Beginner's question: photo vs camera alignment

[Eponymous]

Do I understand correctly that the terms "photo alignment" and "camera alignment" mean the same thing?

An example: using the Workflow menu, I align photos. That process shows up in the log with that phrase. Some of my photos are unaligned. These now have "NA" next to them in the workspace pane, which I take to stand for "not aligned". This corresponds to not having a checkmark in the Photos pane. However in the workspace, they are not referred to as "photos", but as "cameras". The alert box that pops up at the end of alignment tells me: "Some photos failed to align. Please resent alignment for incorrectly aligned photos and rerun photo alignment.

In both the workspace and photo pane, there is no option for resetting photo alignment, only camera alignment. I take these to be the same thing. If I do choose that option, the log reports "Camera alignment", as if it were not the same thing as photo alignment.

If these two things are identical, it would be less confusing if the same term were used consistently.

Relatedly, if I run Align Photos from the Workflow menu and don't have "reset current alignment" checked, is that the same as choosing "align selected cameras" from the contextual menu? (Also note that that checkbox doesn't say either "photo" or "camera" alignment, just "alignment".)

Thanks.

[JMR]

Hello Eponymous:
Photo and camera can be used to mean the same thing, but  if you want to make a distinction, when it comes to photogrammetry, a photo is a two dimensional thing while a camera means here a photo linked to the lens and camera body together forming a complex thing which is three dimensional, that is called camera for language economy, just for the same reason we say "photo" instead of "photography".
So in the program they use indistinctly the two words because a photo without lens parameters associated is not even something you would be able to use. Just imagine that you remove your lens from your camera and press the trigger button.  The light will hit the sensor and you will get something you can call photo even if it is a blurred likely burnt mess or perhaps an invaluable piece of art that someone could even pay for, but that photo would never be called a camera here.
So "photo" is not enough word while calling "camera" to a photo is like to borrowing the name of the device that produces it. Well it is perhaps something you can dislike metonymy, but what if I remind you that "camera" means actually "room" in latin?
Regards.

[Eponymous]

Thanks for the reply, which I read as a long way to say “yes”. 

I am simply interested in the software’s use of the two terms which I think is confusing. Where’s the best place to put in a feature request?

Hello Eponymous:
Photo and camera can be used to mean the same thing, but  if you want to make a distinction, when it comes to photogrammetry, a photo is a two dimensional thing while a camera means here a photo linked to the lens and camera body together forming a complex thing which is three dimensional, that is called camera for language economy, just for the same reason we say "photo" instead of "photography".
So in the program they use indistinctly the two words because a photo without lens parameters associated is not even something you would be able to use. Just imagine that you remove your lens from your camera and press the trigger button.  The light will hit the sensor and you will get something you can call photo even if it is a blurred likely burnt mess or perhaps an invaluable piece of art that someone could even pay for, but that photo would never be called a camera here.
So "photo" is not enough word while calling "camera" to a photo is like to borrowing the name of the device that produces it. Well it is perhaps something you can dislike metonymy, but what if I remind you that "camera" means actually "room" in latin?
Regards.

[JMR]

Touché! too long story. I do it a lot, sorry.
Just to top it off. I like the indistinct use of several words for the same as a sort of, literary license. Like when you write about a cathedral and try to use other words to avoid repetition: the temple...., the building..., the monument...

[Eponymous]

Touché! too long story. I do it a lot, sorry.
Just to top it off. I like the indistinct use of several words for the same as a sort of, literary license. Like when you write about a cathedral and try to use other words to avoid repetition: the temple...., the building..., the monument...

I hear you. As a new user though, I was confused.