Nostrobino wrote:

Your sources are in error. Anyone can set up a web page which says anything,
and in this case you have pages repeating misinformation the authors
presumably obtained from other sources on the Internet, such as the
newsgroups where this misusage occurs. Doubtless there are web pages about
kidnappings by flying saucer which are about as reliable as the ones you
list.

Indeed, you can find a large number of supposedly-authoritative sources
about photography repeating the tale about light meters being calibrated
to 18% gray -- the fact that they aren't and never have been doesn't seem
to stop people from believing it.

--
Jeremy |

In article ,
Jeff R wrote:

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...

Hogwash. You are suggesting we should all be speaking Chaucer's
English. Patently, and we would hope obviously to anyone with
half a thimble full, *stooopid*. And I don't mean ignorant, I
mean stupid.

Yo da man bro! wassamatta dat gay mofo huh?

And he answerde and seyde thus, "Madame,
I pray yow that ye take it nat agrief.
By God, me thoughte I was in swich meschief
Right now, that yet myn herte is soore afright.
Now God," quod he, "my swevene recche aright,
And kepe my body out of foul prisoun.
Me mette how that I romed up and doun
Withinne our yeerd, wheer as I saugh a beest
Was lyk an hound, and wolde han maad areest
Upon my body, and han had me deed.
His colour was bitwixe yelow and reed

"Eugene" wrote in message
...
OK, I stand corrected. This does make sense. Actually now that I think
about it I don't tend to use the terms "prime" and "zoom" much anyway. I'd
nearly always just refer to the specific lens type. Like I'd just say 50mm
f1.4 rather than 50mm prime. Adding "prime" is kind of redundant. If only
one focal length lens is given then it's obvious I'm not talking about
variable focal length.


When I was a kid, my dad and his photographer friends referred to a 50mm
lens as the "prime" lens. It was the lens around which they all built their
systems, if they were working in 35mm. For medium format, the prime would
be in the neighborhood of 80mm. The use of the work "prime" for any fixed
focal length lens I find more than a little jarring.
On the other hand, these were guys who made the distinction between a "zoom"
lens, which held focus as focal length was changed, and "varifocal," which
did not. Most of the zoom lenses we have now are varifocal.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"no_name" wrote in message
om...
Nostrobino wrote:

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tony Polson wrote:


Since there is no accepted definition of a "prime" lens we should just
drop the term, as it serves only to confuse.

Feel free to go ahead. The rest of the world will carry on using it.


"The rest of the world" is defined as the few dozen people who post in a
couple of newsgroups?

Well, if you include some of the more common photo magazines. That's where
I got it from.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. As I mentioned recently in this thread,
Pop Photo has on two or three occasions misused "prime" in this way in their
captions, including at least once on a cover caption. As far as I know, they
have never called fixed focal length lenses "primes" in any of the articles
or columns themselves, so I presume those occurrences were the work of some
less punctilious caption writer.

N.

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff R wrote:

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...

Hogwash. You are suggesting we should all be speaking Chaucer's
English. Patently, and we would hope obviously to anyone with
half a thimble full, *stooopid*. And I don't mean ignorant, I
mean stupid.

Yo da man bro! wassamatta dat gay mofo huh?

And he answerde and seyde thus, "Madame,
I pray yow that ye take it nat agrief.
By God, me thoughte I was in swich meschief
Right now, that yet myn herte is soore afright.
Now God," quod he, "my swevene recche aright,
And kepe my body out of foul prisoun.
Me mette how that I romed up and doun
Withinne our yeerd, wheer as I saugh a beest
Was lyk an hound, and wolde han maad areest
Upon my body, and han had me deed.
His colour was bitwixe yelow and reed

But first I make a protestacioun
That I am dronke, I knowe it by my soun;
And therfore, if that I mysspeke or seye,
Wyte it the ale of Southwerk I you preye,
Wottthefork's goin' down here todeye?

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Nostrobino" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote:
"Nostrobino" wrote:

I've been saying the misusage is ignorant. It is. I haven't said that
the
people misusing the term are ignorant. On the contrary, I presume that
most
of them are folks of at least ordinary intelligence who have innocently
picked the misusage up from Usenet and elsewhere. To be ignorant of some
particular state of affairs before one has the facts is hardly a
shameful
thing. To try to DEFEND that ignorance after being apprised of the
facts,
however, is stupid. Please note that I am making a careful distinction
between ignorance and stupidity. The former is often only temporary; the
latter tends to be lasting.

Your entire diatribe about language and word usage is then,
according to the above, *stupid*.

Language *is* dynamic.

Again, that is the eternal argument of the semi-literate and those whose
grasp of language is feeble. Every error is followed by the excuse,
"language is dynamic." Since these people cannot be made to understand
their
mistakes, they never improve.

Hogwash. You are suggesting we should all be speaking Chaucer's
English.

No. We speak Modern English. Chaucer wrote, and presumably spoke, Middle
English. Even Modern English has changed since Shakespeare's time, but
that's over a period of 400 years. Evolution of language is inevitable and
natural up to a point, but it's not evolution when a perfectly sensible
technical term is, through misunderstanding and/or ignorance, redefined in a
nonsensical manner. Evolution implies improvement, not deterioration.

N.

"no_name" wrote in message
om...
Nostrobino wrote:

"no_name" wrote in message
om...

Nostrobino wrote:


[ . . . ]

Just because "popular usage" may not appear in a particular dictionary
does not constitute "misuse".

If you speak of a prime lens to photographers, they know what you're
talking about.


The problem is, they may not. I do sometimes have occasion to mention
"prime lens" and I assure you I use it correctly. People who think it
means fixed focal length will, therefore, not understand what I am
saying.

N.

Oh-ho, so that's it. Anyone who doesn't instantly understand your feverish
babble is an ignorant, "semi-literate ... whose
grasp of language is feeble"

Thank you for playing. You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

GUFFAW!

Your taste in TV shows explains a lot!

N.

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Nostrobino
writes

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...

I agree with the first part of the above. The only point in which my
understanding differs is that the traditional use of the term "prime"
was
in the sense of "primary" as opposed to secondary or auxiliary optical
components such as tele-converters, wide angle attachments, close up
lenses and the like. Thus prime as in the Latin "primus", first or
primary.

This is the interpretation given in the more rigorous works on
photography
I consulted on this issue when the point was debated here (ad nauseam)
several years ago. (Anyone remember Neil Harrington?)

I do!

I see him every time I shave. :-)

N.

Oh, Hi Neil!

David
--
David Littlewood

Hi David!

N.

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:

Your sources are in error. Anyone can set up a web page which says
anything,
and in this case you have pages repeating misinformation the authors
presumably obtained from other sources on the Internet, such as the
newsgroups where this misusage occurs. Doubtless there are web pages
about
kidnappings by flying saucer which are about as reliable as the ones you
list.

Indeed, you can find a large number of supposedly-authoritative sources
about photography repeating the tale about light meters being calibrated
to 18% gray -- the fact that they aren't and never have been doesn't seem
to stop people from believing it.

Really? That's something I've always just accepted as true myself. Now
you've piqued my curiosity: how is the 18% tale wrong?

Isn't an 18% gray card really 18% gray? (I have one around here somewhere
but never thought to test its eighteen-percentness. :-) )

N.

"Peter" wrote in message
ups.com...
[ . . . ]
The reason is that the terms are
defined as they are for the convenience of people discussing
photography in a technical way. The idea that the meanings
should change with fashion makes nonsense of the reasons for
having technical vocabulary in the first place.

Well and truly said.

N.