2
\$\begingroup\$

There's a lot of technical terms in photography. Should we have an organised way to look it up, linked from the faq?

I'll put my ideas in some answers so they can be voted on.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think this is a very useful suggestion. \$\endgroup\$
    – labnut
    Commented Apr 16, 2011 at 18:50

5 Answers 5

2
\$\begingroup\$

We have this:

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

This strikes me as a little more encyclopedic than is necessary.

It's great to answer direct questions about terminology or technique, but maintaining any sort of index on those answers or trying to construct a glossary parallel to the normal Q/A flow seems like drudgery for little reward.

The lens terminology question is a good example of what I mean as well: it attempts to be a good catch-all, but is missing many possible entries, and has small errors or oversights in others. None of that detracts from its worth as a general answer to the question, but I'd still not point at it as an authoritative resource; there are many better ones out there.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ The problem with posts like this is that they are endless works in progress. The lens terminology one has consumed a considerable amount of time, as a lot of lenses don't have readily available detailed information (i.e. Lecia). I have more to add to my answer, but gathering it has been fairly tedious. I'm thinking about linking back each brand to the source(s) of information, so those wishing to know more can get more. One way or another though, threads like the lens terminology one will likely never be totally satisfactory to everyone. \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Commented Aug 3, 2010 at 22:19
1
\$\begingroup\$

We may edit wiki entries for particular tags to provide basic info about what the term means and what is the tag about. Specially made "glossary question" wouldn't probably work very well.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1. Each tag will generally represent a useful terminology and the structure is already in place for us to use. I think this has the best chance of working. \$\endgroup\$
    – labnut
    Commented Apr 16, 2011 at 18:53
0
\$\begingroup\$

We could have a question that asks for links to glossaries of photographic terms on other sites. The faq could just link to that question.

Pretty useful, though people will then leave photo.SE. But it does have a big advantage of not requiring constant updating and reorganising.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

We could have a master terminology question as community wiki which could link to various questions on the site that ask about that bit of terminology (like the lens terminology question). The question could be split into various sections and hand edited to incorporate new terms as they come up. I'm imagining it would end up looking like the master FAQ question on meta.SO

This would require quite a lot of work to keep going, and I'm not sure exactly how we'd want to organise it, whether entirely alphabetically, or by topic or some other method. Or we could have one purely alphabetical list and another by category. More work of course.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .