RPS Forum: Imaging Science Group Forum – Changes - RPS Forum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Imaging Science Group Forum – Changes

#1 User is offline   tonykaye Icon

  • RPS Member
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 196
  • Joined: 19-November 09

Posted 10 March 2012 - 12:33 PM

When the Imaging Science Group decided there needed to be a forum there was much debate and discussion within the committee concerning the access. At the time of launch it was agreed to restrict posting to ISG members only, but that we would review it. It has now been running a year and from the number of views certain topics have had it is clear that many folk are interested in the science and technology of imaging. Additionally, frustration has been expressed in other discussions (http://www.rpsforum....42-frustration/) that folk have been unable to contribute to discussions that interest them. This was reviewed at the last committee meeting and the decision has been taken to change the access so that anyone who is a member of the RPS can now post items. This will be initially for a trial period of six months and will be reviewed by the committee.

I will be asking Tony Mant to change this as soon as he can so I would expect that in a few days’ time everyone will be able to contribute to what I hope will be many lively discussions on the science and technology of imaging.

Tony Kaye
Chairman ISG

#2 User is offline   stu_the_flat Icon

  • Specialist
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: 12-January 10

Posted 10 March 2012 - 08:47 PM

Posted Image

:D

I think this is a positive step as it would be great to see some more traffic in this part of the forum.

Stuart

This post has been edited by stu_the_flat: 10 March 2012 - 09:08 PM


#3 User is offline   Cotswolds Chap Icon

  • SOLI DEO GLORIA
  • Icon
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 11 March 2012 - 07:55 PM

Please note that this should now be live...

regards

Alasdair
Personal photos at: www.snipephotos.com

#4 User is offline   Phil G Icon

  • RPS Life Member
  • View gallery
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 2,706
  • Joined: 10-January 05
  • LocationSt Ives Cwll' & Peak District

Posted 11 March 2012 - 09:16 PM

View Posttonykaye, on 10 March 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

When the Imaging Science Group decided there needed to be a forum there was much debate and discussion within the committee concerning the access. At the time of launch it was agreed to restrict posting to ISG members only, but that we would review it. It has now been running a year and from the number of views certain topics have had it is clear that many folk are interested in the science and technology of imaging. Additionally, frustration has been expressed in other discussions (http://www.rpsforum....42-frustration/) that folk have been unable to contribute to discussions that interest them. This was reviewed at the last committee meeting and the decision has been taken to change the access so that anyone who is a member of the RPS can now post items. This will be initially for a trial period of six months and will be reviewed by the committee.

I will be asking Tony Mant to change this as soon as he can so I would expect that in a few days’ time everyone will be able to contribute to what I hope will be many lively discussions on the science and technology of imaging.

Tony Kaye
Chairman ISG




Well done Tony

An Excellent decision by the Committee

Regards

Phil
© Phil Gee ARPS ABIPP

A lover of serendipitous happenstance

"Photography is not only an end in itself but also a powerful Vehicle for Learning"


www.facebook.com/St.IvesSchoolofPhotography

#5 User is offline   markbs Icon

  • RPS Member
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 474
  • Joined: 16-April 09

Posted 12 March 2012 - 12:03 AM

Thanks for the change. It has saved me joining the IS Group (only joking!)

#6 User is offline   phaleesy Icon

  • RPS member
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 189
  • Joined: 17-March 11
  • LocationLondon/Hertfordshire

Posted 18 March 2012 - 10:52 PM

View Postmarkbs, on 12 March 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

Thanks for the change. It has saved me joining the IS Group (only joking!)


I agree! :lol: :D

#7 User is offline   Richard Bradford Icon

  • Journeyman
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 19 March 2012 - 08:08 AM

A good move - I hope.

It is clear from reading some other forums and the web in general that there is quite a lot of ignorance about imaging science. Regrettably, though, the web seems to be the ideal workshop to re-invent wheels, often allied to personal opinion rather than objective fact. I hope that at least the ISG Group Forum will be spared this fate.

This post has been edited by Richard Bradford: 19 March 2012 - 08:09 AM


#8 User is offline   stu_the_flat Icon

  • Specialist
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: 12-January 10

Posted 19 March 2012 - 08:26 AM

Good point Richard.

I think the problem stems from the fact that there is a daunting array of consumer products. People have vested interests as they spend a small fortune on the equipment and then get quite up set when somebody tells them that their fancy f1.4 lens is soft in the corners!

Hopefully with a bit more communication on the board it will tempt other members of the imaging science group to log on and contribute.

Personally I am a bit hesitant to reply to technical posts as my background is in microscope optics. I have learned that not everything commutes over to camera optics. However Tony is an excellent source of knowledge to consult.

Stuart

This post has been edited by stu_the_flat: 19 March 2012 - 08:29 AM


#9 User is offline   tonykaye Icon

  • RPS Member
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 196
  • Joined: 19-November 09

Posted 19 March 2012 - 12:33 PM

Nice flattering comments from Stu! Where things are in my field I’ll always try and help, if it is way outside my field then I am hoping that as we get more folk using the forum we will get more and more experts contributing. I agree the web is often a source of misinformation, but if we stick to facts and where things are opinion we make it plain that it is opinions, hopefully we shouldn’t get it too wrong!

Tony

#10 User is offline   Paul Dunning Icon

  • RPS Member
  • View gallery
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 1,444
  • Joined: 13-July 10
  • LocationBristol

Posted 19 March 2012 - 01:44 PM

Just to add my thanks for opening up this forum, I think it will be a great resource for everyone.


Paul.

#11 User is offline   Richard Bradford Icon

  • Journeyman
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 23 March 2012 - 06:06 AM

View Posttonykaye, on 19 March 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

<snip>... I agree the web is often a source of misinformation, but if we stick to facts and where things are opinion we make it plain that it is opinions, hopefully we shouldn’t get it too wrong!

Tony


I don't think the web is so much a source of 'misinformation' (which presumably means wrong or misleading), although sometimes facts and opinions are confused.

You may recall the saying which goes something like, "Give 3 million monkeys a typewriter, and eventually one of them will produce Shakespeare". Well the web has certainly proved that, while there may be priceless golden nuggets in some webapages, often one has to trawl though countless turgid texts which, if they had been subject to more traditional forms of publishing would have been 'spiked'; their quick elimination spared us readers hours of agony and despair.

You may argue that the web has 'democratised' publishing, but I'd say it's more like allowing everyone to drop litter without fear of retribution and without self-control.

I might also extend this argument to what has happened in photography, where the number of people now taking photos has undoubtably grown, but have any new pinnacles been surmounted? Purchasing film, then taking it to be d&p'd, acted as a restraining mechanism and (I'd argue) kept photography in the hands of those who took a little more time and care over what they were photographing. In the digital age, time and cost restraints have all but disappeared; if anything, photography has not so much been 'democratised' as 'consumerised'. Nowadays as little thought is given to puchasing a camera as any other consumer good of similar value.

But what about Kodak's slogan, 'You press the button, we do the rest.'? Wasn't this 'democratisation' of phtography? Of course, it was. But Kodak, and many other materials manufacturers (Agfa and Ilford spring to mind) supported this by concurrently producing not only information on their products (in the form of data sheets) but also well-written and well-illustrated publications on how the consumer could actually make better pictures. These publications demanded time to be read and to put their ideas into practice likewise demanded time and patience. But the result was infinitely more satisfying because the photographer had had to put in some effort to get it; there was no instant gratification, it was a journey of increasing expectation and ultimate reward.

Perhaps you are thinking I am arguing for the clock to be turned back, but not so. I am also a consumer and user of modern equipment, but being trained in the old school I like to think I still have that control and think before I press the shutter release. I also think that the Society has its part to play in raising standards, not only by awarding prizes to competiton winners but by showing Mr / Mrs / Ms Average how to get more from their picture-taking. Of course, the Society does not have the resources to fill the vacuum left by the demise of the 'film giants', but there is undoubtably a need to raise standards without appearing elitist. Should equipment (including mobile-phone) manufacturers also take on this task? Could there be collaboration? I shall leave you to comment!

#12 User is offline   tonykaye Icon

  • RPS Member
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 196
  • Joined: 19-November 09

Posted 23 March 2012 - 08:02 AM

View PostRichard Bradford, on 23 March 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

I don't think the web is so much a source of 'misinformation' (which presumably means wrong or misleading), although sometimes facts and opinions are confused.

You may recall the saying which goes something like, "Give 3 million monkeys a typewriter, and eventually one of them will produce Shakespeare". Well the web has certainly proved that, while there may be priceless golden nuggets in some webapages, often one has to trawl though countless turgid texts which, if they had been subject to more traditional forms of publishing would have been 'spiked'; their quick elimination spared us readers hours of agony and despair.

You may argue that the web has 'democratised' publishing, but I'd say it's more like allowing everyone to drop litter without fear of retribution and without self-control.

I might also extend this argument to what has happened in photography, where the number of people now taking photos has undoubtably grown, but have any new pinnacles been surmounted? Purchasing film, then taking it to be d&p'd, acted as a restraining mechanism and (I'd argue) kept photography in the hands of those who took a little more time and care over what they were photographing. In the digital age, time and cost restraints have all but disappeared; if anything, photography has not so much been 'democratised' as 'consumerised'. Nowadays as little thought is given to puchasing a camera as any other consumer good of similar value.

But what about Kodak's slogan, 'You press the button, we do the rest.'? Wasn't this 'democratisation' of phtography? Of course, it was. But Kodak, and many other materials manufacturers (Agfa and Ilford spring to mind) supported this by concurrently producing not only information on their products (in the form of data sheets) but also well-written and well-illustrated publications on how the consumer could actually make better pictures. These publications demanded time to be read and to put their ideas into practice likewise demanded time and patience. But the result was infinitely more satisfying because the photographer had had to put in some effort to get it; there was no instant gratification, it was a journey of increasing expectation and ultimate reward.

Perhaps you are thinking I am arguing for the clock to be turned back, but not so. I am also a consumer and user of modern equipment, but being trained in the old school I like to think I still have that control and think before I press the shutter release. I also think that the Society has its part to play in raising standards, not only by awarding prizes to competiton winners but by showing Mr / Mrs / Ms Average how to get more from their picture-taking. Of course, the Society does not have the resources to fill the vacuum left by the demise of the 'film giants', but there is undoubtably a need to raise standards without appearing elitist. Should equipment (including mobile-phone) manufacturers also take on this task? Could there be collaboration? I shall leave you to comment!


You raise some interesting issues that would not be out of place in a post graduate’s thesis discussing how photography has evolved and changed. Collaboration and education are key components within the thinking of the new chair of The Society’s education committee and I’ll forward to him a link to this discussion.

Returning to imaging science and technology, from my perspective, as photography has evolved the barriers to picture taking have become lower and lower. Just compare film based colour photography from the 1950s to the 2000s. Films have got faster, lower in grain; cameras have become automated with respect to focus, exposure, flash etc. Digital capture has enabled go anywhere capture with cameras being incorporated into mobile phones as a standard feature. Wireless control of professional DSLRs has changed sports photography. In my youth I remember seeing photographers lined up behind and adjacent to the goals at football matches. Now you see an array of cameras behind the goal but no photographers. Technology has changed the way we capture, use and view our images in ways that I could not have dreamt of when I struggled to load my first 120 film into the spiral from my developing tank.

Different people I am sure will view the benefits that the scientific and technological advances to photography and imaging differently. I am firmly of the belief that science and technology has lowered barriers and has significantly raised the average quality of images, though it has had a much lesser impact on the very best images, both technically and artistically. I will leave it to those far more qualified than I to debate the artistic side of that argument! However I am sure the highest quality images are produced by people who have taken the time and trouble to learn their craft and handle their “tools” to produce the images they want.

Thanks for an interesting post. It may be worth initiating a discussion along these lines in the Talk Photography section of the Forum which where I am sure the issues you raise will generate a lively debate more wide ranging than if it is only under the “imaging science” umbrella.

Tony

#13 User is offline   stu_the_flat Icon

  • Specialist
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: 12-January 10

Posted 23 March 2012 - 08:02 AM

Hi Richard.

You will probably be very interested in this debate "Is Technology a Menace to Photography" that took place in this years WPPI. (the debate starts about 5 minutes into the video).

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=WUzwyf4rXR8

I think the other point that is worth raising is the question "Is somebody with a camera a photographer?" If someone just wants to use there wide angle lens on there phone to capture an image of there cat for there own enjoyment, then I don't think they are eroding the standards of photography.

Stuart

This post has been edited by stu_the_flat: 23 March 2012 - 08:09 AM


#14 User is offline   Richard Bradford Icon

  • Journeyman
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:23 AM

View Poststu_the_flat, on 23 March 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Hi Richard.

You will probably be very interested in this debate "Is Technology a Menace to Photography" that took place in this years WPPI. (the debate starts about 5 minutes into the video).

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=WUzwyf4rXR8

I think the other point that is worth raising is the question "Is somebody with a camera a photographer?" If someone just wants to use there wide angle lens on there phone to capture an image of there cat for there own enjoyment, then I don't think they are eroding the standards of photography.

Stuart


Thanks for the link, Stuart. Although I cannot access YouTube, I did find an audio link on http://castroller.co...lyPhoto/2798363 which comes complete with '...and now a word from our sponsor...', in this case Ford Motor Company.

Concerning the WPPI discussion, of course the speakers we very much looking at photography from a professional viewpoint. Thankfully, there were comments like 'It's the eye' and 'Technology has made us lazy', which were music to my ears. Invariably the outcome was to stress that 'photographer's need to raise their game in order that the paying public perceives the value of going to 'a professional'. Similar arguments have been put forward elsewhere - the British Journal of Photography, for instance.

Perhaps this has echoes in the 19th century remark from Delaroche, who on seeing a Daguerrotype declared that, 'from today, painting is dead'. We know (in hindsight of course) that photography didn't kill all the artists; in fact many major artistic movements emerged over the succeeding 150+ years and there are still regular major exhibitions of painting.

Photography did, though, not only allow 'the masses' to create images with reasonable success, but also enabled images to be made in circumstances which had been hitherto impossible for an artist to picture. Muybridge's animal movement studies come to mind here. This echoes Tony's earlier comments about how technology has removed barriers.

However, as some in the WPPI discussion also voiced, the learning curve to getting an image which 'comes out' has nowadays practically disappeared; in fact it has been so since about the 1980s as automatic exposure control and auto-focusing in cameras took hold. In this way 'the masses' were increasingly able to participate in picture-making with less thought needed for the technical aspects. But to revert to my original point, has the quality of the images improved? We are supposed to be living in a visual age, but are we any more visually literate?

#15 User is offline   stu_the_flat Icon

  • Specialist
  • Group: RPS Member
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: 12-January 10

Posted 01 April 2012 - 07:25 PM

Interesting points.

However there are also camera enthusiast who let the technical aspects of the camera and equipment dominate there photographic style, I have heard of people looking up resolution charts to find the sharpest aperture of there lens and the trying to photograph everything at that aperture! So sometimes to much technical knowledge spoils the artistic creativity of capturing images.

I photograph weddings at the weekend now. I meet photographers who would never use there camera on anything other than manual, while there are other established photographers who have there camera on “program” mode the whole day and concentrate on capturing the moment.

Stuart

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users