The Beginners Questions Area

Well, you'd better get a very good lawyer (meaning expensive) then if someone else is claiming ownership of your images 😄

It can be determined with at least 90% certainty that none of the cameras "that anyone has" took that JPEG. Such analysis isn't based on EXIF.

So a good lawyer can prove that this is your image. I wander how.

Maybe a good lawyer knows a good expert ;)

You need to talk to the lawyer. Maybe they have access to people/resources who can forensically examine image files plus they will advise on whatever else you might need to prove ownership.

Ignore this post.

I just wanted to be the 600th post in this thread. 😀😀

Thank you.

These long threads sprinkled with a bit of locking horns can certainly turbo boost post counts, which could be a good or bad thing 🤭

No, of course not but when horns lock quality unfortunately heads south very quickly 😐 and post counts head north exponentially 🤨

Bob, the criticisms are there and they are legitimate. It was a problem on DPReview and it is a problem here: People with so much experience and technical expertise that they cannot answer Beginner Questions.

Somebody buys a camera, and it has a bunch of numbers like 1/250 and f/3.8 and ISO 400, and they can’t figure THAT out. And when they ask a question about it, the response is a literal FLOOD of arguments about the behavior of a photon or the meaning of “equivalence,” and they are just LOST.

If you want to build a website that attracts more users, we can have these fantastic discussions, but they aren’t answers for beginners.

To that point, the experts here never discuss lighting, or how to look at the world before you as a photograph, or which focal lengths serve which purposes the best. It’s cool that you guys can convert those issues into math and physics equations, but that’s helpful for camera and software engineers, not for the beginner trying to make sense of an f-stop or confused about why the photos from his iPhone come out better than from his new Nikon.

IOW, we need to dial things WAY WAY down for beginners. We can argue all we want about agreed upon terminology but that stuff belongs behind the curtains when explaining things to Beginners. Even Annie Liebowitz probably never took a physics class, yet she’s still doing fine.

To elaborate on my last point: Consider depth of field.

If you take a photography class, they explain that DoF increases as aperture and focal lengths decrease and as distance increases. However, stopping a lens down too far leads to diffraction, which reduces sharpness.

There are tables and there are math formulas, but in all the classes I know of, the instructor doesn’t have you calculate a formula, he or she has you shoot a bunch of photos which demonstrate DoF. Because when we shoot, we think, “I better try f/8 for this, and I want to put my focus in-between subject A and B.” That sort of thing. We learn what our lenses will do by using them. We learn how high contrast light affects the image by shooting in it and observing the result.

Photography is visible. Different people think and learn differently, but generally, new photographers learn best with concepts explained in a visible sense, followed by shooting and observing the results.

That's a rather limited and not very useful explanation.
A good effort was made by Merklinger in his "The INs and OUTs of FOCUS", www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

I like the image space part of that paper. It's very well done.

I don't find the object space part useful.

Jim

I think the @MarshallG post would have been a great start of a new post in beginners questions. That may be the biggest problem with these hundreds of post long discussions. No one would expect beginners to find this 600 posts in.
If new users do find this site, lots of simplified views are a great start. Then more depth can come in the discussion and a new user can decide how deep into the thread they want to delve.

I remember ;)
And I use both, and sometimes none (repro, focus stacking, somesuch).

You prove my point exactly.
You’re claiming that the only way to teach a beginner about depth of field is to give him an 83 page book.

My friend, I admire and respect you, but you don’t get it.

And, by the way, no kidding that an 83 page book will be more comprehensive than my paragraph, except for one thing: My model tells the student to take photos and observe the effect. The 83 page book does not, so I maintain that my model is superior. That, and… most people won’t read the 83 page book and many will not understand it. The 83 page book is better suited for intermediate photographers and is not introductory.

When I went to college and took physics, it was easier because I understood photography. But I did not need to understand physics to understand photography. I can also teach someone how to drive a car and even repair a car without understanding what actually happens inside the catalytic converter. Pretty sure that’s true of most people.