SLR Concept

Oh, I hadn't registered that was the same person (partly because the question made a bit more sense!)

I'm also curious what he was actually after. I never like it when we scare people off.

by what he's posted since joining, he doesnt seem sure either... phishing.

Meh. For phishing, there didn't seem to be any obvious benefit to the poster.

I never like it when we scare people off.

I hope we haven't reached a time and place when honesty and candor about school research is understood to "scare people off." There should be nothing scary about a student being told how to do research. It should kind of be required. What would be scary, IMO, would be to let a university student do a school paper based on what he'd learn in a website chatroom! It would be a different story if he'd come here having already done his research and knowing some of the basics about DSLRs and wanted to add texture to that by speaking to some experienced photographers and getting some anecdotal information to supplement what he'd already learned. That would make for an interesting paper. But that's not what was proposed and he got very appropriate responses, as far as I'm concerned, and the responses were offered respectfully.

It would be a different story if he'd come here having already done his research and knowing some of the basics about DSLRs and wanted to add texture to that by speaking to some experienced photographers and getting some anecdotal information to supplement what he'd already learned.

I would also take a different view if he(or she) had come here and said "I've read this but don't understand what this certain thing means" or some other specific question rather than the vague question asked. As it stands, we still really can't even make heads or tails of what the OP is asking!

Ironic that in the digital age, human capacity for simple, basic communication is taking a step backward.

I hope we haven't reached a time and place when honesty and candor about school research is understood to "scare people off."

Well, we did basically have several posts telling him to go away - which isn't a very friendly message to anyone else browsing the beginners' forum, even if it was the right advice. Maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but if someone has the initiative to find a forum full of relative experts, I'd rather we pointed him at some authoritative resources than tell him to see whatever outdated nonsense may be in his library. The internet is a resource that wasn't available to me when I was an undergrad, but it's been much easier to learn more things (including about photography) since it has been. I have a two year backlog of untouched Amateur Photographer magazines that rarely tell me much I haven't found better here, and a stack of photography books with a mixed record of accuracy.

There should be nothing scary about a student being told how to do research. It should kind of be required. What would be scary, IMO, would be to let a university student do a school paper based on what he'd learn in a website chatroom!

Honestly, on this web site, he'd probably be better informed than if he'd tried most books on the subject. Many books contain misinformation (even when they're relatively current) and aren't given peer review; traditional "bad places to learn things" like Wikipedia and fora like this actually are "reviewed" by people who know what they're talking about. That's certainly not true everywhere, and it doesn't mean everything that gets said here is correct (especially by me), but there is an above-average chance that misinformation will get called out. Start with a potentially small library at an academic institution - or, just as useless, a large library with no indication of which books are actually the authoritative ones - and you're not especially more likely to be able to filter correct information. A lot of nonsense gets published. (Heck, even I've got some chapters in a few books - although not on photography.)

Obviously there are sites that have a disproportionate number of misinformed and over-opinionated posts by fanboys. There's a skill in figuring that out. But at least you find others arguing with these positions, whereas in a book you're given the author's point of view (and misconceptions) alone.

It would be a different story if he'd come here having already done his research and knowing some of the basics about DSLRs and wanted to add texture to that by speaking to some experienced photographers and getting some anecdotal information to supplement what he'd already learned. That would make for an interesting paper. But that's not what was proposed and he got very appropriate responses, as far as I'm concerned, and the responses were offered respectfully.

I agree, the question wasn't clear enough to elicit a very helpful response, and there may be some learning to do in how to pose an inquiry (or it may have been a late night after hours of reading and it happened to be not the poster's best work - the pinhole camera thread started with a relatively coherent question). And opinions of experienced photographers would contribute to an interesting story. But I trust people on this forum to give a better answer about either the history or mechanics of the SLR than I'd trust most printed resources. And we could certainly point him at, say, Photography in Malaysia, which has vastly more information about historical Nikons than you're likely to find in any library book. The average photography book won't mention pellicle mirrors (already called out on this thread), may not mention interchangeable viewfinders, won't mention the Minolta (I think) that focussed by shifting the film behind the lens, won't mention Nikon's old scheme for altering exposure by mechanically rotating the aperture ring on the lens, the TC-16A teleconverter that autofocusses with manual focus lenses. Most won't mention phase detect on sensor, different flash metering systems, the merits of different fresnel screens, or linearity of aperture levers. Few will devote more than a paragraph to fish-eye lenses (especially different projections) or to how to use a tilt-shift lens or a macro. This forum and ones like it can easily provide more information, authoritatively, than a student on their own in a library has a hope of finding.

So I like us to be supportive (within the limits of the time we're willing to devote). Which is why I'm frustrated both at failing to understand what he actually wanted to know, and that he may go off and get worse information elsewhere - which we'll then have to correct if (s)he comes back in the future.

But I do worry too much. :-)

So I like us to be supportive

Which is the right attitude, no doubt, Andrew. The question is: were we, or were we not supportive?

Working in an actual support-related job, one of the things I learnt fairly quickly is that good support does not necessarily require doing what is asked. It is doing what is needed to resolve the problem. And the problem with offering a solution when you do not actually understand the problem is that you just may end up making matters worse.

Too often I encounter people who think this approach is wrong - "customer is king, so you have to do what is asked" - but realistically: people contact support because support has got the expertise; that means you might have to accept being corrected. So, being supportive at times isn't necessarily welcoming, fuzzy and warm, but a tad confrontational. Of course, the way the message is delivered can make up for a lot.

Second, when asking a question to supposed experts, the minimum you can do is ask a clear question, and if you do not manage to do so, respond to questions asked to help deduct the clear question. In this case, at a minimum mention what is the scope and objective of this paper. We can guess, but that may yield the OP a bunch of answers that do not help at all - and then we're not being supportive, we're just being talkative and sharing info and experience, albeit potentially completely irrelevant info.

Getting people to be supportive is a 2-way street, and making it a one-way street usually ends up wasting a lot of time for inferior results. If the OP dashed off to some other site where the standard is a lot lower, and he ends up with a bunch of false info as a result, then that's all on him; we might feel bad about it, but frankly people do carry a personal responsability too, especially for university papers and making their own education count.

Peer review is limited by the quality of one’s peers.

Again, it is helpful to note the poster didn’t respond nor did he even return to see the replies some here are so concerned about.

Much ado about nothing......myself included.

Oh, agreed. Although... out of interest, do we know he didn't even view the thread again? I didn't know we could tell that. There's not much we can do without input from the OP, I just think someone (especially new to research) might take "crack a book" as "go away" and not wait for more.

And yes, we don't have "customers" on this forum, and I have spent some time reading notalwaysright.com (although it mostly makes me angry - occasionally because the employee is actually complaining about a reasonable customer). The OP didn't ask a clear question, making it essentially impossible for us to answer it coherently. But we've also had people complain when they didn't get a reply to an obscure question within a few minutes (apparently thinking some of us are paid to be here), and there's a chance that the OP is going to come back hoping for some helpful information, and see a criticism of their academic ability. Which, however fair, seems unwelcoming.

The pinhole camera question was actually relatively reasonable and direct, so I'm not entirely willing to roll my eyes and say "youth of today..." because this one wasn't. And yes, one should be polite and coherent when talking to strangers, although if we're going to go by the standards of dismissing this as an "internet forum" then we should be thankful the entire post wasn't "nikon sux lolz" - those of us who hang out here may be a little more used to the level.

Anyway, if the OP comes back, please clarify what information you want, and we might be able to help.

But I do worry too much.

I agree.

see a criticism of their academic ability. Which, however fair, seems unwelcoming.

To me, this is one of the biggest downsides of PN, the kind of thinking that suggests criticism is unwelcoming. At least in terms of our photos, which is mostly what I’m here for, criticism is the thing most of us need and few of us welcome. Seeing criticism as unwelcoming is often likely to ensure a lack of growth.

Start with a potentially small library at an academic institution - or, just as useless, a large library with no indication of which books are actually the authoritative ones - and you're not especially more likely to be able to filter correct information.

Part of good learning is learning how to compare resources and learning how to figure out the relative value of a variety of resources. You get that by exposing yourself to resources, not by hiding from them or dismissing libraries big and small out of hand as somehow outdated. It’s ironic that you, who talk about peer review (and are likely mistaken about many books, journals, and articles that can be found in libraries not being peer reviewed) are recommending a chat room over a library as authoritative on any subject. If you think libraries at academic institutions these days are storehouses of dusty old unreviewed books, you should get yourself to one quickly and rid yourself of at least that much misinformation.

[by the way, you quoted me extensively, all the while making it seem as though my advice relied solely on books and libraries, which misses the fact that I gave the same emphasis to learning how to search the Internet and use it as a resource as well.]

Honestly, on this web site, he'd probably be better informed than if he'd tried most books on the subject. Many books contain misinformation (even when they're relatively current) and aren't given peer review; traditional "bad places to learn things" like Wikipedia and fora like this actually are "reviewed" by people who know what they're talking about.

I gotta say that the sort of books I've worked out of are (mostly) far better, with respect to developing fundamental understanding, than what is found on this site in recent years. But these are books not typically found in a library, and not suitable for beginners. (Examples: "The Theory of the Photographic Process," "Reproduction of Colour" by Hunt," and that sort of thing; most of these are not even current, fwiw.) But I do agree that many of the simpler books are loaded with incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.

That aside, I agree 100% that we should be more directly helpful to posters, without the veiled insults. Now let me say, it sure SEEMS like insults are called for, but I think it's almost always bad practice to start out that way. If you want to get rid of the people, sure, but ... there is often more to things than meets the eye - why not give em the benefit of the doubt? This site WAS founded to be a repository of photographic knowledge, although unfortunately much of that "wealth" has been put out of sight, and is no longer easy to find.

out of interest, do we know he didn't even view the thread again? I didn't know we could tell that.

Well, if you right-click on the person's name you can open a window that usually shows (near the top, just under their name) a line saying, "so and so was last seen: ..." But I would imagine the OP could have checked back without being logged in, etc., and is thus not "seen" by the system.

As a note, I recall a post in the last year or so, where the poster explained that his instructor was pushing the students to actually log on to a site like this and request information - mainly for the experience of doing it. So perhaps this is a similar case.

Thanks all, and I'm not disagreeing with you, even if I sound as though I am.

Fred: Sorry to pick on you. There were several posts on a similar theme, and I merely picked yours as the easiest representative one to quote when responding. I don't think people here are really guiding people away from the internet as a research tool, I just have my concerns about some reading material. And yes, a researcher ought to be able to identify authoritative reading material from fluff, but I'd assumed the poster was at least new to this field, and it does take a while to learn to filter, say, the Rockwells of this world.

And don't get me wrong: there are absolutely good photography books out there. I'm not sure how many are kept current with the latest round of DSLRs (since I don't trust Nikon's design team to have worked out how people try to use their cameras, I have doubts that many books do), but for general guidance, there's absolutely good stuff - some of which I own. But I also own quite a few popular photography texts with glaring inaccuracies and sweeping generalisations in it. My local bookstore certainly lacks the better-known books that I would fully trust on the subject (it's a reasonably-sized store, if not enormous, but it certainly has a worse computer book selection than I personally own, and I suspect the same is true for photography). A university ought to be better, but I'd stand by my claim that for every fully-researched book on the subject there are many that, despite having some useful content, also get things quite seriously wrong, or at least misleading. There happens to be one on my desk at the moment. Everyone makes mistakes, including experienced and competent photographers, and certainly (and separately) including me. A book gets edited, hopefully by someone who knows something about the subject, but that doesn't mean it can't contain gibberish, significant omissions, or (as in the stuff I've contributed to) rapidly become hopelessly out of date. I'd hate to try to pick out a true authority as a photographic novice.

And yes, there's plenty of incorrect information on internet fora. On the good ones, which I hope includes this one, people call you on it - and that's the difference. The disadvantage is that it's not edited an collated. I keep forgetting that photo.net has curated content (and I actually originally came here for Philip's articles), but they're not entirely error-free either - I don't think any site can hope to be, whereas the forum is basically it's own Wikipedia edit log.

Well, if you right-click on the person's name you can open a window that usually shows (near the top, just under their name) a line saying, "so and so was last seen: ..."

Oh. Well, if you will apply lateral thinking. :-) (And yes, I suppose they could have checked back without logging in, but I concede that's a good clue.) I was wondering if the new site was tracking people by thread!

I do agree we should be able to give people constructive criticism. For the record, my own skin (and fat layer) is fairly thick, and I try to take criticism constructively. I do worry more about others, especially before we know them.

Anyway, educational chat, all!

And yes, there's plenty of incorrect information on internet fora. On the good ones, which I hope includes this one, people call you on it - and that's the difference.

There's plenty of incorrect info here that doesn't get called, but mostly it's in matters that don't matter that much.

On a slightly different note, I used to think that it was a good thing to "enlighten" people right away (in areas where I have specific knowledge). But then I came to the realization that in the back and forth banter, they were actually exploring the topic, exercising their brain, and perhaps learning better than if having a simple answer handed to them. Even if their final evaluation is not strictly correct.