on what camera, the settings and techniques used to get the shot, and learning from others' techniques. We talk less about the finished photo as an artform and more about the gear and technique involved. We certainly don't care about how the technology of the gear works (the science behind it), but we do care about how to use the tools.

The musician scene has a similar triangle: the engineer, the artist and the producer.

So the triangle here is Science, Art & Technique.

OK, that sounds pretty good.  You get my vote.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,580
Like?
Re: Welcome to the photo technology (soon to be Photo Science) forum
In reply to gollywop, Sep 29, 2013

gollywop wrote:

I agree:

  • This new forum is a good idea
  • Eric Fossum is correct that it ought be called Photo Science and Technology

I also think there is no need to move its place in the forums list. It actually makes it easier to find at the end than if it were stuck somewhere in the middle of something.

Ditto.

I still have problems finding Micro Four Thirds Talk because it is out of alphabetical order.

Think of it like retrograde for planetary motion. 

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jeff
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,470
Like?
+1
In reply to Eric Fossum, Sep 29, 2013

Eric Fossum wrote:

There is a big difference between "science" and "technology" Science changes slowly, and is about the physical principles that underlie our universe. Technology is the application of science and engineering to mechanical, electronic, and optical devices, for example.

Calling this forum Photo Science would be generally incorrect, although I understand that many readers may not differentiate between the two words.

You might as well call it Photo Science and Technology.

-EF

This strikes me as an even better name for the forum.  Transparent and captures the spirit of the community most likely to be contributors.

This could be a real asset to the DPR community.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 15,000
Like?
Re: e^(i*pi*1) = 0
In reply to Jeff, Sep 29, 2013

Jeff wrote:

Eric Fossum wrote:

There is a big difference between "science" and "technology" Science changes slowly, and is about the physical principles that underlie our universe. Technology is the application of science and engineering to mechanical, electronic, and optical devices, for example.

Calling this forum Photo Science would be generally incorrect, although I understand that many readers may not differentiate between the two words.

You might as well call it Photo Science and Technology.

-EF

This strikes me as an even better name for the forum. Transparent and captures the spirit of the community most likely to be contributors.

Probably good to indicate that it relates to scientific technology - as oppose to non-scientific technology (which would most certainly not be an accurate impression for prospective readers).

Probaly less pomp than something like "Advanced Photo Techniques", and probably beats the ever popular (but a bit wacky and weird phrase), "Spacey Tinkles", given the circumstances ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
v steffel
Senior MemberPosts: 1,125
Like?
Re: Welcome to the photo technology (soon to be Photo Science) forum
In reply to Eric Fossum, Sep 29, 2013

I agree that Photo Science and Technology is a better name

-- hide signature --

v steffel
frame frame! shoot shoot! sauvette!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 15,000
Like?
Re: Welcome to the photo technology (soon to be Photo Science) forum
In reply to v steffel, Sep 29, 2013

v steffel wrote:

I agree that Photo Science and Technology is a better name.

I do agree. All Technology is based upon some sort of Science. "Technology" alone implies Science. But "Science" alone (IMO) makes one think of glacially slow, and doctorally deep, obscure esoterica.

While the technology surrounding photographic equipment might seem that way to readers not already somewhat acquainted with underlaying ideas and concepts, new implementations of the technology progress more rapidly, and requires only middle-school exposure to concepts surrounding arithmetic and algebra to be able to understand quite a lot about. No "white lab coat" required.

DM ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads