Talk:Waterhouse stop

Merge from John Waterhouse?[edit]

There's not much else known about John Waterhouse of Halifax, as far as I can find, so he doesn't really need an article now that we have this one. Dicklyon 01:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting no objection, I went ahead and merged it in. Dicklyon 09:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split to John Waterhouse?[edit]

Urgh! Now we know this guy invented at least one other photographic technique...merging that article with this one starts to look like a bad idea because now we have this information about a gold tonic bath that doesn't belong here. SteveBaker 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sad, isn't it, to discover new information that throws a spanner into the works? I keep searching for a public-domain photo of a Waterhosue stop, or set of them, but none of the old books have them. And I find this other stuff instead. There's also a book that calls him Whitehouse. And there's a Captain Waterhouse in photography, too, but I think that's someone else, since I can't connect John or Halifax to that one. It's up to you; we could split John off easily enough by converting his redirect back to an article, but they're both so short it's hardly worth it. Dicklyon 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the other option is to turn this into an article about the man - with the Waterhouse stop being a redirect. That way we still only have one article - but it's not limited to just this one invention. It would take a rewrite of course - but we've used more words in discussing it than the entire article anyway! SteveBaker 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this picture from the article because it is doubly misplaced: It is in the wrong article, and was in an inappropriate location within that article. I'm not sure where the best article for this is, so I'm putting it here for now.--Srleffler 07:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back, in a more normal place, since it doesn't hurt to have related info in the article when there's ot a better place for it. I added a line of text about it, too. Dicklyon 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we once-more have an article about John Waterhouse (astronomer), I've placed the image there.

Nearly obsolete?[edit]

Ken Rockwell's site says that the Casio EX-S100 has a "Single Waterhouse stop for f/8 - 13.3". This camera is far from obsolete, so what does he mean there> Loganberry (Talk) 15:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say. Rockwell is known to say a lot of things with no basis in fact. It's likely that he means the camera has a two-position diaphragm, with two holes for different aperture settings; this is not an unusual configuration for small cameras, but is not a Waterhouse stop. Dicklyon 16:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the site, he makes a handful of references to Waterhouse stops. The EX-S100 is as above.[1] For the Casio EX-S500, he's a little more cautious: "It's simple: either the lens shoots wide open, or stops down 1 - 1/3 stops by way of what looks like a Waterhouse stop." [2] And for the aperture on the Canon A530, he says the following: "Only two, wide open and two stops down with a Waterhouse stop. This is typical for compact cameras: their tiny lenses need such high resolution that smaller apertures would give softer images due to diffraction." [3] For the Casio EX-Z750, he's pretty specific; see his review.[4] I think that's enough to modify the language and make the Waterhouse not quite as obsolete. Hzoi 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he's wrong about it being a Waterhouse stop, as it's not inserted through a slot. And he's not a reliable reference, as he's widely criticized for how stupid he is in some of his commentary. Blogs are not usually considered reliable sources. Dicklyon 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your definition of a Waterhouse stop. The question of whether or not it's a Waterhouse stop does not rest on whether or not it's inserted through a slot. Waterhouse stops are separate discs with holes drilled in them; for each different aperture you need a different disc.

To be sure, the popular approach when Waterhouse stops were common was to design them to be interchanged through a slot in the lens. That's not their sole defining characteristic, it's just one approach to applying them to the lens design.

The Waterhouse stops on the Lensbaby go in on the front of the lens -- but Waterhouse stops they are, slot or no slot. Another way to do it would be to have a Waterhouse system entirely in the lens, something like internal, interchangeable lens filters. The Minolta MD Rokkor 16mm fisheye lens I once owned had four filters from which to choose -- spin the dial, and one of four filters clicks into place. Easy enough to do this with one or more Waterhouse stops if an iris diaphragm would take up too much room.

This is a side issue to the question at hand: do these newer compact digital cameras use Waterhouse stops, i.e., do they put a disc with a hole in it in the lens path to control aperture? Ken Rockwell says yes, you say no. I don't own a Casio, so I can only look around to see what information there is. By Casio's own technical specifications, there are only two aperture choices for these compact cameras: wide open and a fixed stop down (around f/8). Casio describes this as "brightness conversion F values." I have no idea what this means. Does this mean a Waterhouse (or Waterhouse-like, if you wish) stop slides into place? Does it mean these cameras have a neutral density filter that slides into place? Does this mean the camera itself compensates for the brightness without physically changing the aperture? Or is it something else entirely? I have no idea.

Before we start a reversion war, let me call a cease-fire and throw out a request for more information. Someone with a Casio EX-S100 or one of the other cameras discussed above, please help us out on this. Bonus points if you've actually seen one disassembled. Hzoi 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source? When did a Waterhouse stop become something other than a stop inserted through a slot in a lens barrel? The lens with the "spin the dial" approach has a "wheel stop" by one book I've seen that calls that out separately from Waterhouse stops. Does the lensbaby documentation call theirs Waterhouse stops? I've been into a Ricoh two-stop lens, and the apertures are both in the same piece of movable metal; I assume the Casio is similar. Dicklyon 14:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find good sources with google book search; here are some and some more and some with diaphragm instead. They say things like:

"Waterhouse Stops. – Diaphragms that slide in a lens slot."
"Aperture openings were at first controlled by unscrewing the lens and inserting stops of the appropriate size between the lens components though after 1858 photographers used the more convenient Waterhouse stops which eliminated unscrewing the components."
"Waterhouse stops are thin plates of blackened metal. Each plate has an aperture according to its number. These stops are inserted as required in a slot in ..."
"The Waterhouse stop consisted of a flat piece of metal having a circular or other hole to form the actual aperture, which was slipped into a slot at the correct place in the lens barrel."
"a single hole in a plate that could be inserted between the lens com-ponents through a slit in the barrel of the lens mount—ie, the Waterhouse stop."
"Process lenses have to be fitted with Waterhouse diaphragm slot in order to permit of variously shaped stops being used."
"A further development of this idea has been effected by the insertion, like a Waterhouse diaphragm, of simple uncorrected lens (ordinary spectacle glasses) ...

It seems clear enough to me what a Waterhouse stop is. If there's a newer usage, let's see a quote from a reliable source. Dicklyon 16:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which Halifax?[edit]

I can think of two, easily.

Excellent question. The sources don't seem to say, but I'm going to guess in England. Dicklyon 19:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]