Misleading or unhelpful photography terms

Steve

Steve

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,685
Name
.... Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
'Sunny 16 rule'

I live in Manchester, so am not familiar with the term 'sunny' This rule should be called the 'overcast and drizzle f4 rule'.

And what bright spark decided to give small apertures big numbers and vice versa?
 
It's more like Sunny 11 over here in the UK!

Also aperture values make sense from a mathematical standpoint as they're ratios.

Though I have one - bokeh. Its explanation is as fuzzy as its application in general photo talk. ;)
 
Steve said:
And what bright spark decided to give small apertures big numbers and vice versa?
Click to expand...

They didn't, f/4 is larger than f/8. Assuming the value of f is the same.

People referring to them as large or small is a bit awkward though as some people mean small in size and some mean small in f/ number.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I'm being a berk. Edited to avoid confusing people.
 
F number = Focal length / Aperture size. As Chris said, a 50mm f1.8 needs enough glass to cover a 28mm aperture. A 300mm f1.8 lens would need enough glass to cover a 167mm aperture making it far more expensive.

Equivalent Focal Length for lenses on crop frame cameras. The focal length remains the same but the smaller sensor isn't big enough to catch the whole image. Hence the term 'crop camera' as the rest of the image (produced by the lens) has been cut from what the sensor can see.
 
Steve said:
'Sunny 16 rule'

I live in Manchester, so am not familiar with the term 'sunny' This rule should be called the 'overcast and drizzle f4 rule'.

And what bright spark decided to give small apertures big numbers and vice versa?
Click to expand...

The f number is a ratio of aperture to back focal length.
 
And why is it shutter speed when the shutter always moves at the same speed :shrug:
 
For me it's the word "bokeh". Not that it's misleading or unhelpful, but it's rarely used correctly. And more annoyingly, it's seen as some sort of holy grail to get "more of it". I once heard someone ask if there was some sort of chart that showed how much bokeh each lens makes. Come to think of it, that would be pretty helpful!

Code: 
Lens         No. of Bokehs
------------------
kit lens    -10
50mm 1.8     8
24-70mm      22
135mm 2.0    42
85mm 1.2     99
50mm 1.0     off the scale

One more thing whilst I'm ranting, use of the word "bokehlicious" drives me nuts! :bonk:
 
jspash said:
Code: 
Lens         [B]No. of Bokehs[/B]
------------------
kit lens    -10
50mm 1.8     8
24-70mm      22
135mm 2.0    42
85mm 1.2     99
50mm 1.0     off the scale
Click to expand...

SHould go into a camera shop awking for a camera with more bokehs and more iso's!
 
jspash said:
One more thing whilst I'm ranting, use of the word "bokehlicious" drives me nuts! :bonk:
Click to expand...

Only one person uses that silly word, and that's Kai. And he's silly in general.
 
Maybe not misleading or unhelpful but quite annoying - tog, togged, togger etc
 
various methods of stating magnification. I especially hate 0.2x etc. I always get confused with macros of 1:2 as well - is that half size or twice the size?
 
jspash said:
One more thing whilst I'm ranting, use of the word "bokehlicious" drives me nuts! :bonk:
Click to expand...

I just use the term Depth of Field....sure it's 3 separate words but at least they actually are words instead of Bokehlicious
 
Why is a shutter called that when its default position is 'shut'? Surely calling it 'an opener' would be more accurate?
 
ignore me i went a little :cuckoo:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jspash said:
For me it's the word "bokeh". Not that it's misleading or unhelpful, but it's rarely used correctly. And more annoyingly, it's seen as some sort of holy grail to get "more of it". I once heard someone ask if there was some sort of chart that showed how much bokeh each lens makes. Come to think of it, that would be pretty helpful!
Click to expand...

Don't you feel that the meaning of bokeh is sometimes made overly restrictive in what seems to be a move towards making it seem esoteric and elevating it beyond the grasp of the masses? And do you think that this contributes to any misunderstanding in its employment? After all, bokeh is just "the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image".
 
I thought bokeh was some sort of Japanese sexual deviation until I bought a nifty.
 
*starts new thread*

"I want to get some nice bukkake shots, what lens?"
 
I don't know what lens but you may want to put a filter on the front to protect it.
 
For me the most generally unhelpful phrase in photography is "manual exposure", "shooting in manual" or any other iteration of the meaning.

People would have a much healthier appreciation of the technique if it were termed "fixed exposure" or something.

edit: "effective focal length" is pretty stupid too, "field of view" is much better.
 
Last edited:
Nawty said:
For me the most generally unhelpful phrase in photography is "manual exposure", "shooting in manual" or any other iteration of the meaning.

People would have a much healthier appreciation of the technique if it were termed "fixed exposure" or something.
Click to expand...

Ooh no, 'fixed' makes it sound like it cannot be changed by the operator/user/togger. How about 'unrestricted'? What I find confuses things is when people refer to aperture or shutter-priority automatic modes as 'manual' modes.
 
Shutter and Aperture priority are semi-automatic modes and not automatic or manual...
 
Yeah what's up with with Auto, I still have to hold the camera and press the shutter button, or should I call it "take a photograph now" button 😳
 
And using AV and TV to denote them is a quate narrf.......quate..:)
 
AI Focus always gets me, as its kindof not.

The most unhelpful though came from an erk in Jessops Lakeside - Buy a 5D Mk2......
 
Steve said:
....

And what bright spark decided to give small apertures big numbers and vice versa?
Click to expand...

It took me forever to get my head around that little gem out :bonk:

If bokeh is used to describe the pleasing blur of out of focus areas in a photo, why are people purposely taking out of focus shots to get bokeh? If it's not background blur but just a lack of focal pint is is still bokeh?
 
Last edited:
Iris said:
It took me forever to get my head around that little gem out :bonk:

If bokeh is used to describe the pleasing blur of out of focus areas in a photo, why are people purposely taking out of focus shots to get bokeh?
Click to expand...

No-one takes an out of focus shot for that reason. You would capture a part of the scene in focus first and use magnification and aperture value to reduce the depth of field.

Iris said:
If it's not background blur but just a lack of focal pint is is still bokeh?
Click to expand...

No it's just an out of focus shot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top