Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,545   Posts: 1,544,464   Online: 1040
      
Page 11 of 29 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415161721 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 281
  1. #101
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,890

    Photographic terminology and words you hate.

    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    Maybe because we got a current thread on its own just for that term.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/1...ase-print.html
    Yeah, I was aware of that one but it started by someone just asking what it meant. I haven't read that far into it though so I suppose it have got into finding it annoying.

    I have to admit that, given the modern interest in other non-digital light-sensitive historical processes, it does make a certain amount of sense. But then "bokeh" described a real quality that differs between lenses, "swirly" is an accurate if colorful description of the bokeh of some old lens designs etc. The thread asked what we found annoying, not useless.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    606
    Swirly bokeh usually suggests astigmatism. 3 element lenses often exhibit it with the aperture wide open, and it disappears a couple of stops down.

  3. #103
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,579
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I chuckle inside when I hear these, just because I can't believe that people actually use them with a straight face. But I also must say that I don't care either. It's just entertaining.

    Swirly
    Bokeh
    Capture
    Blown highlights (This is my favorite. What the hell does it mean anyway? Was there an explosion? Did somebody blow with a fan on it? )
    Blow-up (As in enlargement. People must like explosives a lot).

    Thomas, "blown highlights" FYI, the term is valid and is meaningful (unless you can think of an alternative that describes what is happening with equal accuracy?). It has been in use along with "clipped highs" since the late 1980s to describe spectral areas of e.g. water which have exceeded the dynamic range of the medium; it applies equally to analogue and digital, with analogue (B&W and/or colour transparency, especially) occuring less abrubtly than digital where dynamic range is insufficient for the subject. A lot of digi cameras have extensible dynamic range. Film does not so we have to meter scenes where there is the possibility of spectrals getting out of order with care. Same thing with shadows. And no, this metering is not done by incident which is less implicit in very contrasty scenes.

    Capture applies to digital. I have berated a number of photographers who ask me, knowing full well I've been out with analogue equipment, "did you capture anything nice?"

    Bokeh, swirly or not, is just bullshit — enough to make me spew in my latté. I cannot believe over on photo.net how "photographers" get their knickers knotted battling away with bokeh in their exclusive little club.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  4. #104
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    Thomas, "blown highlights" FYI, the term is valid and is meaningful (unless you can think of an alternative that describes what is happening with equal accuracy?). It has been in use along with "clipped highs" since the late 1980s to describe spectral areas of e.g. water which have exceeded the dynamic range of the medium; it applies equally to analogue and digital, with analogue (B&W and/or colour transparency, especially) occuring less abrubtly than digital where dynamic range is insufficient for the subject. A lot of digi cameras have extensible dynamic range. Film does not so we have to meter scenes where there is the possibility of spectrals getting out of order with care. Same thing with shadows. And no, this metering is not done by incident which is less implicit in very contrasty scenes.

    Capture applies to digital. I have berated a number of photographers who ask me, knowing full well I've been out with analogue equipment, "did you capture anything nice?"

    Bokeh, swirly or not, is just bullshit — enough to make me spew in my latté. I cannot believe over on photo.net how "photographers" get their knickers knotted battling away with bokeh in their exclusive little club.
    Blocked up highlights is a much better term, in my humble opinion. I just think 'blown' highlights is a stupid way of describing the event, since it is ambiguous. To me 'blown' means 'I screwed up' and there's more than one way to screw up highlights. Blocked up you cannot misinterpret unless you try really hard. That's what I think.

    Agree about bokeh and capture.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #105
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,311
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    Thomas, "blown highlights" FYI, the term is valid and is meaningful (unless you can think of an alternative that describes what is happening with equal accuracy?).
    Over exposure.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  6. #106
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,579
    Images
    15
    Shadows are by default referred to as "blocked" where there is not a skerrick of detail in them. It would be very confusing in the lab or in comms to describe highlights as "blocked" and shadows as "blown". It's just a term and nothing for people to get uncomfortable with. Remember you can blow a tyre too, or block you dunny... or is it the other way around??
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  7. #107
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    Bokeh, swirly or not, is just bullshit — enough to make me spew in my latté. I cannot believe over on photo.net how "photographers" get their knickers knotted battling away with bokeh in their exclusive little club.
    Well, no it isn't. Like the term or not, it refers to the rendering of out of focus areas. Different lenses and lens designs DO render out of focus areas differently. You could say "they render out of focus areas differently" or "I don't [or do] like the way this lens renders out of focus areas" but it's a shortcut to say "they have different bokeh" or "I don't [or do] like the bokeh of this lens."

    Annoying or not, it's not bullshit.

  8. #108
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,579
    Images
    15
    Yes, that's true of your description of just what it is, and it does not need to be endlessly embellished with bullshit parading as facts, as is so common.

    When "photographers" rattle on and on and on about bokeh (to a nauseating degree on photo.net), AND use this as the sole determinant of a lens's suitability to their needs (above all else, incredibly), they've gone truly off the deep end into rubbish talk. Canon published an article quite a decade back about how users of its TS-E lenses were critical of those lens's bokeh with movements engaged. Oh really!? Truth be told, and as Canon pointed out in subsequent demonstrations, bokeh cannot be accurately observed where tilt is applied to alter the plane of focus/peg or depth of field, yet all these users (showing, I might add, examples of their work which had a complete lack of foundation knowledge in photography) were throwing acid at what they considered were dud lenses. Quite a revelation it just have been to knock them into line. I think this was around 1997 in a Canon Professional Services newsletter (I still have a few in storage from that era). Photographers needs to consider a very long list of qualities of a lens which they will back up with experience and foundation knowledge. For me, bokeh has never been one of them, not even in the landscape context. Not even in the portraiture or sport context.
    Last edited by Poisson Du Jour; 02-11-2014 at 07:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  9. #109
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,890
    Well we just disagree. I find it occasionally (when overused or used by those with no idea what they are talking about) annoying too, but I can't agree that it's bullshit. Why is it "bullshit?" Are you really saying that there is no difference in the way different lenses render out of focus areas? Or that such differences are photographically unimportant?

  10. #110
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    Shadows are by default referred to as "blocked" where there is not a skerrick of detail in them. It would be very confusing in the lab or in comms to describe highlights as "blocked" and shadows as "blown". It's just a term and nothing for people to get uncomfortable with. Remember you can blow a tyre too, or block you dunny... or is it the other way around??
    Ha! Well, I disagree. Shadows, in my opinion, are just underexposed if there isn't enough detail. How can something be blocked when there's too little of it? Makes absolutely no sense at all.
    Blocked highlights makes sense, because just like a road block there's 'stuff in the way', the density is too high, blocking enlarger light from shining through.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin