Abbreviations for equipment and technicues

Just bought that first macro lens? Post here to get helpful feedback and answers to any questions you might have.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

pawelfoto
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:51 pm
Location: Poland

Abbreviations for equipment and technicues

Post by pawelfoto »

I am delighted with how much information I can find on the forum.
1. I am a beginner and do not know how to decode the abbreviations of the equipment used, eg M6M2; EF100L; DCR250; F5; 0.8s; 121 * FB1; M6M2 + EF70-200L + Mitu2x + 3 * LED + 411 * FB1. Is there any abbreviation table or rules for describing the shooting technique? How can I correctly describe my photo in the gallery?
2. how best to search for a topic that interests me. For example, how to find a thread of different intensity in a series of speeedlite flashes? What words to enter in the search box?

==Pawel

Adalbert
Posts: 2402
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Re: Abbreviations for eqiuppment and technicues

Post by Adalbert »

M6M2 = Canon EOS M6 Mark II
EF100L = Canon EF 100L 2.8 macro
DCR250 = Raynox DCR-250
F5 = aperture 5.0
0.8s = exposure time 0.8 second
121 * FB1 = stack based on 121 single shots using focus-bracketing with the step-size=1
EF70-200L = Canon EF 70-200L 4.0 IS USM
Mitu2x = Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 2x / 0.055
3*LED = 3 led torches
(DOF/3) = step-size ( Depth Of Field ) / 3

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23543
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: Abbreviations for eqiuppment and technicues

Post by rjlittlefield »

pawelfoto wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:17 am
Is there any abbreviation table or rules for describing the shooting technique? How can I correctly describe my photo in the gallery?
There is no table. The main "rule" is only to try communicating accurately, completely, and concisely. Of course those three things conflict with each other, so some tradeoffs are required. Adalbert leans in the direction of providing lots of information in a very concise form, once the reader has learned his abbreviations, which he seems happy to explain if asked. I generally lean in the direction of avoiding abbreviations, with the downside that I often use too many words. (This paragraph illustrates the thing it describes.)

I suggest to just write what you would like to read, then expect to adjust your style based on whatever responses you get.
how best to search for a topic that interests me. For example, how to find a thread of different intensity in a series of speeedlite flashes? What words to enter in the search box?
Questions about searching come up frequently. I do not know any great answers. It can help to use the "wildcard" capability, for example "varia*" will match "variation", "variable", "variability", and so on. Some people like to search using Google, using the site:photomacrography.net qualifier to restrict hits to this site. But for the general topic of electronic flash variability I could not get very good results using either approach.

I keep an index of my own, at http://janrik.net/RiksLinks.html , and searching that list found for me the long discussion at viewtopic.php?t=16414 . That started off with a simple question about what flashes are good for stacking, then morphed into a discussion of flash-to-flash variability, notably in color balance! Unfortunately that thread is from 2012, so while the general issues and discussion are still relevant, specific model numbers are likely not.

When searching fails, the best approach is probably to post a question into either "Techniques and Technical Discussions" or "Equipment Discussions", summarizing what information you're looking for, and why. Whatever answers you get are not likely to be exactly what you said you were looking for, but often that's because there are other issues to be considered also.

For whatever it's worth, when I use multiple flashes most of the light is provided by two Yongnuo YN460-II flashes, set roughly in the middle of their 7-stop range. However, that exact model is no longer available, I have never explicitly tested their variability, and I seldom use strongly asymmetric compositions where flash variation is most likely to introduce alignment problems. So, it's not clear whether the current equivalent model (YN560-IV ?) would work well for you.

There is a much more recent thread at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 25&t=41711 which discusses assorted issues and speaks highly of certain Adorama/Godox strobes. Those have been on my wishlist for several years, but they keep losing to other toys in the gear-acquisition game.

--Rik

pawelfoto
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:51 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Abbreviations for equipment and technicues

Post by pawelfoto »

great answer Rik, thank you. I did the Canon 580EX tests and it showed no difference in the series of flashes. I was also looking for opinions about lamps and I decided to following set [3x Godox TT600 + 2.4G X2T Wireless Transmitter] available in Poland for $ 280 with delivery in 3 days. For budget price I will have a set of lamps of one type which increases flexibility and possibly the likelihood of them performing similarly. The central radio transmitter will facilitate work without cables or photocells. The Godox CP-80 External Battery Pack is also working well for me. I will let you know how I will test the variability of the individual and the set on different powers. Then I will post a topic and share the results with others. Maybe it will be useful to someone.
==Pawel

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: Abbreviations for eqiuppment and technicues

Post by viktor j nilsson »

rjlittlefield wrote: Questions about searching come up frequently. I do not know any great answers. It can help to use the "wildcard" capability, for example "varia*" will match "variation", "variable", "variability", and so on. Some people like to search using Google, using the site:photomacrography.net qualifier to restrict hits to this site.
Rik, now that you mention it. I have the impression that Google lost track of a lot of the information on this site a while ago, maybe when the forum software was updated? There's been several times that I've tried to search for things that I know exists on this forum, but failed to find them using Google with the site:photomacrography.net qualifier. Is this a known issue, and is there a fix?

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23543
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: Abbreviations for eqiuppment and technicues

Post by rjlittlefield »

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:42 pm
Rik, now that you mention it. I have the impression that Google lost track of a lot of the information on this site a while ago, maybe when the forum software was updated? There's been several times that I've tried to search for things that I know exists on this forum, but failed to find them using Google with the site:photomacrography.net qualifier. Is this a known issue, and is there a fix?
This is not a known issue. I will see what I can find out.

--Rik

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: Abbreviations for eqiuppment and technicues

Post by viktor j nilsson »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:46 pm
viktor j nilsson wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:42 pm
Rik, now that you mention it. I have the impression that Google lost track of a lot of the information on this site a while ago, maybe when the forum software was updated? There's been several times that I've tried to search for things that I know exists on this forum, but failed to find them using Google with the site:photomacrography.net qualifier. Is this a known issue, and is there a fix?
This is not a known issue. I will see what I can find out.

--Rik
For example, a while ago I wanted to find this thread:
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 25&t=10536

But when I searched for:
vanox head site:photomacrography.net
I only get two hits that does not include the thread above.

I would also had hoped that the image in the thread linked above would show up in Google image search if you search for "Vanox head Krebs", but it does not. It believe that this is representative for quite a lot of older material on this site, and that's a bit unfortunately as it's such an incredible source of information!

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4037
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Abbreviations for equipment and technicues

Post by Chris S. »

I've also, for some time now, found our forum's content almost impossible to find using Google. Even posts of my own, for which I know of course the author and specific word phrases used, no longer come up. They used to appear very reliably. I've found this both annoying and alarming.

My own sense has not been that this is caused by our forum software upgrade. My suspicions run rather to Google's business practices influencing search results. Google results in general seem to be sending me to Pinterest (which Google may own or receive payment from?), Reddit (which Google again may own or receive payment from?) or to commerce sites (perhaps paying for placement?). In my view, Google search has become dramatically less useful for finding information in the public domain--perhaps less so if the information curators pay for placement--and more geared toward commerce and other revenue-enhancing content. I would love to be wrong about this.

Regarding abbreviations, I prefer a style commonly used in other high-quality publishing: On first use in an article, spell the term fully out, then place an abbreviation, if desired, in parentheses. After defining the abbreviation this way, go ahead and use it later in the article.

--Chris S.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Re: Abbreviations for equipment and technicues

Post by Scarodactyl »

Google doesn't own pinterest or reddit, their algorithm is just dumb.
The issues finding stuff on photomacrography via google are pretty unusual. I have not run into this when trying to search any other site.

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Västerås, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Abbreviations for equipment and technicues

Post by enricosavazzi »

I am just grasping at straws, but I think Google penalizes insecure web sites (in the sense that they don't use HTTPS). I do know that Google also penalizes sites where lots of pages are not mobile-friendly (the way Google defines it).

Perhaps running a good SEO tool like ScreamingFrog on photomacrography.net can help to identify reasons why search engines like Google may rank this site low.

On the other hand, Google Web Tools warns me all the time about pages of my web site (savazzi.net) that are mobile-unfriendly because of "clickable elements too close together", "fonts too small" and the like. I spent hours trying to identlfy which parts of the flagged web pages cause these problems and why, but I cannot see any problem. I do use CSS3 with the recommended responsive CSS etc. and the pages look fine on my phone.
--ES

Scarodactyl
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Re: Abbreviations for equipment and technicues

Post by Scarodactyl »

enricosavazzi wrote:
Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:00 am
I am just grasping at straws
The problem was solved shortly after these posts. The robots.txt was set to not index the site, which is uh. Not Good.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23543
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: Abbreviations for equipment and technicues

Post by rjlittlefield »

Scarodactyl wrote:
Wed Dec 28, 2022 11:55 am
The problem was solved shortly after these posts. The robots.txt was set to not index the site, which is uh. Not Good.
Yes, and I am happy to report that in the intervening 1.5 years, the Google index seems to have caught up and is working well.

I just now did my usual test with site:photomacrography.net bratcam and was pleased to see "About 227 results", including all the seminal postings that I had hoped to find.

--Rik

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4037
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Abbreviations for equipment and technicues

Post by Chris S. »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Wed Dec 28, 2022 2:02 pm
I just now did my usual test with site:photomacrography.net bratcam and was pleased to see "About 227 results". . . .
Funny, that's the exact same test I usually do. ;)

--Chris S.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23543
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: Abbreviations for equipment and technicues

Post by rjlittlefield »

But I'm always worried, does Google give the same answer for you that it does for me? There's this dang "bubble" effect!

--Rik

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4037
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Abbreviations for equipment and technicues

Post by Chris S. »

I'm currently getting "about 243 results," so our numbers are similar. My top ones are indeed the seminal posts (which I do actually need to refer to from time to time). We could pair lists, but I suspect Google puts us in similar bubbles for this topic. Might be interesting to compare results with someone with less interest overlap.

--Chris S.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic