For those of us who know nothing about photography.

Certainly not for bean counters. 😇

You said Rutherford and Bohr.
Democritus, like Leucippus, is a matter of history, not physics.
My question is - why Thomson didn't come to your mind, is it because his model is highly insufficient and not good enough for practical use, like ET?

Simply because I don't remember hearing about Thomson's when I learned about atomic models way back in school. Maybe it wasn't mentioned, maybe I just forgot decades ago.
I somewhat do remember Democritus', Rutherford's and Bohr's. I didn't dive into quantum models, never needed to.

Ah. I may know the reason why.

I don‘t think anybody has said that, to be honest. And I doubt anybody here even thinks that.

Er, "for example" - what?

Anyone serious about their photograhy, amateur or professional, understands that the craft is a mixture of science/technology and art. How any photographer proportions these elements depends on the kind of work they are doing, their goals as to the level of "perfection" or quality to wish to achieve, and at the end of the day, it may boil down to how YOU want or need to enjoy and practice YOUR photography.

My philosophy is that extremes are seldom successful, but rather a balanced appraoch is best. Oftentimes, I hear the opinion that there are no rules in art and to throw all the theories and formulas to the wind. Many who adhere to this attitude will end up with poorly-crafted work because even the most unique and creative ideas and concepts can usually not be executed successfully without some technical savvy. On the other end of the "extreme spectrum" are the folks who dive so deeply into the science that I wonder if they have the time or inclination to enjoy or produce the art.

At one time in my "academic" life, I sat in many classrooms and studied optics, the physics of light, and talk about old technology, film and emulsion manufacturing technology, and photographic chem
sty. As life turned out, in my eventual "day job" as a professional photographer, just a smidgen of the heavy tech makes me a better troubleshooter on occasion but most of my work is practical "nuts and bolts". Once you master the basics, much of the technobabble falls away, and much of the routine elements like exposure, range, contrast, sharpness/softness, focus, DOP and whatever become second nature you actually have time and energy to concentrate on the aesthetics, the expression, the action, the texture, or what or whoever are shooting. If you have to spend too much time and effort fiddling with overly complex gear or endlessly worry about chang up yo equipmet rat that technique, y are goon miss lots of great photo-ops! Hey! Bokeh is pretty but microscopy teaming and detecting the circles of confusion can be tied better spent= just call the "cool light blobs" and get on with the work!

I do respect the fact that many photographers have co to DIGITAL photos gay via their interest profession in computer/electronics technology. Many of the fols are rallying into the inner workings of the cameras. sensors, processors, circuityr, and stuff that is way above my pay grade. Benig is a bit of an electronics dabbler, I find some of this interesting but I am not about to talk my camer or lenses apart and revise any or alter any of the aforementioned innards nor am I going to design and manufacture my own gear. I have to stick with what the manufacturers make available and choose selectively.

As for software and post-processing. Well, I came from the olden days when the negatives and transparencies had to be consistent and, at least decent enough to enable expeditious and high-quality prints and lithographic reproduction. I'm not preaching S.O.O.T.C but where his image did not have to be "re-shot" in the darkroom. The new darkroom is, obviously, the computer and the editing software. I try to get it so that most of my images need just a bit of tweaking in post and do not require complex multilayered corrections. At my shop, we have PhotoShop, Lightroom, and a few quick systems so I don't get too much involved in
software issues. And yes, it is great to be able to rescue bad shots when I screw up nobody's perfect, and certainly not ME Murphy's Law looms overhead and is always ready to pounce!

PHOTO FORUMS??? Let's face it folks- there are some segments of the Internet that are a dumpster fire in a dumpster in the back of a gasoline refinery next to a dynamite storage facility! When a new photo forum emerges I hope and pray for a better community, a bit more decorum, friendliness, comradery, a beneficial flow, and an exchange of information. Well, I must have been a bad boy because ain't nobody answered any of my prayers and I can only hope! Perhaps the anonymity of the Net allows some fokls to act as would not in a face-to-face conversation. Some people simply have no manners or consideration for others. Some are pessimistic and take a negative attitude toward everything. I like to think that most folks are OK! All forms have folks with traits, habits, or personalities that they should have been left behind in middle (junior high) school - bullies, know-it-alls, self-appointed hall monitors, clowns, and malcontents. Hopefully, there are inthe minority. It is probably bes to ignore these individuals, not engage with them ir protracted bickering, arguing, and name-calling will ensue.

My beig a professional photographer does not necesserally make me inferior or superior to anyone who pursues photography as a hobby or avocation. There is lots of talent n every milieu. The big difference in being a full-time pro is the pressure of "creativity on demand" and the expectation of the clients that their work will be delivered as requre, quality-wise, and in a timely manner. You don't perform- you don't eat!

If I can serve any purpose or benefit anyone by participating in this forum it will be inhe area of "nuts and bolts" and how to get things done. I am sure I als have a lot to learn about all the newfangled stuff that is emerging and I am sure it will all appear on the new site.

Thanks and congratulations to the crew that constructed this site in record time and did a yeoman's job of it. The rest is up to the members!

Anyone serious about their photograhy, amateur or professional, understands that the craft is a mixture of science/technology and art. How any photographer proportions these elements depends on the kind of work they are doing, their goals as to the level of "perfection" or quality to wish to achieve, and at the end of the day, it may boil down to how YOU want or need to enjoy and practice YOUR photography.

My philosophy is that extremes are seldom successful, but rather a balanced appraoch is best. Oftentimes, I hear the opinion that there are no rules in art and to throw all the theories and formulas to the wind. Many who adhere to this attitude will end up with poorly-crafted work because even the most unique and creative ideas and concepts can usually not be executed successfully without some technical savvy. On the other end of the "extreme spectrum" are the folks who dive so deeply into the science that I wonder if they have the time or inclination to enjoy or produce the art.

At one time in my "academic" life, I sat in many classrooms and studied optics, the physics of light, and talk about old technology, film and emulsion manufacturing technology, and photographic chem
sty. As life turned out, in my eventual "day job" as a professional photographer, just a smidgen of the heavy tech makes me a better troubleshooter on occasion but most of my work is practical "nuts and bolts". Once you master the basics, much of the technobabble falls away, and much of the routine elements like exposure, range, contrast, sharpness/softness, focus, DOP and whatever become second nature you actually have time and energy to concentrate on the aesthetics, the expression, the action, the texture, or what or whoever are shooting. If you have to spend too much time and effort fiddling with overly complex gear or endlessly worry about chang up yo equipmet rat that technique, y are goon miss lots of great photo-ops! Hey! Bokeh is pretty but microscopy teaming and detecting the circles of confusion can be tied better spent= just call the "cool light blobs" and get on with the work!

I do respect the fact that many photographers have co to DIGITAL photos gay via their interest profession in computer/electronics technology. Many of the fols are rallying into the inner workings of the cameras. sensors, processors, circuityr, and stuff that is way above my pay grade. Benig is a bit of an electronics dabbler, I find some of this interesting but I am not about to talk my camer or lenses apart and revise any or alter any of the aforementioned innards nor am I going to design and manufacture my own gear. I have to stick with what the manufacturers make available and choose selectively.

As for software and post-processing. Well, I came from the olden days when the negatives and transparencies had to be consistent and, at least decent enough to enable expeditious and high-quality prints and lithographic reproduction. I'm not preaching S.O.O.T.C but where his image did not have to be "re-shot" in the darkroom. The new darkroom is, obviously, the computer and the editing software. I try to get it so that most of my images need just a bit of tweaking in the post and do not require complex multilayered corrections. At my shop, we have PhotoShop, Lightroom, and a few quick systems so I don't get too much involved in
software issues. And yes, it is great to be able to rescue bad shots when I screw up nobody's perfect, and certainly not ME Murphy's Law looms overhead and is always ready to pounce!

PHOTO FORUMS??? Let's face it folks- there are some segments of the Internet that are a dumpster fire in a dumpster in the back of a gasoline refinery next to a dynamite storage facility! When a new photo forum emerges I hope and pray for a better community, a bit more decorum, friendliness, comradery, a beneficial flow, and an exchange of information. Well, I must have been a bad boy because ain't nobody answered any of my prayers and I can only hope! Perhaps the anonymity of the Net allows some fokls to act as would not in a face-to-face conversation. Some people simply have no manners or consideration for others. Some are pessimistic and take a negative attitude toward everything. I like to think that most folks are OK! All forms have folks with traits, habits, or personalities that they should have been left behind in middle (junior high) school - bullies, know-it-alls, self-appointed hall monitors, clowns, and malcontents. Hopefully, there are inthe minority. It is probably bes to ignore these individuals, not engage with them ir protracted bickering, arguing, and name-calling will ensue.

My beig a professional photographer does not necesserally make me inferior or superior to anyone who pursues photography as a hobby or avocation. There is lots of talent in every milieu. The big difference in being a full-time pro is the pressure of "creativity on demand" and the expectation of the clients that their work will be delivered as requre, quality-wise, and in a timely manner. You don't perform- you don't eat!

If I can serve any purpose or benefit anyone by participating in this forum it will be inhe area of "nuts and bolts" and how to get things done. I am sure I als have a lot to learn about all the newfangled stuff that is emerging and I am sure it will all appear on the new site.

Thanks and congratulations to the crew that constructed this site in record time and did a yeoman's job of it. The rest is up to the members!

Thanks for your thoughts. Side note...its best to read through your submission before hitting the send button. Its a mistake I make often.

I think a beginner is a person who is using their first camera.

You might also say that a beginner at digital is using their first digital camera.

Don

EdShapiro,

So true, it was worth saying it twice....!

Tim

I also saw questions from people who were very experienced at some types of photography, but who wanted to ask a question about an aspect of photography that they hadn't looked at before.

Submissive, too.

At that point PhotoTeach2 would horn in and pimp his stupid Panasonic bridge camera on them. LOL.

I've sometimes been tempted to buy one just to see if it's as good as he says. My guess is that it can give good results if you shoot raw and have a bit of experience. It might be a bit too much for a beginner.

Don

I do not think it is the camera that is stupid ;-).