Rant, rant, rant.. it really gets my goat...

What gets me is people talking about their cameras as if they are cars belonging to 18 year olds. I went out to take photos with my D7200rs, yes the one with moded full blown turbo and twin 3" exhausts. My Ssangyong 18 lens"e" with the alloy end caps was flying.
 
TLR-330 said:
What gets me is people talking about their cameras as if they are cars belonging to 18 year olds. I went out to take photos with my D7200rs, yes the one with moded full blown turbo and twin 3" exhausts. My Ssangyong 18 lens"e" with the alloy end caps was flying.
Click to expand...

then posting pix of their cars with the above equipment followed by a full description of the car plus add ons..
 
[QUOTE="Kodiak Qc, post: 7899604, member: 79796… and I don't have a TV… [/QUOTE]

That is the best way.


Steve.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Oohhh, where shall I start? :D

I'm with you on both 'stunning' (the most overused word in photography today) and 'capture', but I have to throw in 'editing' used when people mean 'processing'.
Click to expand...


And here's me thinking that when you said "editing", I thought you meant "manipulation".

I revoke my "like".
 
TheBigYin said:
I have to say I was against adding that damned button for just that reason,
Click to expand...
Now I have a quandary do I write a diatribe about said button or just hit the damned "like" button :thinking:
 
And another thing: people who put their entire gear list in their signature as if it's a list of awards and qualifications, especially the ones with Canon kit who change the font colour to red for their L lenses. Blatant camera porn show offs :p

(Now where did I put my tin hat?) :exit:
 
Last edited:
Nifkin said:
And another thing: people who put their entire gear list in their signature as if it's a list of awards and qualifications, especially the ones with Canon kit who change the font colour to red for their L lenses. Blatant camera porn show offs :p

(Now where did I out my tin hat?) :exit:
Click to expand...

And another: people who change the font colour to black so that people who view in "night" style can't read the message. :p
Screenshot 2017-07-28 10.47.00.png
 
Snip:
Nifkin said:
And another thing: people who put their entire gear list in their signature as if it's a list of awards and qualifications, especially the ones with Canon kit who change the font colour to red for their L lenses. Blatant camera porn show offs :p
Click to expand...

Ah, so it's done to show off, and there was me thinking such lists were posted on open internet forums as a shopping guide for burglars?! :confused:
 
Ed Sutton said:
Oohhh, where shall I start? :D

I'm with you on both 'stunning' (the most overused word in photography today) and 'capture', but I have to throw in 'editing' used when people mean 'processing'.
Click to expand...

I started 'processing' digital image files around 1980. Back then you couldn't buy a digital camera. The easiest way of acquiring digital images was to use a video camera and run the output signal through a large expensive box which digitised it. You couldn't buy digital image processing programs either. I had to wrote my own, which I did in Pascal in a Three Rivers (ICL) PERQ which had a massive 64KB of disc hard drive. The images were 256x256 8 bit monochrome pixels. Back then I also developed and enlarged my own monochrome film images. The process of printing out a big sheet of tiny 35mm images, selecting the best, and marking them up with desired changes which were then done in the darkroom was known as image editing. It was the obvious analogy with scribbling the desired changes all over a printed draft of a document and then using a text editing program to make the required changes. The early word processors were generalised developments of the source code editors which computer programmers had long been using to edit their program source code.

That's why I call all the image file processing programs I use "image editors" and why I call using them "image editing". I call it editing when what I'm doing is an interactive process of making and reviewing changes to an image. I call it processing when it's a completely automated process that works on the image all by itself, without my supervision or interference, while I simply wait for the result. That's why I'm sticking to my usage of such phrases as "image editing". However, I'm quite willing to change my mind if offered a convincing principled argument.
 
chris malcolm said:
I started 'processing' digital image files around 1980. Back then you couldn't buy a digital camera. The easiest way of acquiring digital images was to use a video camera and run the output signal through a large expensive box which digitised it. You couldn't buy digital image processing programs either. I had to wrote my own, which I did in Pascal in a Three Rivers (ICL) PERQ which had a massive 64KB of disc hard drive. The images were 256x256 8 bit monochrome pixels. Back then I also developed and enlarged my own monochrome film images. The process of printing out a big sheet of tiny 35mm images, selecting the best, and marking them up with desired changes which were then done in the darkroom was known as image editing. It was the obvious analogy with scribbling the desired changes all over a printed draft of a document and then using a text editing program to make the required changes. The early word processors were generalised developments of the source code editors which computer programmers had long been using to edit their program source code.

That's why I call all the image file processing programs I use "image editors" and why I call using them "image editing". I call it editing when what I'm doing is an interactive process of making and reviewing changes to an image. I call it processing when it's a completely automated process that works on the image all by itself, without my supervision or interference, while I simply wait for the result. That's why I'm sticking to my usage of such phrases as "image editing". However, I'm quite willing to change my mind if offered a convincing principled argument.
Click to expand...

You've given your convincing argument when you say: "The process of printing out a big sheet of tiny 35mm images, selecting the best, and marking them up with desired changes which were then done in the darkroom was known as image editing."

Exactly, Editing pictures is a selection process. What is then done to the selected (edited) pictures isn't editing.

Unless you do a second edit to thin the selection further. ;)
 
Ed Sutton said:
You've given your convincing argument when you say: "The process of printing out a big sheet of tiny 35mm images, selecting the best, and marking them up with desired changes which were then done in the darkroom was known as image editing."

Exactly, Editing pictures is a selection process. What is then done to the selected (edited) pictures isn't editing.

Unless you do a second edit to thin the selection further. ;)
Click to expand...

It all depends on whether the word edit is being used as a noun, or as a verb. ;)
 
troutfisher said:
I hate it when people post photographs ( captures?) and don't say where it is in the case of landscapes/scenes or what it is in the case of vehicles/aircraft.
Is it too much to ask for a short description of what and where
Click to expand...
I'm with you on this one, most infuriating to see a photograph of something and not be told who/what/where is.
 
Autocorrections - or rather, people who are either too lazy to check their posts after auto cowrecks has done its worst on them or (even worse IMO) don't care.
 
Nod said:
Autocorrections - or rather, people who are either too lazy to check their posts after auto cowrecks has done its worst on them or (even worse IMO) don't care.
Click to expand...
Could we have that again, in the Queen's English this time, please?
 
Some people allow their devices to "correct" their typing but then trust it to do it properly. The most recent example I've seen is where JPEG has been "corrected" to Joel. Most of the corrections can be tailored - unrecognised words can be added etc..
 
Nod said:
Some people allow their devices to "correct" their typing but then trust it to do it properly. The most recent example I've seen is where JPEG has been "corrected" to Joel. Most of the corrections can be tailored - unrecognised words can be added etc..
Click to expand...
Yes: where I work we used to have a director whose first name was Prashant: his PA would often send out department-wide updates and round-ups on his behalf where 'Prashant' had been auto corrected to 'Peasant'. We did hoot: more on the many subsequent occasions than the first.
 
My sister's oldest brat started to call me Nob (much to its mother's amusement) so I started calling it Harlot instead of Charlotte - soon cured it of the Nob nonsense!
 
Ed Sutton said:
You've given your convincing argument when you say: "The process of printing out a big sheet of tiny 35mm images, selecting the best, and marking them up with desired changes which were then done in the darkroom was known as image editing."

Exactly, Editing pictures is a selection process. What is then done to the selected (edited) pictures isn't editing.

Unless you do a second edit to thin the selection further. ;)
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that!
 
Nod said:
My sister's oldest brat started to call me Nob (much to its mother's amusement) so I started calling it Harlot instead of Charlotte - soon cured it of the Nob nonsense!
Click to expand...
The CEO of Talk Talk used to be Dido Harding, when emailing her to complain about the service, I must admit to reading through a few times, "just in case" :D
 
Ed Sutton said:
You've given your convincing argument when you say: "The process of printing out a big sheet of tiny 35mm images, selecting the best, and marking them up with desired changes which were then done in the darkroom was known as image editing."

Exactly, Editing pictures is a selection process. What is then done to the selected (edited) pictures isn't editing.

Unless you do a second edit to thin the selection further. ;)
Click to expand...
With writing, editing involves correcting spelling, grammar, punctuation and any other issues the publisher thinks might need correcting. It is not just selecting.

If you read a poorly published novel, it rapidly becomes clear that most publishers no longer employ copy editors.
 
john.margetts said:
With writing, editing involves correcting spelling, grammar, punctuation and any other issues the publisher thinks might need correcting. It is not just selecting.

If you read a poorly published novel, it rapidly becomes clear that most publishers no longer employ copy editors.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about writing. We're talking about photography.

Good publishers employ picture editors who select pictures.

"The Guardian’s picture editors bring you a selection of photo highlights from around the world..." https://www.theguardian.com/news/ga...hotos-of-the-day-ballooons-and-open-air-films They didn't do any of the processing. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top