There are plenty of experienced and gracious forum members here who appear to be understanding of the limitations of beginners and offer their expertise without getting pissy. How about creating a beginner section where they can do what they do so well and which can be put on ignore by those forum members who get irritated by questions that have been asked before?
I think that's what Matt King was suggesting, but there needs to be a basics reference section plus a discussion area where the reference section can be updated. Those of us with knowledge need to help others.
Ian
The 'beginner' section should really be a series of links to publications by Ilford and Kodak. I usually tell beginners to start with those because so much of the information on forums is bad, and seems to lead to many of the problems beginners post about in the first place.
That happens all the time. Take a look at the recent "How do I meter" discussion. A lot of detail about details, many of which are not very applicable. And some seemingly just to show that X "knows more" than Y.Agreed, dueling "experts" can definitely muddy the waters for beginners.
That happens all the time. Take a look at the recent "How do I meter" discussion. A lot of detail about details, many of which are not very applicable. And some seemingly just to show that X "knows more" than Y.
But who's signing up to develop and operate this curated beginner's section?
yes... definitely.I don't disagree, and nothing's perfect, but the beginner stuff (particularly Ilford) is straight forward and probably circumvents 95% of the problems beginners post about. A basic foundation can be helpful when venturing into online discussions to ask questions etc. Just my opinion.
I agree.
Just pointing to the reference literature is like saying "red the effing manual", or "just google it", it's not really an answer, if it demands knowledge to understand the manual in the first place.
A forum is an interactive thing, so answers, combined with pointers IN the actual literature or trough google, in a positive manner, is IMO the best way to convey knowledge to anyone, especially new people.
That happens all the time. Take a look at the recent "How do I meter" discussion. A lot of detail about details, many of which are not very applicable. And some seemingly just to show that X "knows more" than Y.
I don't disagree, and nothing's perfect, but the beginner stuff (particularly Ilford) is straight forward and probably circumvents 95% of the problems beginners post about. A basic foundation can be helpful when venturing into online discussions to ask questions etc. Just my opinion.
Right, there is a lot of diversity in methods and needs. But when it comes to answering a question asked by someone who quite obviously is just learning the basics what value is there in discussing the details of color bias in meters or chatter about zones and placement of tonal values? "The past" is the present... most folks are pushing the button on an iPhone to take pictures.I think it comes down to that photography has no definitive right answer.
Some people can create grainy, overexposed, super-high contrast photos, while others like to emulate Ansel Adems from their shoes to their paper.
Thing is, people in the past, often used dumb, "throw-away" p&s cameras which probably had one or two modes of exposures, regarding taking the photo -and people managed to get photos back then.
Many people operate similar, letting the camera meter away, others are very strict, others again. rely on long experience and others again don't even use a meter.
Some give advice, based on the theory of Adams, with references, others give advice on what seems to work pretty well and consistently, but it an easier approach which in the end gives a different explanation to how things work.
I see people share their various methods and experience in that thread and it is interesting to see the variety. The internal battles are easy enough to skim trough, I saw one thread on here, which begun by criticizing Hasselblad's and the way they are constructed, that discussion went from sour to a joy-fest on how some particular brand of ham-radio worked
Just to clarify a little further, I don't mean to say or imply that beginners shouldn't ask questions here, or that we shouldn't reply and try to help with specific things. Not much point to a forum without discussion after all. I just mean that sometimes a novice will post some question(s) and it is clear to me they would be best served taking a step back from the internet noise first. This isn't always the case, just sometimes. That's when I tend to point people to the references, although I will still try to answer the question.
Getting off topic I suppose.
Bottom line, be welcoming and helpful (hopefully) to new members.
The 'beginner' section should really be a series of links to publications by Ilford and Kodak. I usually suggest beginners start with those because so much of the information on forums is bad, and seems to lead to many of the problems beginners post about in the first place.
I tried to do something along these lines in a resources thread but I think by now most of the Kodak links are broken and need to be updated. Someone also cluttered it up with a bunch of irrelevant Foma reference documents, which shouldn't have been posted there.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Peter, I see the same questions over and over and over. A simple search first might help.
PE
... but mind, if the newcomer is a delightful young lady, they are all attentive and back on the scene ...
Never trust an avatar
If you don't want to write a lengthy response to a new user's questions, then... Don't?
No one is twisting your arm to read or write replies to questions on basic subject matter.
I understand this, but I think it may be misdirected.I always search the forum when I have a question. But if the search results lead me to old threads that prompt me to think of follow-up questions, I don't want to ask them in the aged thread, especially when I don't even know if the members who contributed to it are still participating here. I'd much rather start a new thread in hopes of "talking" to live people.
If you don't want to write a lengthy response to a new user's questions, then... Don't?
No one is twisting your arm to read or write replies to questions on basic subject matter.
I understand this, but I think it may be misdirected.
Most people here tend to participate in threads based on current interest. Whether or not the original participants in the thread are still active doesn't seem to make any difference on people's current interest in continuing the thread.
Essentially, I'm suggesting that you don't hesitate to revive a relevant thread, if the subject of your enquiry might very well overlap with it.
But that's not the point is it. APUG is by its very nature designed to answer specific technical questions not rehash basics. It is NOT a HOWTO site. There are several of those already on the web. Adding one more seems rather pointless.
Gerald...I always read your posts because you are well versed in chemistry etc...please remember you started somewhere too and it's important not to trivialize others questionsBut that's not the point is it. APUG is by its very nature designed to answer specific technical questions not rehash basics. It is NOT a HOWTO site. There are several of those already on the web. Adding one more seems rather pointless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?