jamesf99 wrote:
I kick myself regularly for other transgressions, but mercifully speaking English is not one of them
James, that's interesting.....speaking English in a merciful manner is not one of the transgressions for which you kick yourself. In other words, are you being self-indulgent there ?
I have not read through this very subjective thread-but pet peeve "flickrese" that goads me:
1. "nice capture", "great capture"-its a nice PHOTOGRAPH, a great PHOTOGRAPH damnit! The only photographer who did "great captures" was Matthew Brady, who helped the Union Army gather Confederate prisoners after the Battle of Antietam.
2. 'walkaround lens"-we sure as hell did not use these in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. What the hell is a "walkaround" lens anyway-oh wait-maybe you mean a "general purpose" lens? Let's see-on a 35mm film camera, a "general purpose" lens was a 50mm. Oh yeah-one more thing-a 50mm F 1.4 lens was not a miracle in 1972 the way it seems to be today
anscochrome wrote:
I have not read through this very subjective thread-but pet peeve "flickrese" that goads me:
1. "nice capture", "great capture"-its a nice PHOTOGRAPH, a great PHOTOGRAPH damnit! The only photographer who did "great captures" was Matthew Brady, who helped the Union Army gather Confederate prisoners after the Battle of Antietam.
2. 'walkaround lens"-we sure as hell did not use these in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. What the hell is a "walkaround" lens anyway-oh wait-maybe you mean a "general purpose" lens? Let's see-on a 35mm film camera, a "general purpose" lens was a 50mm. Oh yeah-one more thing-a 50mm F 1.4 lens was not a miracle in 1972 the way it seems to be today ...Show more →
If those little nothings bother you, quickly, and with due urgency, move far away from civilization. The twists and perversions of modern society will soon stress and turn you into a withering stump 'o man.
Personally I hope the word "lens" is standardized as "lense." Said spelling is consistent with plural usage and the greater length is more appropriate to its role in photography.
I don't think "walkaround lense" refers to any particular focal length, but is merely whatever lense you feel most comfortable with. For many sports shooters the 70-200 L or 100-400 L are their walkarounds. Sometimes my EF 300 4L USM stays on my 5DII for months, so that's as good as it gets as far as being a walkaround lense.
Not that I'm aware of, but I have had poison ivy in places that would make Satan cry. I am now hyper-sensitive to poison ivy. Immunity to mosquitoes makes up for that, I suppose.
abam wrote:
"strobist" really grates my eyeballs. it's so strobliciously stroby. strobtastic, really.
Technically, "stobe" is short for "stroboscope," which is a repeating electronic flash system used for motion studies and making people ill at discotheques. There is otherwise "studio electronic flash" that comes in various forms and "camera mounted electronic flash" that comes in various forms.
anscochrome wrote:
I have not read through this very subjective thread-but pet peeve "flickrese" that goads me:
1. "nice capture", "great capture"-its a nice PHOTOGRAPH, a great PHOTOGRAPH damnit! The only photographer who did "great captures" was Matthew Brady, who helped the Union Army gather Confederate prisoners after the Battle of Antietam.
Nice to know. File that away.
2. 'walkaround lens"-we sure as hell did not use these in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. What the hell is a "walkaround" lens anyway-oh wait-maybe you mean a "general purpose" lens? Let's see-on a 35mm film camera, a "general purpose" lens was a 50mm. Oh yeah-one more thing-a 50mm F 1.4 lens was not a miracle in 1972 the way it seems to be today
Back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, a 50mm lens is probably what would have come to mind if anyone had said "walkaround lens." I don't think anyone would have even thought of the old, fuzzy 43-86mm Nikkor as a "walkaround" lens. If you had a 28mm, a 50mm, and a 100mm you were set for "walking around." That was back when "Anscochrome" was still a popular slide film.
PetKal wrote:
This is "Digital".....lacking that organic feel.
It's amazing the quality that you can get "straight out of camera", Peter! No need for PP in PS if you can get the organic image natural quality (OINQ) by using your camera right. Super small jpeg beats raw every time for the organic look. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/81/443081.jpg
