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.

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.