Talk:Exposure range

message: Someone with knowledge please clean this up. DP links to a disambiguation page that doesn't help at all since I don't know what it means here. The red camera section reads just like a plug for the product. "Only" 17,500 USD ?!?! Kinda need some context if you are going to say ONLY 17,500! Maybe that is a great bargain, but don't see how it fits here in an encyclopedia article.  
Peter S. says it all clearly.  
Thanks --Fitzhugh 02:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted this section. First of all, there is no camera yet to speak of or evaluate, so it's all just speculation and uncritical acceptance of promotional info. Second, an encyclopedic article on dynamic range and stops generally should be discussing imaging technologies, not specific cameras or sensors. I wouldn't expect discussion of Red here anymore than I would of a Panaflex, CineAlta, or Kodak's new 5201 stock - discussing film, video, CCDs, CMOSs, etc is what the article should be germane to. Specific products should be largely irrelevant.  Girolamo Savonarola 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Camera section reads like ad, plus what are DPs? 

message: It appears that someone extracted a bit of unsourced text out of dynamic range to make this new unsourced article.  I'm pretty familiar with photographic technology and terminology, but seldom hear the term "exposure range". In particular, this article talks about four or more different places where dynamic range is used in photography, but really only one or two of those is an exposure range.  It's hard to fix the article to make sense without knowing where this comes from, but since it seem to only come from a bit of unsourced junk that some guy wrote a while back, it's probably best to just redirect it back to photography, which is somewhat less messed up now.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine by me. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which?  Delete?  Rewrite?  As is? Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it is useful to have an article on general range-related issues in photography.  It's a legitimate topic, which could benefit from expansion rather than deletion.  Currently the photography article doesn't cover this topic at all, so simply redirecting there would not be a good idea.  It sounds like the term "exposure range" is too narrow, so I would lean toward renaming this article to "Dynamic range (photography)" or "Dynamic range in photography". There is content at Dynamic_range#Photography which is not in this article, which should be included.  Exposure latitude could be merged into Exposure (photography), and details of "exposure range" (narrowly defined) might also go there.  It would certainly be helpful to cite sources that have authoritative definitions of these terms, though there may be multiple definitions in common use. -- Beland (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to have something like Dynamic range in photography; but does this article have anything useful to build from?  Can't we stick with dynamic range#Photography until we find sources to expand it with?  In my experience, it's difficult to find very sensible sources in this area, but we can try.  For now, however, the content of this article is better covered under the photogrpahy section of the more appropriately tited dynamic range article. Dicklyon (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bogus topic?  delete article and redirect back to where it came from?