Sorry if I misrepresented you. It just comes across that way from what you say. I've obviously come to an erroneous conclusion.
I've found that understanding the 'science' that you've said is too much (unless I've misunderstood again) is really helpful when it comes to mastering cameras. As I've said elsewhere, it's about learning styles. You can do a lot of trial and error and eventually learn how to 'master' the camera, or you can have an understanding about how the system operates and get there faster. I'm not saying either approach is better, it's up to everyone to choose what suits them best.
I don't feel so strongly, but it's something I try to do for myself. But I can't see there's any harm in people being interested in learning the depths of how their camera works just because they are interested in that.
We have a strategy for keeping discussions in BQ at about the right level, which is the BQD forum. We move posts and subthreads that are going too deep for beginners there. As for 'Open talk', why not. 'Open' implies just what it says, 'open'.
That's pejorative and insulting. The people are having a detailed discussion about things that interest them. Why should they not, even if they don't interest you? All you have to do is not participate in those discussions. There is no reason to go about casting insults at those people.
The '2000' posts were mostly from people like you, arguing about whether people should be posting things they didn't understand and the replies from the people having the discussion. If all the detractors simply ignored the threads they would be quite short. It's kind of like seagulls complaining that the seafront is covered in birdshit. In any case, the subject of maximising light is not simple, and certainly not the SIMPLEST of things. Speaking of no-one in particular, it's a property of the Dunning-Kruger effect (by which we're all affected, just to re-iterate that this isn't directed) that people that lack understanding about a topic often consider it simple. This is something I've discovered myself (further re-iterating that this isn't meant personally) that often when I've thought something to be simple it was because I hadn't understood it. In the case of maximising light, the concept might be simple, but the achievement isn't. I've been a big proponent of the 'exposure first' technique, whereby you set the f-number for DOF and shutter for motion blur, then set the ISO (or let auto ISO do it). That's the technique I use most of the time. But one has to realise that there are circumstances in which it fails to set the maximum exposure that you might have had, particularly at base ISO when you ight back off exposure more than you need to to avoid blowing highlights. It's also worth noting that this whole endeavour is disputed by quite a large number of people - who all contribute to all those posts - disputing it and starting arguments about it.
Or, if you want to see it another way, an opportunity for people who oppose the 'science', which generally means (again not talking about you personally) fail to understand the very basics of photographic theory, to try to shut the 'scientists' up bu sheer weight of opposing posts. It takes (at least) two sides to have an argument. Your theory that all the posts are 'scientists' having 'pissing contests' is entirely incorrect. The arguments are mainly caused by people disputing basic photographic ideas.
So you're deliberately being offensive. What a pleasant person you must be. Anyhow, there's room for all kinds of posts. They don't have to follow the pattern you suggest. If you don't like a thread, there is absolutely no rule on this forum that says you have to read it. Let me point you at a few you might like.
Nice thread where people post, compare and comment on images
Another nice thread like that.
A very pleasant thread about the history of digital cameras
Another nice thread about showing your pictures.
An interesting thread talking about approaches to photography
A thread about the future of DPReview
A jolly thread where people take photos of things and try to guess where they were taken
A thread about operating systems
there's many more if none of those fits your tastes. What you don't need to do is keep hanging around in threads that you don't like. Or even barge around shouting about how much you don't like them. There are some threads here that I don't like. I just don't participate.
Actually, I agree with most of that. We cater for all personality types here, including the intolerant. But I agree, the intolerant can be a real pain when they spend all their time complaining about how other people behave instead of just getting on with doing what they want to do. I suspect that what they most like doing is complaining about what other people are doing. It takes all sorts.
Amen to that. I'm glad that you'll be on the side of the scientific pissing contestants who spend their time being bullied by people who object to finding out the limits of their own knowledge. They really did get bullied on DPReview, to the extent they just had to hide away on PST. It's really nice to see that they feel confident enough here to take a full part in the forums.
