Which is better? dark flats or... flat darks ?

I say "flat darks" because it is a dark frame.  The second word is the "thing," the first word is the modifier.  It is a dark frame for flats.

Example - we say it's a "red door," not a "door red."  Or perhaps a better example, it's a "wood door," not a "door wood." 

Cheers,
Rowland

I agree with Rowland - Flat Darks.

I agree also although I hear it the other way a lot

Thank you @rowland-f-archer-jr, @steve1962, @whixson

I still think this is a tricky one 😉 and I do like your reasoning.

I say "flat darks" because it is a dark frame. The second word is the "thing," the first word is the modifier. It is a dark frame for flats.

I could counter with: Okay, but this dark is not flat, why call it a flat dark at all, not just a dark ?

In older versions of APP, there was no separate frame type for darks used for flat-calibration. They were just called darks... which technically they are.

For better user experience and better application design, it is however preferred to use flatdarks or darkflats...

It seems the question is a valid one, the vote is now 9-9 😉

Mabula

OK guys, when the poll opened, I voted for Dark Flats, simply because that seems to be the name commonly used across many astrophotography websites, relating in particular to their importance when using CMOS cameras where Bias frames can be inconsistent.

In terms of accurate description, however, these are definitely Darks, not Flats, so I agree with those who have made that point. To be consistent within APP, which requires the two types of Darks (correction) to be differentiated, I feel that they could possibly be called Light Darks (confusing maybe?)and Flat Darks, or possibly simply identified by Dark(L) and Dark (F) under the LOAD Tab?

Meanwhile, I could be convinced to retract my original vote and break the current deadlock 🙂

Cheers

Dave

"I could counter with: Okay, but this dark is not flat, why call it a flat dark at all, not just a dark ?"

You are right - it is really just a dark frame with the length of a flat exposure.   So technically, it's a dark.  Period.  

In the term "flat darks" we are using "flat" as an adjective, not a noun.  It describes the dark, like in "red door," red is an adjective describing the door.

In English, adjectives generally come before the thing they describe, not after.

When I presented APP to my local imaging group, I used the term "dark flats" because that's what APP uses and got laughed at 🙂 .  They said - "those are darks, not flats!"  

That made sense to me.  I'm a little surprised that the vote is 9-9.  

I think people will understand either way 🙂 .  But I do believe the more grammatically correct term is flat dark.

Cheers,

Rowland

I guess it's indeed a dark, but to be able to specify what people are referring to in a conversation, the combination of the words makes it clear very fast. Instead of having to explain it in more detail. That's my take on it. Which way you pronounce it, flat darks seems more correct, but I think people tend to say dark flats because it has a nicer ring to it. 🙂 Basically, people use it as 1 word.

I just think of it as another  “dark”.  

They are dark exposures for flats, so flat darks (actually flats darks would be more correct, but would sound clumsy.)

Flat Dark is what I consider the definitive answer on this matter from Michael Covington (linguist / writer)  who asked this same question on cloudynights.com as he was writing a book at the time.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/594366-does-a-dark-flat-replace-a-bias-frame/#entry8146394

Posted by: Vincent Groenewold - Moderator

I guess it's indeed a dark, but to be able to specify what people are referring to in a conversation, the combination of the words makes it clear very fast. Instead of having to explain it in more detail. That's my take on it. Which way you pronounce it, flat darks seems more correct, but I think people tend to say dark flats because it has a nicer ring to it. 🙂 Basically, people use it as 1 word.

I voted thinking that that it was a type of flat so I voted dark flat. Now knowing that its dark frame for calibrating flats, its technically a dark flat calibration frame so maybe dark flat still holds :-s Lol - good question! And yes it does have a nicer ring to it 🙂

I agree with Rowland’s reasoning. Though another way to refer to them might be “DarksForFlats” which might avoid any confusion.

Even though i use the words "Dark Flats" while teaching  ( because the flats are now dark)  i vote  for "BIAS_Clone" (not in the list) 

which in fact its what it does . But Bias clone could confuse some ppl...

  if Mabula changes the naming convention on the "button"  that is!

or as one put it Darks for Flats even if these are not actually darks per say   "at lets say 0.300 MS  and not 180\sec darks."

Mitch 

Mitch, Flats can be as long as 60sec or more e,g for NB, even with a red filter I need about 12sec for a good flat, so relatively, flats are not always very short exposures.

Flat Darks (Aka, flats for darks) makes sense to me and correct grammar  

Mitch, Flats can be as long as 60sec or more e,g for NB, even with a red filter I need about 12sec for a good flat, so relatively, flats are not always very short exposures.

Flat Darks (Aka, darks for flats) makes sense to me and correct grammar  

Hi all,

I also like the " Dark for Flats " button.

It is much more clear without any confusion where these "darks" need to be used for.

Clear skies

"Dark for flats" 👍 

In addition to the grammatical arguments being made in this thread, which I agree with and do appreciate, here is some history for the traditional term.

I've been using flat darks for what seems like forever, nearly 20 years, particularly with ImagesPlus. Here is a reference as far back as 2004:
https://groups.io/g/ImagesPlus/message/7503?p=%2C%2C%2C20%2C0%2C0%2C0%3A%3Arecentpostdate%2Fsticky%2C%2C%2522flat+darks%2522%2C20%2C2%2C200%2C38736617

It was only when newer astrophotographers (i.e., novices) entered the field that they confused the term and referred to them as "dark flats". There are flats and flat darks.

Bill Shaheen
Gold Canyon, AZ
https://pbase.com/wjshaheen/astro_images_by_subject

@wjshaheen Thank you. I appreciate the answer.

Not sure why this has been rez'd at this time, but I'm grateful for it, as a newer APP user who consistently cringes every time I see "DarkFlat" in the calibration tab. 

The main point of contention over this topic seems to come from whether people interpret the phrase "dark flat" as adjective-subject or not. This is a logical thing to do without context, but we already have precedent for how the word "dark" is used in this hobby - as a noun.

Although the origin was obviously as an adjective (describing the frame as compared to a "light" frame), it has morphed into being informally used as a noun. Proof? The fact that they're frequently called "darks"; adding "frames" is not necessary. Using an adjective as a standalone like this wouldn't work. 

This is what is tripping people up - the fact that a word that is normally used as an adjective, is not being used as one. But there's no reason to immediately revert back to the traditional usage of it when we're still talking the same lingo.

Say that "darks" was no longer the term for frames taken with a lens cap on for calibration purposes. That word is now....uh, chazwazzas. It is the commonly used word (noun) in this hobby for these calibration frames. Now what do we call calibration frames for "lights" and "flats"?

Chazwazza lights? Chazwazza flats? Makes no sense.

They're chazwazzas (lens-cap calibration frames) for your lights. Or chazwazzas for your flats.

Like food for your cat. A bag for your bin. A tyre for your truck, to reference the other thread. Cat food. Bin bag. Truck tyre.

They're flat chazwazzas.

That's my vote.