Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

[Tags] Discussion #3 Now Open. POLL included.


Andrea B.

Tag Questions  

8 members have voted

  1. 1. Have you ever used a Tag to make a search?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      4
  2. 2. Do you Tag your taggable topics?

    • Always
      3
    • Usually, but occasionally I forget.
      2
    • Sometimes, but only for certain tags I like.
      3
    • Never, tags are a pain.
      0
  3. 3. Are Tags useful on a board index to find topics you like?

    • Yes
      1
    • Sometimes
      7
    • No
      0
  4. 4. Do we need both a Tag and a dedicated section with the same name? Example: People & Portraits section vs. Portrait tag.

    • Yes. That Tag might be needed also outside the dedicated section.
      2
    • Maybe, I'm not sure.
      6
    • No. Why Tag a topic if it fits into a dedicated section?
      0


Recommended Posts

Tags originally were meant to help in gear searches to find tests, experiments and discussions of lenses, cameras, filters and lighting because not all info can be gethered into the Gear Stickies in the Reference Section. As the number of topics grows on a forum, gear tags can bring up old gear topics which are still relevant.

Those gear tags below are in Green.

 

Over the years more tags have been added.

The newest tags are in Blue in the following list.

 

Current Tags

  • Cameras
  • Conical Cells
  • Emulation - new
  • Film
  • Filters
  • Fluorescence
  • Infrared
  • Insect Vision
  • Lens
  • Lighting
  • LWIR
  • Multispectral
  • MWIR - new
  • Processing
  • Stereo - new
  • SWIR
  • TriColour - new
  • Video
  • White Balance

Proposed Tags under consideration

  • Landscape
  • Macro
  • UV

Proposed Tags rejected

  • Software: use the Processing tag
  • Health & Safety: such topics are Pinned
  • UV Reach: that information found in the Technical Lens Data section.

Link to comment
BTW, that poll is just to give me some general feedback, so let's not get into whether it is a scientific poll or not. You are free to make any and all comments in posts here if you think the poll questions are not properly worded. Just give me comments about tags and *not* about polls, OK?
Link to comment

I have always tagged a topic when posting. But never used a tag search before this whole discussion.

On my phone they are not easy to get to.

How are people using and seeing tags to do searches?

On my phone the only way I saw was to do a search in upper right. From the search results something with a Tag appears. Then click that tag from the search results and I see those tagged topics.

Currently with limited tag use that seem useful as just get Andy's posts within a IR tag click.

But if we use a tag like UV, wouldn't most of the website be tagged?

Link to comment

If you go to the Search Form, you will see that the 3rd box from the top is labeled Find Tags.

Enter a tag name (or names) into that box and it will bring up all topics having that tag.

 

The Search Form is accessed on the upper right by clicking the ampersand & icon.

Link to comment

Done the voting.

 

On the question "Do you Tag your taggable topics?" I used the "Sometimes ..." option, but it doesn't really reflect my case. I never used tags when starting a post - but that was really through ignorance. My intention is to tag all future posts, now that I have been educated. I will go through all my past posts and re-tag them - but only when the tag set is finalised (and Macro is included!) because it's a bit of a pain to keep re-doing this.

Link to comment

Re-posting a post I posted here:

 

We are not just a UV site although UVP started as UV-only (as far as I know) and the entire Infrared section is informal, so not as important as UV I guess. But we really are InvisiblePhotography.com now.

 

Can we make "composite" tags? We already have spectral tags (such as Infrared, SWIR, etc.), but we lack a UV tag. It sounds trivial to have a UV tag here, but this is my idea:

 

To have "UV fauna" we could use "UV" and "fauna". To have IR fauna, we could use "IR" and "fauna", and so on. So we could use a spectral tag combined with a "subject" tag. Does this sound good to you?

Link to comment

I always tag my posts if I can find an appropriate tag. Sometimes I didn't tag them because I didn't know which tag(s) to put there.

 

As for the first question, I answered "yes", but I actually very rarely did it.

Link to comment

 

Can we make "composite" tags?

 

 

Is that any different to just adding two or more tags, which you can do now? (I know we don't have a UV tag.)

Link to comment

Is that any different to just adding two or more tags, which you can do now? (I know we don't have a UV tag.)

It is the same thing. We now have pure spectral tags (except UV) and pure subject tags.

 

As of UV, we may divide it into UVA, UVB and UVC if this doesn't generate too much confusion. Or keep a general UV tag plus the specific UV bands, similarly to what we have for the infrared spectrum, with a general Infrared tag and specific IR bands like SWIR, MWIR and LWIR (should we add a NIR tag?). I would like having everything "symmetrical" as we are not a UV-only site anymore.

Link to comment

I would like having everything "symmetrical" as we are not a UV-only site anymore.

 

Stefano you better hurry up with some microwave band imaging than, as Deeppurple has shared his x-ray images here.

Link to comment
I really want to explore the microwave spectrum one day. I hope the local laws allow it, as you have to be careful with the radio spectrum. In the US, the FCC may knock your door if you transmit without permission, and the laws are strict here too. As for detection, some bands should pose no problem.
Link to comment

Ok got it. In top right click the & symbol. Then can search tags like MWIR.

I tried searching UVC and got nothing as expected, so it works.

Cool.

Link to comment

I'm not sure what is the point of creating even more tags if nobody really uses them.


 

I will make a Macro tag this evening because Macros can occur in many different sections. Although we have not had a lot of Macros.

Link to comment

I have been thinking about this for a while, and I have an idea. It could be a great idea or a very dumb one, your choice. This post is also about sections, but not about the specific renames in the other topic.

 

One could ask what is the point of having general Infrared (existing) or Ultraviolet (not yet existing) tags when we have specific band tags (at least in the infrared spectrum, such as SWIR, MWIR and LWIR). I initially thought you could pair the general tag with a specific one (or more than one), like Infrared and SWIR or Ultraviolet and UVC (we still have to decide what to do with UVC, right?). This could be done in order to allow someone searching for general infrared contents to do it by searching the Infrared tag, and at the same time allow someone searching specifically for, say, UVB images do that with an UVB tag.

 

But then I thought: why not make a general Infrared section (already present) and a general Ultraviolet section? That way, if one wants to search for general IR/UV contents he/she can do it in the sections, and for specific searches use the band tags instead. Does this sound good or bad?

Link to comment

I will make a Macro tag this evening because Macros can occur in many different sections. Although we have not had a lot of Macros.

I think it would be good to interpret Macro rather slackish and not like the proper definition ≥1:1
Link to comment

 

I will make a Macro tag this evening because Macros can occur in many different sections. Although we have not had a lot of Macros.

 

 

Great. I'll be posting some more macro stereos later this year when I've got a portfolio of good images.

Link to comment

 

I'm not sure what is the point of creating even more tags if nobody really uses them.

 

 

That may be because of ignorance of them (as in my case) or because they needed sorting out (which you are now doing).

Link to comment

UPDATE: I am going to let the Tag situation stablilze a bit before I add anymore new ones.

It will take me a bit of time to clean up old tagging. :rolleyes:

 

 

Stefano: But then I thought - why not make a general Infrared section (already present) and a general Ultraviolet section? That way, if one wants to search for general IR/UV contents he/she can do it in the sections, and for specific searches use the band tags instead. Does this sound good or bad?

 

I wanted to respond so that you would not think I have ignored your suggestion. There's always so much to do here and in my own personal activities that I am a bit slow in getting around to responses.

 

Your suggestion is reasonable. I should point out that we already do have both a general IR and a general UV section. :smile:

As for the band tags, we do lack a UVA, UVB and UVC set of tags (as opposed to IR, SWIR, MWIR, LWIR), so I am probably willing to add them. Although I think that most people won't use them much. Let me clean up things a bit more first, OK?

Link to comment
Thanks Andrea. In the midtime, I would also add that we may need a NIR tag too. It is different than the other bands. I would define it as 700-1100 nm.
Link to comment

I think that is simply the common IR we all know and which is referenced by the Infrared tag.

 

Yes/no/maybe??

Link to comment
Andy Perrin
Andrea - I had been using "Infrared" to include all of them (this being prior to the addition of the MWIR/SWIR/LWIR tags) and in addition to those...I should probably remove it from the non-NIR ones in future.
Link to comment
If Andrea adds a NIR tag, and we remove the Infrared tag from anything that is outside NIR, then we could just convert the Infrared tag to the NIR tag, if this is possible (I remember some discussions about this, but I don't remember much).
Link to comment
Another idea: should we have separate tags for UVIVF, UVIIRF and so on? If so, would it be reasonable to have a fluorescence section, like the Infrared and Ultraviolet sections I mentioned? Or maybe it is just better to leave anything as it is now?
Link to comment
Andy Perrin
I vote against separating out the fluorescence tags. It's easy enough to just put those in the search. The problem is that the number of permutations increases quadratically when you start considering things like "A induced B fluorescence."
Link to comment

would it be reasonable to have a fluorescence section, like the Infrared and Ultraviolet sections I mentioned?

 

We already have a Fluorescence & Luminescence board.

And, as mentioned above, we also have general Infrared and Ultraviolet sections.

 

I'm slightly confused as to why you are asking for 3 sections we already have???

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...