What's the physics behind photography?

[Primoz]

I am considering if I should prepare a youtube video tutorial series on Geometric optics for photographers...
In basic simple terms I would try to explain the physics behind lenses, lens mistakes (chromatic aberration etc.), aperture, lens sharpness, polarisation...

I would like to know, whether you would be interested in watching such informative science videos...
(You know to see if there's enough audience to be worth the work =))

 

[Jeff92]

Id watch it because to me a video is always better than learning via plain text. I have a short attention span

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

 

[KmH]

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

Did you know that automatic spam can be turned off?

What's the physics behind photography?

Which part of doing photography? Light? Electronics? Mechanics? Big job.

I think the more the photographer knows about how his/her gear works, the easier it is to do photography. Unfortunately, many people are scientifically illiterate, and many seem to take pride in the fact that they are. :scratch:

The majority of consumer electronics users have high expectations for what a given electronic gizmo can do for them, instead of understanding what the electronic gizmo was designed to do, which may in fact be different from what it actually does.

Today's consumer electronics are designed and programmed so the use doesn't have to think. The default settings a gizmo is set to before it is shipped are carefully chosen to promote that 'don't have to think to use it' for users. So as consumer electronics have become more and more complex, fewer and fewer people have any idea how the gadget actually works.

 

[Overread15 3]

I would argue that greater understanding is always a bonus when one is more keen in any interest beyond the "point and click" stage. Well presented guides designed and targeted toward the scientifically illiterate to ease them into an introduction or and advance into the physics side would be a great resource.

One would have to make sure that the correct terminology is also explained as well - eg most photographers talk about making exposures and the exposure of a shot, but few know that exposure in photography is correctly "exposure value" in the science world. So you'd have to make sure terms were clearly defined and used throughout.

 

[Primoz]

Which part of doing photography? Light? Electronics? Mechanics? Big job.

I meant Geometric optics - so Light. (Light refraction, Equation of a lens (Laplace, Newton), real and virtual image, Aperture etc.
Keeping it pretty simple - just the must-know basics.

 

[rexbobcat]

I personally wouldn't watch it probably. Believe it or not, I learned much of what I know about the physics of photography by enrolling in an Astronomy class. I don't know everything, but I know enough that I don't want to go more in depth and rack my brain for information I probably won't ever need.

 

[spacefuzz]

I would start watching and gage how interesting it was. Never took an optics class but did take physics through quantum mechanics. Wouldn't want it too simple, yet not just math. Perhaps I'm not the target demographic thought ;-)

 

[cgipson1]

It would probably put those that need it the most.. to SLEEP! Or they would kill it so they can go watch more "Jackass" type stuff... or cute, out of focus baby stuff.... seems to be primary demographic anymore....

 

[LRYoung]

I wouldn't watch it - but that is because I did a physics degree before I took up photography, so, in theory at least, I should know it all

However, I think my physics background has been of immense value. Simple things like really understanding why high f numbers mean small apertures, why apertures have consistent exposures between lenses, and why they go in the 1, 1.4, 1.8, 2.8.... sequence. I regularly get told by other photographers I know little tricks they just picked up, and have to bite my tongue to stop myself saying "but isn't that obvious?"

So yes, I think if you did that well, it would be awesome for a lot of people

 

[Alex_B]

I always preferred written text and sketches over video. To me written text contains more information per time (as I read fast), and hence it serves my limited attention span better. I get quickly bored by video where it takes ages to explain things properly (it is in the nature of that medium).

But that might be just me

 

[Alex_B]

• Yes, I don't know much about this topic.
• No, I already know a lot about it.
• No, I don't think it is necessary for a photographer to know the camera on a science level...

So where idl the other option:

I do not like video

 

[Compaq]

I am considering if I should prepare a youtube video tutorial series on Geometric optics for photographers...
In basic simple terms I would try to explain the physics behind lenses, lens mistakes (chromatic aberration etc.), aperture, lens sharpness, polarisation...

I would like to know, whether you would be interested in watching such informative science videos...
(You know to see if there's enough audience to be worth the work =))

No, I would not watch a video of someone explaining something he/she does not understand at all. Optics is an advanced branch of physics. What you would do is to write down what to say, based on what you read here and other places. If you got a question, you would not be able to answer in terms other than what you'd written down.

If you're going to explain something, at least take the time to study it deeply so that you actually understands it.

This is something I don't like, people deciding to "teach" people when they have no idea what they're teaching. Even if you're going to "explain" something in layman's terms, your credibility would be zero. I would notice that you don't know what you're saying, and I would disregard the information until, even if you got your words from a Professor in optics.

That is my own opinion. And my credibility may be zero to you, but this is just something I feel strongly about.

Another thing to consider is giving cred where it's due. If you're explaining science, whether it's a paper of a video, you should give references. There are several ways to do this correctly. Harvard style is a well-known and accepted style. If I'm not much mistaken, I'd guess you did not even consider providing references to your viewers. You must show that you appreciate the work of greater people than yourself. You're standing on the shoulders of giants. Did you know that if you're not giving proper references on a scientific paper at a University, you could be expelled?

So, take stuff like this seriously.

/rant

 

[Overread15 3]

No, I would not watch a video of someone explaining something he/she does not understand at all.

?
I'm left somewhat confused as to this statement because the original post made no claims as to the OP's talent/understandings of optics.

 

[Primoz]

I am so glad I opened this topic before actually doing it, because I realise now, that the targeted population would be really small... Those who are interested in the topic already read about it and those who would need it, don't care about getting that deep into it.
Thanks for the responses, which help me realise that! =)

@Compaq
What makes you think I haven't studied what I was going to say and that this is like a joke to me? To understand and explain the basics to someone new to optics doesn't require you to have a PHD in physics... You have to know what you're talking about and explain it in an interesting and understadable way. It's not like this is meant for future engineers of Nikkor Lenses =P
I never had the intention for this to be a recognised paper someone could quote in a later article or to be studied by someone who should know these things in her/his professional life... It's about how aperture is defined, why you get a sharper image when aperture is smaller - explained in a fun and watchable way...
You really think I wouln't citate my BOOK sources in the description? I am a student of mechanical engineering - I have nothing but science related subjects on my schedule and since elementary school I've been listening "List your sources!"
I don't know - I just don't understand the harm I could do for trying to bring science closer to people who are not that into it or don't understand books (which - admit it - can be written confusingly sometimes) - those were my targeted audience anyway.
And of course I don't know even nearly everything - but I am prepared to share what I do know with others. You have to ask yourself: how deep do most people (without a degree in a science subject) want to dive in the physics to understand the camera? I believe I do know that much to explain these things...

I am sorry but you just judged me without even knowing me... so I had to respond to this, eventhough I really really don't like people arguing on forums...

Have a nice day! =)

 

[Compaq]

Your knowledge of the subject was very much based on your choice of thread subject.

When you bring in the term "physics" into the idea, I, personally, imagine a video explaining exactly that - "the physics behind lenses". You also called it an informative science video. It may just be me, but I visualize a scientific video explaining the physics behind lenses - explained by someone who asked the question "What's the physics behind lenses?".

In short, that's why I questioned your intentions. I'm sorry.

Well, then I'm left wondering exactly what you're going to be explaining. I'm just not a fan of people explaining stuff they don't really understand. I would imagine that the reason for chromatic abberations could be explained in thousands of words and several calculations. For the average photographer, understanding why that happens would be a waste of time (imo). Being aware of when it's most pronounced, that may be another thing. I study something where "understanding" is a requirement for succeeding - that's why I have such associations to the word "understand", especially when I'm imagining a scientific video explaining physical properties and phenomena.