Don't worry if you failed

[kombizz]

Don't worry if you failed the <a href="http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00ZG4m">test</a>, you can always learn

the course on digital photography <u>free</u> of charge <a href="http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs178-

11/">here</a>.<br>

Good Luck<br>

[bobcossar]

<p>OK....I just have to ask......Why do you think anyone failed this 'test'?</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I could (just) imagine the relevance of this exam to people working towards a BSc in photographic science, but the tone of the questions varies wildly from practically oriented to highly theoretical and even willfully obscure - you can bet the guy that wrote them is not a photographer!<br>

PS: Further research reveals that Prof. Marc Levoy heads up the Computer Science Department of Stanford University. How about having photography taught by photographers? Or is it a sign of the times that photography counts as "computer science"?</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>ok - now my post on the other thread makes me feel all that much better...glad to see that Comp Sci Profs haven't changed in 30 years.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<p>Speaking of failing, none of this is determinative as to whether one achieves satisfactory results as a pro or amateur photographer.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Knowledge can never hurt and no one knows where some random piece of information will take someone or their particular brand of creative genius. I don't know that the information in this class would make its way into many art school curricula but it certainly fits with the nature of Standford. </p>

<p>No harm, no foul IMO.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>No one said that maximizing knowledge isn't good. The threads in question here were couched in terms of suggesting failure of a photographer if they do not answer the questions adequately. It is an incorrect suggestion whether the the questions "fit in the nature of Standford [sic]" or not.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>if i read and follow the whole free course.. can i receive a certificat or something that show that i have study it at Standford?.. will look nice on my wall ; )</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>How about having photography taught by photographers?</em></p>

<p>This is not a course on digital photography for photography majors but computer science students. Of course the class is from the perspective of computer science and with the intention of teaching students what they need to know about digital photography when working for a company which writes software for photographers. I would hate to see someone who graduates at Stanford and goes to work on algorithms at Adobe will just know how they "feel" about the colors and composition as taught by some fine art photographer.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Sorry for the miss on Stanford, I was certain I had spelled it right but should have checked after posting. My meaning there is only that certain universities are going to teach things in different ways than other types of institutions. With Stanford's bent toward technology--and the fact that this is apparently a course for computer science students--it makes complete sense where it would broil the brains of students in an art college!</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>My meaning there is only that certain universities are going to teach things in different ways than other types of institutions. With Stanford's bent toward technology--and the fact that this is apparently a course for computer science students--it makes complete sense where it would broil the brains of students in an art college!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's well and good but it doesn't determine whether one is an adequate "Pro DSLR / knowledgeable Photographer" as the thread suggests. The thread this thread tries to direct traffic to that is.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Yea John, my point was just how irrelevant it all was....</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Actually, it doesn't look bad for a 101 sort of course for techno-nerd photographers. It's one I'd definitely have enjoyed taking in college.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>As a professional techno-nerd, I think courses like this are good for photographers to take. While in a practical sense it may seem irrelevant, but an understanding of the basic science principles at work behind the velvet curtain gives us a better understanding how light, color, imaging devices and our own vision works. It won't help you capture a decisive moment, or compose a landscape. It doesn't help with the HOW of photography, just the WHY. </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Is good to material to learn, everyone probably agrees. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>4. There are some pure wavelengths that humans are responsive to but that are not in a rainbow.<br>

I still haven't figured this one out. Wavelengths of what? Visible light? I thought all visible wavelengths were in a rainbow? There are plenty of other forms of electromagnetic radiation that are invisible but affect people, such as microwaves, and also ultra-low-frequency sound - what does the Prof. mean?</p>