So, you call yourself, a Pro DSLR Photographer, then . . . .

[kombizz]

So, you call yourself, a Pro DSLR / knowledgeable Photographer, then try to answer the 10 final exam of Stanford

University (Spring 2011) review questions by writing <b>T</b> or <b>F</b> beside each question.<br><br>

 

Part 1:<br>

1. If the reflectance spectrum of an object is nonzero for some wavelengths that the illumination spectrum is nonzero, the

object will definitely reflect some light.<br>

2. Magenta is on the locus of spectral colors because it is derived from a combination of two pure wavelengths.<br>

3. If you illuminate an object with a monochromatic light source, then regardless of the original color of the object, it will

either appear to be the same chromaticity as the light source, or black.<br>

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

5. In Maxwell's color matching experiment, matching a color with a negative value for one of the primaries means the color is

outside the gamut defined by those primaries.<br>

6. Chromaticity diagrams factor out saturation and leave only hue and value.<br>

7. It is a clear day. White balance temperature for the midday sun is roughly 5200K. If we want to take a picture in a shady

area where there is no direct sunlight, we should set the white balance temperature to something lower than 5200K.<br>

8. Blue light contributes more than green light to luminance because blue light is a shorter wavelength, and thus has more

energy.<br>

9. When bouncing a floodlight off a uniform white reflector card to produce a fill light, if you move the card closer to your

subject, the subject will become more brightly illuminated.<br>

10. JPEG's compression strategy is to compress the luminance information more than the chrominance because humans

are less sensitive to luminance information.<br>

Hope you answered all of them correctly. <br>

Of course this 10 questions were from first part. If you need to examin yourself more, then please answer the rest of

questions <a href="http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs178-11/CS178FinalExamReview2011.pdf">here</a>.<br>

Good Luck<br>

 

Please write here, how many you got right!

<br>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Not to diminish the value of the course, but it looks to me more like a CS geek course for CS geeks rather than a photography course to make great photographers. </p>

<p>I got all 10, Kombizz. How about you?</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>My answers, obfuscated so others can't easily see my answers, ignore the first and last 4. FTTFTTTF?TF?TFFTFF<br>

I got #6 wrong (looked it up). I didn't try to answer the 2 that would have been complete guesses. Most of the others I think are correct, so, assuming I got one of the two guesses correct, I probably got 70-80%.</p>

<p>Number 3 might be a trick question.</p>

<p>This is a great example of why most people don't need a University degree in photography. At least half of the questions are theoretical and have no use to the average photographer.</p>

 

[jeff_livacich]

<p>I wrote my answers the way you said to and now my screen's messed up.</p>

[mtk]

<p>Kombizz, I ask myself each of those ten questions every time I press the shutter...doesn't everybody? LOL</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>no wonder why theres so much crap image around.. people are too much into wavelengths and geek questions vs what they should do for real; press the shutter and get good visual image well cropped and well composed.</p>

<p>My nose start to bleed and i feel like i need to vomit after the 1rst question.. yet i consider myself pro enough to make a living out of my work ; )</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Good example of a course trying to be a college level subject - when it should be more about the application of the theory as opposed to the Theory. Best answer to all of these is "Go try it / shoot it and see what happens."</p>

<p>Same thing that got me trouble with my college advisor (Comp Sci) - I didn't care how the Operating System worked - only that it worked so I could develop apps on it. My advisor suggested Vo. Tech. I reminded him that my parents taxes and my tuition paid his salary. For some reason we never spoke again after that...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Glad I am an hobbyist and do not need to know these things! :-)</p>

<p>Isn't the real question:<br>

11. Which of the previous 10 questions actually affects your photography?</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Great... now we know that a degree in this field makes one even more esoteric.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Interesting. Although (while I was aware of the course offering diagrams before) teaching photography in a computer science course seems random. And I speak as someone with a computer science degree and a specialism in photorealistic graphics.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, I'd (using the same convention as Matthew) say FTFTFFFTTSSSSFFTFT, where S is "sometimes" and many of the definitive answers depend on the definitiveness of the question. I would pretty strenuously argue with the lecturer on most of the sample answers on which we disagree, too - and that also applies to a few of the other questions, although not so many of them. (I assume, being a CS course, we were supposed to find <a href="http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs178-11/CS178FinalExamReviewSolutions2011.pdf">the answers</a> on our own.)<br />

<br />

David - I'm hazy, were you taking a "how to use computers" course, or a "computer science" course? I'm glad your "I can't possibly need to learn what you're teaching me, now shut up because I pay your salary" approach apparently won an argument for you. Good luck in the final exam, or indeed the real world. Unfortunately, it's hard for employers to tell the difference between script kiddies and genuine computer experts, and this confusion gave us the dot com collapse of the early 2000s. I cringe every time I hear someone advertise a course teaching computers to people so they can earn their fortune. Not that I'm bitter, it's just that the dot com collapse was responsible for my (computer graphics) PhD funding disappearing... Operating systems actually have a place in computer science. Digital photography, maybe not - they're probably trying to be interesting and less theoretical.<br />

<br />

Less cantankerously, the best answer to all of these is "I went and tried it, and *this* is what happened".<br />

<br />

But I don't call myself a "Pro DSLR Photographer".</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>More:<br>

12. Which of those 10 questions have anything to do with Pro Photrography?<br>

13. Which of those ten that were posted have anything to do with a DSLR?</p>

<p>Welcome to the Kombizz forum!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Curse you, Kombizz! I missed 3 and got a B. Grrrr....</p>

<p>I got all but 1 of the initial T/F questions -- the one about the contribution of B light to luminance. I guess luminance in vision is similar to A-weighted sound pressure level in audition. (I probably should have known that.) I missed the goofy dichromat response and had no idea what "panoramic mosaicing" meant (although I understood the concept). Ah well... Humbling, but fun.</p>

<p>I agree with others that some of this stuff is pretty esoteric with regard to real-world photography. On the other hand, I've fallen back on my understanding of many of these concepts in my own work, especially with regard to B&W photography.</p>

[andylynn]

First, that's not a photography class. Graphics.stanford.edu is part of the computer science program. Second, there is

no such thing as a "pro DSLR photographer."

[stp]

<p>Surely there must be a "pro DSLR photographer." After all, there are DSLR tripods and ballheads, DSLR photo bags and carts, DSLR books on landscape and portrait photography, DSLR lens cleaning cloths, and DSLR tips on good composition. Just open any photography magazine and you'll see the magic "D" stuck in front of a host of things that we used to have before "D" was invented. "D" sells.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>That geek stuff has nothing to do with photography. It's all about 'seeing'.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I won't pretend to know the answers to all those questions, luckily enough they have nothing whatsoever to do with my business (which happens to be professional photography).</p>

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

<p>I couldn't tell you nuthin about any of that stuff.</p>

<p>I picked out my little point and shoot camera and took some pictures. One time I saw a bird fly into sunbeams in a storm. Point clik, no thinking or theory involved...</p>

<p>thankfully Photography in my world is simple.</p>

<div></div>

[lionel_rafferty]

<p>I answered all 10 with WTF.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Those without technical knowledge argue, "I don't need no technical knowledge." Those with technical knowledge argue, "I'm glad I have the technical knowledge I do, because it truly helps me do my job." The two will never agree.</p>

<p>However, I do agree that no-thinking/no-theory photography can yield wonderful results. A slightly fuzzy photo of one family member comes to mind. It's a priceless candid shot that truly shows his character, and it's a truly great photo, even shot with an awful box camera back in the Great Depression, with slightly blown out exposure. Everyone who sees the photo immediately knows who it is and chuckles. I'm not exaggerating when I say it's a brilliant candid portrait!</p>

<p>That said, I submit there are more possibilities open to the photographer with a keen technical knowledge. There are some happy accidents in my portfolio. There are even a few point/click/no-think photos. However, most of my work is pretty carefully thought out, and some of it is even based in some pretty highly technical stuff. Moreover, when a client asks me to photograph something very difficult (e.g. horrible lighting conditions), I usually do have a notion how to tame the situation and deliver consistent results. That wouldn't be possible without a decent technical knowledge.</p>

<p>So in my experience (and mine alone), technical knowledge greatly expands what I am able to do. In your experience, maybe it doesn't, and if you're happy with what you're able to do with point/click results, that's all that needs saying.</p>

<p>Very nice photo, BTW! I won't argue with your results.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>There is a huge difference between technical knowledge and esoteric theoretical information. I have taught location and studio lighting, color and black & white darkroom techniques, dye retouching, large format photography, transparency processing (E3, E4 and E6), digital imaging, and have been a full time professional photographer for over twenty years. I have never argued that "I don't need no technical knowledge" - quite the opposite in fact. I have a four year photography degree and am committed to continual learning.</p>

<p>You have placed photographers into two camps - the willfully technically ignorant, grammatically challenged dunderhead who occasionally gets a lucky shot on his lowly point and shoot camera, and those who feel that an intricate knowledge of light wavelength values helps the quality of their images. There are many shades in between your "no thinking/no theory" morons and those academically versed in the theories and intricacies of electromagnetic radiation and the various wavelengths and frequency ranges. This kind of stereotyping and oversimplification is intellectually dishonest and only muddies the waters, as well as smacking of elitism and condescension.</p>

<p>Having travelled the world shooting for major ad campaigns, shot fashion out of my studio in London for eight years, now based in the USA shooting location work and about to leave to shoot a major ad campaign back in Europe, I can honestly say that at no time have I stopped to consider whether or not magenta is the combination of two pure wavelengths.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>(1) I never said there are only those extremes.</p>

<p>(2) I didn't introduce the bad grammar, but merely alluded to it. I credit the person I was addressing with having intentionally used grammatical errors to make a point. He is not a stupid or grammatically challenged person.</p>

<p>(3) I never called non-technical people morons, nor did I mean to imply that. You've misread/mischaracterized my post.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>(4) And finally, you've insulted me (e.g. "academically dishonest") for having dared to defend the unpopular position that SOME people (e.g. myself) actually DO care what the spectral content is of a light source (e.g. "magenta" and whether that's a dichromat) and DO actually use such "esoteric" knowledge in the practice of their craft. That doesn't mean that YOU should. It simply means that *I* do. (Ergo, when others argue that such knowledge is useless, I am claiming that it is not, at least to ME.)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>er... that would be "intellectually" dishonest, not "academically." Sorry... Oh, and also elitist and condescending. Nice.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Sarah - I sympathise, but I hope you're now feeling calmer. I think John found a perceived insult and responded accordingly. It's the internet, these things happen.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, I don't think the subject matter in the course is as useless and worthy of dismissal as some seem to be suggesting - but it's also true that there's more to photography than the technical side, and that, especially if you have an automatic camera that does a lot of the technical stuff for you, you can still take decent photos if you ignore all this. That doesn't make is useless information, especially in a computer science course that's teaching people who might end up making digital cameras, of course (and the same techniques apply to computer-generated imagery). There is, indubitably, an artistic side to photography; for all I know this may be covered in the course, but it's quite hard to examine it by multiple choice - maybe there's coursework.<br />

<br />

If I have an issue with the questions it's because they're overly-simplistic (at the risk of spoiling people's fun... what about destructive interference or specularity? fluorescence? heat/microwaves? whose style of chromaticity diagram? do you *always* want to "correct" for blue lighting? are you using orthographic film? what shape and size are the reflector? how have you configured your JPEG compressor?) - but they may make sense in the context of the course. As ever in academia, first teach the basics, then teach everyone that what you taught them so far is nonsense. In some subjects, iterate. But without actually sitting the course, it's hard to tell how informative it really was. It's commendable to have some information on-line, nonetheless.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Andrew, I'm fine. :-)</p>

<p>I like your perspective: " As ever in academia, first teach the basics, then teach everyone that what you taught them so far is nonsense." That made me laugh. I wish I had thought to explain that to my students long ago.</p>