Abstract The methods we use to produce geomorphic data are deeply interwoven with the geomorphic questions we choose to ask, and with the geomorphic theories we construct. Authors have described major changes in the history of geomorphology in terms of theoretical shifts and/or social-cultural changes, but it seems clear that shifts in methodological practices also can produce deep changes in geomorphology as a whole. The camera has had a long, illustrious, and complex history as a geomorphic tool, and as such is useful for assessing larger geomorphological concerns and themes. The camera is also a symbol of the ongoing revolution in geomorphology from a data-poor to a data-rich subject; this revolution is built upon many methodological changes, and it has had many side-effects. The interrelated history of cameras and fluvial geomorphology provides an illuminating case study in past and present changes in the geomorphic sciences. Some past geomorphic practices, such as using photos as descriptive evidence for verifying geomorphic theory, remain as important approaches today. Other camera-based practices have dwindled to some degree, such as the production of large-area topographic maps through traditional aerial-photogrammetry, which have been overtaken by alternative methods such as Lidar and interferometric radar. And newer camera-based techniques, such as structure from motion photogrammetry, are at the heart of the recent democratization of geomorphic data. As the modern data revolution progresses, it is important to ask questions such as “who has been part of the data revolution, and what have been their motivations?” and “have winners and losers been produced as part of the data revolution?” Not all effects of the data revolution have been completely positive; many geomorphologists feel overwhelmed by big data expectations and methodological concerns. From a philosophy of science perspective, the moves toward population-like geomorphic data have strained “normal” inductive inference procedures, and recent research has brought to light inferential alternatives such as advanced data mining and the hypothetico-deductive approach. Even so, most current analytical techniques appear to be lagging behind the newly-introduced big data, producing “new wine in old bottles”: new data for old analyses. Beyond pure geomorphic research, the camera and its derivatives are also part of profound shifts in educational and outreach expectations and practices. Clearly, the data revolution in geomorphology is still in its infancy, and much of that revolution has been wrought by the humble camera.

中文翻译：

---

相机和地貌学家

摘要 我们用来产生地貌数据的方法与我们选择提出的地貌问题以及我们构建的地貌理论深深交织在一起。作者从理论转变和/或社会文化变化的角度描述了地貌学历史上的重大变化，但似乎很明显，方法论实践的转变也会导致地貌学整体发生深刻变化。相机作为地貌工具有着悠久、辉煌和复杂的历史，因此对于评估更大的地貌问题和主题非常有用。相机也是地貌学从数据贫乏到数据丰富的持续革命的象征；这场革命建立在许多方法上的变化之上，并且产生了许多副作用。照相机和河流地貌学的相关历史为地貌科学过去和现在的变化提供了一个有启发性的案例研究。一些过去的地貌实践，例如使用照片作为验证地貌理论的描述证据，今天仍然是重要的方法。其他基于相机的做法在某种程度上有所减少，例如通过传统航空摄影测量法制作大面积地形图，这些方法已被激光雷达和干涉雷达等替代方法所取代。更新的基于相机的技术，例如来自运动摄影测量的结构，是最近地貌数据民主化的核心。随着现代数据革命的进展，提出诸如“谁参与了数据革命，他们的动机是什么？” 以及“赢家和输家是否是数据革命的一部分？” 并非数据革命的所有影响都是完全积极的。许多地貌学家对大数据期望和方法论问题感到不知所措。从科学哲学的角度来看，向类似人口的地貌数据的转变使“正常”归纳推理程序变得紧张，最近的研究揭示了推理替代方案，例如高级数据挖掘和假设演绎方法。即便如此，大多数当前的分析技术似乎落后于新引入的大数据，生产“旧瓶装新酒”：旧分析的新数据。除了纯粹的地貌研究，相机及其衍生产品也是教育和外展期望和实践深刻转变的一部分。显然，地貌学中的数据革命仍处于起步阶段，而且大部分革命都是由不起眼的相机完成的。