Ping Tony Cooper

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

could you give me a definition of a long lens.

It depends on what is being photographed.

no it doesn't.

Yes it does. I this context 'long' is a value judgement and it depends
on the viewpoint of the person describing a lens as 'long'.

focal length is not a value judgement. it's a physical attribute of a
lens.

Bzzzt!
Thanks for playing, but Eric wasn't talking in millimeters, but in a use
context.

use context does not matter.

It sure as hell does to the user.

*which* lens to use is up to the user, but that doesn't change the
attributes of a given lens.

a long lens does not become not long because someone uses it in a
different manner.

the definition is clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
In photography, a long-focus lens is a camera lens which has a focal
length that is longer than the diagonal measure of the film or sensor
that receives its image.

The Wiki gives two sources.

which you're ignoring.

You are welcome to use 'long' in that
sense if you want but you weren't the person who first used the term
in that sense. It was Tony Cooper. It is up to Tony to define what he
meant by 'long' in this discussion.

he doesn't get to redefine photographic terms.

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:


He also hangs out in the Linux groups.

i do not, not that it matters. stick to the topic.

some posts are crossposted there.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:57:45 -0400, nospam
wrote:

You are welcome to use 'long' in that
sense if you want but you weren't the person who first used the term
in that sense. It was Tony Cooper. It is up to Tony to define what he
meant by 'long' in this discussion.

he doesn't get to redefine photographic terms.

"Long lens" is not a photographic term. It's a photographer's term
that describes a lens according to the photographer's definition of
"long lens" and comparison to other lenses.

You might not be able to understand the difference between a
photographic term and a photographer's term, but photographers do.

Actually, you probably can and probably fully understand that the use
of "long lens" is exactly as have described, but agreeing takes away
your argument and your ability to stay in a conversation and be
noticed. That's what you can't handle.

But I'll play your game. Ask a photographer what his "wide angle
lens" is. He'll tell you that it's the lens in his bag* that captures
the widest field of view. There is no specific lens that is a wide
angle lens. It could be a 10mm, 16mm, or 24mm or other number lens.
The photographer's term is non-specific and relates to what the
photographer considers to be the lens that suits his
needs/interest/budget or the lens that he owns.

You will pounce on that and say that a "wide angle lens" is a lens
whose focal length is substantially smaller than focal length of a
normal lens for a given film plane. That's the photographic
definition.

Have fun, glory in the attention. Try to convince yourself that
people are paying attention to you and can be swayed by your
arguments.

*bag is also a photographer's term. His "bag" may be a case or any
other container and not a bag at all. It is a non-specific term when
used by a photographer.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

You are welcome to use 'long' in that
sense if you want but you weren't the person who first used the term
in that sense. It was Tony Cooper. It is up to Tony to define what he
meant by 'long' in this discussion.

he doesn't get to redefine photographic terms.

"Long lens" is not a photographic term.

it is.

It's a photographer's term
that describes a lens according to the photographer's definition of
"long lens" and comparison to other lenses.

what a ludicrous comment.

it's a photographic term describing the attributes of a particular lens.

here's what ken said:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:
A "long" lens would be anything longer than a "normal" lens. In my case
(the Canon FX series from 1964-1969), the first long prime lens would be
85mm. There is a long zoom lens: 55-135mm. Canon made a 1200mm prime
lens in the FL-mount- that would be called a "honking long lens".

why don't you try to 'educate' him that he's also wrong.

You might not be able to understand the difference between a
photographic term and a photographer's term, but photographers do.

Actually, you probably can and probably fully understand that the use
of "long lens" is exactly as have described, but agreeing takes away
your argument and your ability to stay in a conversation and be
noticed. That's what you can't handle.

more of your attacks. you have nothing.

stick to the topic.

But I'll play your game.

it's not a game. as usual, you are wrong and refuse to learn.

Ask a photographer what his "wide angle
lens" is. He'll tell you that it's the lens in his bag* that captures
the widest field of view. There is no specific lens that is a wide
angle lens. It could be a 10mm, 16mm, or 24mm or other number lens.
The photographer's term is non-specific and relates to what the
photographer considers to be the lens that suits his
needs/interest/budget or the lens that he owns.

nobody said there there's only one specific lens. in other words, they
likely will respond with 'which one?' also, what someone chooses to buy
or can afford is entirely irrelevant to the physical attributes of a
lens.

you clearly don't understand some very basic stuff.

You will pounce on that and say that a "wide angle lens" is a lens
whose focal length is substantially smaller than focal length of a
normal lens for a given film plane. That's the photographic
definition.

delete the word substantial and you have the proper definition.

substantially smaller focal length would typically be called an
ultra-wide angle lens, a subset of wide angle lenses. and then there's
fisheye and rectilinear.

you clearly don't understand some very basic stuff.

Have fun, glory in the attention. Try to convince yourself that
people are paying attention to you and can be swayed by your
arguments.

unlike you, i fully understand it and have provided actual definitions.

all you've done is hurl insults.

you're the one trying to convince yourself that you're correct, except
you're not.

*bag is also a photographer's term. His "bag" may be a case or any
other container and not a bag at all. It is a non-specific term when
used by a photographer.

semantic games. more of your bull****.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:01:58 -0400, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:
[...]
could you give me a definition of a long lens.

It depends on what is being photographed.

no it doesn't.

Yes it does. I this context 'long' is a value judgement and it depends
on the viewpoint of the person describing a lens as 'long'.

focal length is not a value judgement. it's a physical attribute of a
lens.

Bzzzt!
Thanks for playing, but Eric wasn't talking in millimeters, but in a use
context.

use context does not matter.

It sure as hell does to the user.

Precisely so.

a long lens does not become not long because someone uses it in a
different manner.

Which must be why nospam not only dodged answering my two examples
of context mattering, but he furthermore deleted them from his response,
clearly in hopes that readers would not notice his dodge.

So then on my 60mm and my 35mm ... why did nospam run away if this is
so obviously clear and free of context as he claims? /S

-hh

In article , -hh
wrote:

a long lens does not become not long because someone uses it in a
different manner.

Which must be why nospam not only dodged answering my two examples
of context mattering, but he furthermore deleted them from his response,
clearly in hopes that readers would not notice his dodge.

i didn't dodge anything. i answered your question, which covered both
of your examples.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

here's what ken said:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:
A "long" lens would be anything longer than a "normal" lens. In my case
(the Canon FX series from 1964-1969), the first long prime lens would be
85mm. There is a long zoom lens: 55-135mm. Canon made a 1200mm prime
lens in the FL-mount- that would be called a "honking long lens".

why don't you try to 'educate' him that he's also wrong.

because he isn't.

that's the point.

nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:
a long lens does not become not long because someone uses it in a
different manner.

Which must be why nospam not only dodged answering my two examples
of context mattering, but he furthermore deleted them from his response,
clearly in hopes that readers would not notice his dodge.

i didn't dodge anything.

Then what’s the answer for each example provided? Don’t dodge again.

i answered your question, which covered both of your examples.

Except that you dodged making a declarative statement: is my 35mm long
or short? And how about my 60mm - long or short?

FYI, one of these lenses mentioned is macro focus capable, which means that it
can shoot sub-1:1 magnification images, which falls outside of your own citation’s
criteria description:

“It is used to make distant objects appear magnified with magnification increasing
as longer focal length lenses are used.�


-hh

In article , -hh
wrote:

a long lens does not become not long because someone uses it in a
different manner.

Which must be why nospam not only dodged answering my two examples
of context mattering, but he furthermore deleted them from his response,
clearly in hopes that readers would not notice his dodge.

i didn't dodge anything.

Then what¹s the answer for each example provided? Don¹t dodge again.

there is no dodge.

i answered your question, which covered both of your examples.

Except that you dodged making a declarative statement: is my 35mm long
or short? And how about my 60mm - long or short?

i did not dodge anything. it's not my problem that you can't do simple
math.

FYI, one of these lenses mentioned is macro focus capable, which means that
it
can shoot sub-1:1 magnification images, which falls outside of your own
citation¹s
criteria description:

³It is used to make distant objects appear magnified with magnification
increasing
as longer focal length lenses are used.²

distant objects, not macro.

you're trying to play games again.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 11:20:20 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

You are welcome to use 'long' in that
sense if you want but you weren't the person who first used the term
in that sense. It was Tony Cooper. It is up to Tony to define what he
meant by 'long' in this discussion.

he doesn't get to redefine photographic terms.

"Long lens" is not a photographic term.

it is.

It's a photographer's term
that describes a lens according to the photographer's definition of
"long lens" and comparison to other lenses.

what a ludicrous comment.

it's a photographic term describing the attributes of a particular lens.

here's what ken said:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:
A "long" lens would be anything longer than a "normal" lens. In my case
(the Canon FX series from 1964-1969), the first long prime lens would be
85mm. There is a long zoom lens: 55-135mm. Canon made a 1200mm prime
lens in the FL-mount- that would be called a "honking long lens".

why don't you try to 'educate' him that he's also wrong.

Because he's not wrong. He's given examples of various lenses that he
considers to be "long lenses". That's the essence of how we use "long
lens".


You might not be able to understand the difference between a
photographic term and a photographer's term, but photographers do.

Actually, you probably can and probably fully understand that the use
of "long lens" is exactly as have described, but agreeing takes away
your argument and your ability to stay in a conversation and be
noticed. That's what you can't handle.

more of your attacks. you have nothing.

stick to the topic.

I haven't strayed from it at all.

But I'll play your game.

it's not a game. as usual, you are wrong and refuse to learn.

Ask a photographer what his "wide angle
lens" is. He'll tell you that it's the lens in his bag* that captures
the widest field of view. There is no specific lens that is a wide
angle lens. It could be a 10mm, 16mm, or 24mm or other number lens.
The photographer's term is non-specific and relates to what the
photographer considers to be the lens that suits his
needs/interest/budget or the lens that he owns.

nobody said there there's only one specific lens. in other words, they
likely will respond with 'which one?' also, what someone chooses to buy
or can afford is entirely irrelevant to the physical attributes of a
lens.

Oh, but it does. If you are contemplating buying a long lens, then
the cost becomes very relevant. The person may have decide between a
70/200 f/2.8 or 55/200 f/4-5.6 depending on how much he's willing to
spend. Both are long lenses.


you clearly don't understand some very basic stuff.

You try to claim this, but just repeating it doesn't refute what I
said.


You will pounce on that and say that a "wide angle lens" is a lens
whose focal length is substantially smaller than focal length of a
normal lens for a given film plane. That's the photographic
definition.

delete the word substantial and you have the proper definition.

substantially smaller focal length would typically be called an
ultra-wide angle lens, a subset of wide angle lenses. and then there's
fisheye and rectilinear.

you clearly don't understand some very basic stuff.

You try to claim this, but just repeating it doesn't refute what I
said.


Have fun, glory in the attention. Try to convince yourself that
people are paying attention to you and can be swayed by your
arguments.

unlike you, i fully understand it and have provided actual definitions.

all you've done is hurl insults.

you're the one trying to convince yourself that you're correct, except
you're not.

*bag is also a photographer's term. His "bag" may be a case or any
other container and not a bag at all. It is a non-specific term when
used by a photographer.

semantic games. more of your bull****.

This whole thing is "semantics". You clearly don't understand your
own argument. "Semantics" is about word meaning. "Long lens" has a
meaning that is exactly as I have provided.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida