Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: confusing terminology - variants  (Read 6796 times)

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: confusing terminology - variants
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2016, 03:47:30 pm »

Tell that to a doctor who explains your complicated condition in totally precise and accurate terms that leave you unable to form a practical understanding of the implications you face and the options that you have. You would probably not be happy with him and you'd probably complain of his bedside manner....and you'd be right.

Often times, overly precise terminology increases confusion rather than eliminate it. It largely depends on the understanding of the one receiving that info. In this case some photographers will still think of things in terms of a 'negative' and everything that comes after it as something else. Maybe this is not directly applicable to RAW file management, but the concept can still be useful in terms of practical understanding. I think other apps have better terminology than CO. Are they more or less precise? I don't know.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

KimALdis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
    • Kim-Aldis.co.uk
Re: confusing terminology - variants
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2016, 02:50:44 am »

Quote
Tell that to a doctor who explains your complicated condition in totally precise and accurate terms that leave you unable to form a practical understanding

That's not a reasonable analogy. The patient doesn't need the precise technical terms. The doctor, on the other hand, who is going to be prescribing the cure, does.

Capture One is a technical tool. If you don't have a precise understanding of it, you're not going to be using as well as you could.
Logged
Dog shouterer, professional pedant.

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: confusing terminology - variants
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2016, 10:29:47 am »

Capture One is a technical tool. If you don't have a precise understanding of it, you're not going to be using as well as you could.

Maybe. But I could say the same thing to my patients about making decisions about their health and it would be equally true. At some point they have to trust me or be able to know what I know. Same with technology. I have an intimate understanding of my track car, and need to in order to get the most performance out of it. The average driver need not know all that in order to access the full potential of their car for street use.

Again, CO could have used better terminology in my opinion. It has confused some of us and for no real good reason. I even wonder if it is a translation issue.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

KimALdis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
    • Kim-Aldis.co.uk
Re: confusing terminology - variants
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2016, 11:49:57 am »

Quote
It has confused some of us and for no real good reason

Those of who understand how it works it aren't confused, though.
Logged
Dog shouterer, professional pedant.

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: confusing terminology - variants
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2016, 03:20:28 pm »

Those of who understand how it works it aren't confused, though.

I understand that but that sort of thinking led to the persistence of the command-line interface (back in the day) far longer than it had any business enduring. I can understand all sort of archaic, and yet extremely precise medical terminology, neither my understanding of it nor its precision make it preferable to better terminology.

We are, of course, splitting hairs here. But I am a huge proponent of elegance in software design. That's why I never liked LR and only grudgingly left Aperture. Apple used to be the undisputed kings of intuitive and elegant software. I came to CO, paying a considerably higher price than Aperture or LR because of what I perceived as elegant design. Like all software it has some shortcomings in this field. I think it's 'variant' terminology is a good example. A better word or way of conceptualizing the idea would be both intuitive, easy to understand by all levels of users (as it is a fundamental concept after all) and still be precise. That is elegance in design.

What do I suggest? Don't ask me. I'm neither a designer, a techy or even that good of a photographer.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

myotis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 276
Re: confusing terminology - variants
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2016, 05:07:30 pm »

What do I suggest? Don't ask me. I'm neither a designer, a techy or even that good of a photographer.

I am struggling to think of anything better or more easily understood than "variant", but as I said before, I had not given it any thought until this thread.

Variant is "a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing" 

according to the online dictionary I found.

Isn't this exactly what it is describing. The "something" is the raw file and each variant is an interpretation (a form or version) of the same raw file.

I felt the OP found it confusing because he wasn't thinking in terms of the raw file being the original, which is a fairly essential concept for anyone using a raw convertor, and one I think its fair for Phase One to expect from its users.

But I am struggling to follow why you think the term is confusing or inelegant. To me, the term seems particularly apt for what its describing.

Cheers,

Graham









Logged

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: confusing terminology - variants
« Reply #26 on: October 10, 2016, 09:29:27 pm »

I'll just defer to Bart's initial reply to the initial post.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

myotis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 276
Re: confusing terminology - variants
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2016, 12:50:52 am »

I'll just defer to Bart's initial reply to the initial post.

I'm afraid I struggled to follow that post, as in responding the OP point by point it seemed to make something very simple (they are all variants of the original raw file) into something complicated.

Cheers,

Graham


Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8901
Re: confusing terminology - variants
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2016, 04:54:14 am »

I'm afraid I struggled to follow that post, as in responding the OP point by point it seemed to make something very simple (they are all variants of the original raw file) into something complicated.

Sorry for trying to be complete, but the most likely explanation for the naming that Capture One chose is, that we are talking about variants of an original Raw file.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

myotis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 276
Re: confusing terminology - variants
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2016, 08:03:53 am »

Sorry for trying to be complete, but the most likely explanation for the naming that Capture One chose is, that we are talking about variants of an original Raw file.

Cheers,
Bart

Yes, that is what I said, here and in earlier posts, they are simply variants of an (the) original raw file.  I just felt that in your completeness to answer the OP, this simple concept was made more complex than it needed to be. But I appreciate that you gave a point by point response, and didn't think there was anything to apologise for, but nor did I think it provided an answer to the question I asked N80, when he sent me to your post, instead of answering it.

I was suggesting the concept was simple and I think he directed me to your post of evidence that it wasn't simple.

Cheers,

Graham

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up