Talk:Science of photography

message: This page should be an intelligent redirection page towards the correct terms and science to describe the workings of any aspect of the photographic process (digital, film, etc).  It should include anything pertinent to photography that is too specific for the page about the specific science, but too technical to be explained on the photography page.  In a quick search, most of the information is available already on wikipedia, but it could be explained with more relevance towards actually building cameras and taking pictures (engineering concerns, generating artistic effects, etc).  (I do not claim to have achieved this yet; what exists currently is a brief, brief overview). This page does not intend to be a collection of camera manuals, nor a page on how to take good pictures.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hvc (talk • contribs) .
I agree with Hvc above about the scope and direction this page needs.  In recent edits this page seems to have become confusing and disjointed with long rambling passages that may be copied and pasted from somewhere. I am new to this "wikipedia business" so I am reluctant to make the wholesale changes I believe this page needs.
I think it should be just a brief discussion of the general nature of photography, and links to more specific pages elsewhere. 1p2o3i 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should

message: I have edited the article to remove the common misconception that the f-number is equal to the ratio of the focal length to the aperture diameter. It is not. The f-number is equal to the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil of the lens. The latter is proportional to the diameter of the aperture. It is true that doubling the f-number halves the diameter of the aperture but it is not true that the aperture diameter is equal to the focal length divided by the f-number.--Srleffler 04:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: f-number and aperture diameter

message: The section on reciprocity, which derives from the original contribution of an anonymous editor in Sept. 2005, is pretty much a failure, and all wrong.  The linked main article is more correct.  I may work on fixing it, or may just remove it and direct to the other article.  Film speed is really not part of the concept; this statement is bogus: "Halving the amount light exposing the film can be achieved...by...decreasing the film speed by one stop." Dicklyon 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reciprocity: failure 

message: I reverted back to the edits I had made earlier due to the claim of plagiarism in the intro. Plagiarism is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into ones own without adequate acknowledgment. The intro I used was from Photography.com but was properly cited. Nonetheless, I re-wrote the intro and cited it again. I also did a lot of cleanup that I did not to be all for not. Hit me up with any comments or re-write the intro if still does not feel suitable. -Barkeep 13:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plagiarism was the wrong word, it was copyright infringement. And it doesn't matter if the intro was cited. Unless the material had a license compatible with the GNU FDL that Wikipedia uses, or you had the permission of photography.com, that was still copyright infringement. No amount of credit or attribution can make it ok. It's as simple as that. --Imroy 13:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't plagiarism mean unauthorized copying?  Whatever... copyright violation is perhaps more precise here. Dicklyon 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I should also mention that I thought it was lazy of Dicklyon to revert all of your edit when it was just the intro that was at issue. Doing a partial revert takes a little more time, but usually isn't that difficult. I assume there isn't a problem with the rest of your extensive edit. --Imroy 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lazy, yes.  But if a large chunk of an edit is plagiarized, it's not my job to check the other parts.  I assume it's all worth a revert, and not much more. Dicklyon 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup, revert, plagiarism