• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Photographic terminology and words you hate.

...and so is fine- art photographer.
 
I'm most annoyed by people who get tooeasily annoyedbutyes, there are a few that get me too
(bad and careless English) such as 'end result'; which cannot be different from just 'result') or
(technically wrong phrases)such as 'visible light'; what a nonsense;all light is visible;otherwise, it is not lightand along similar lines'IR orUVlight;as no such things exist; it's IRor UV radiation;nevertheless,life is too short to get worked up about it.
enjoy photogrsaphy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RalphLambrecht said:
... such as 'end result'; which cannot be different from just 'result' ...
Click to expand...

When I hear "end result" I wonder where the "beginning result" can be found.
 
You could call a negative an "intermediate result" or a work print a "preliminary result." I'm not bothered by "end result."

"Fine art" is okay by me, if it's used to distinguish something from "applied art," but it is annoying when it's misused, as it is in most cases.

"Bokeh" as Mike Johnston did much to popularize it in the contemporary photographic lexicon is a meaningful and useful concept, but not entirely new, as there was language in English for describing the aesthetic qualities of the out-of-focus part of an image in the age of soft-focus lenses. The idea of "more bokeh" or "less bokeh" makes no sense.

I've never been inclined to say "soup," but it doesn't bother me.

"Trannies" for slides--let's not go there.

I can't abide "workflow," "giclée" or "pigment print" for inkjet, "post production" for still photography, or "digital darkroom."
 

Do I understand you to say that using such words to discuss a photograph does not bother you, rather their inaccurate or inappropriate use does? If that's the case, that's different from what you originally wrote, and I understand that about not only these terms but all language in general. Thank you for clarifying.
 
JLP said:
Yes, one that I find very annoying "Shot" as in nice shot!
Click to expand...

I fully agree!
I shoot a gun and photograph with a camera.
 
When did the use of "to shoot" came up?
I assume this happened with the advert of small, eye-level cameras and long lenses.
 

I think that's a darkroom that also has a "wet" bar. Unfortunately, as the printing session wears on, the prints get worse.
 
All that ghastly 'artspeak' such as occluded, paradigm,interstitial, armature etc....It's not that the words are necessarily BS on their own, but some people seem to have a knack of putting them together to make them complete gibberish.
 
M Stat said:
For me the term "wet" darkroom is infuriating.
Click to expand...


The dry darkroom is the smallest bedroom in my place and that is were the enlarger and drum print dryer are used. The wet darkroom is where the paper is developed and washed. The JOBO processor is used in the kitchen.

Exactly what is infuriated about that?
 
The worst bit of artspeak I ever encountered was a statement that the photo was "uniquilized" by scratching the print. I about gagged.
 
"Seven aberrations of Seidel."

Doh! A much-loved and hyped term among "the knowing" second only to bokeh.
What does it matter, and why? Can we just call variations of lens characteristics "aberrations" rather than have to grasp for a lexicon?
 
Poisson Du Jour said:
"Seven aberrations of Seidel."

Doh! A much-loved and hyped term among "the knowing" second only to bokeh.
What does it matter, and why? Can we just call variations of lens characteristics "aberrations" rather than have to grasp for a lexicon?
Click to expand...

You are much too intelligent to be listening to those dunderheads anyway.
 
It seems to me that our objections can be grouped thusly:
*Our terms that have been borrowed by the dark side without apparently understanding what borrowed terms mean.
*Their terms that have been brought into our lexicon by dark siders who come into the film world to see what all the fuss is about here.
When one of their words is used in our world, our world loses some of its purity. When one of our words is used on the dark side, we scoff.
Should we be tolerant? Uh... no.
The dark-siders who come into our world should be respectfully reeducated. At the same time, we should simply ignore what goes on in their world... It is their world after all. If they want to call a desk, PC, and ink jet printer a "dark room" then let them. We know what a darkroom is.
I wonder, am I being respectful when I call the digital world the "dark side"
 
Jim Noel said:
I fully agree!
I shoot a gun and photograph with a camera.
Click to expand...

"...photograph with a camera"? And I thought people these days are getting all uptight about using nouns as verbs...
 
i'm a cool, relaxed beer-guzzlin fella... but one that sends me ballistic every single time is...

"len"

[unprintable]
 
RalphLambrecht said:
(technically wrong phrases)such as 'visible light'; what a nonsense;all light is visible;otherwise, it is not lightand along similar lines'IR orUVlight;as no such things exist
Click to expand...

Since there are creatures such as insects and hawks with functional vision into the UV spectral range, it seems reasonable to refer to UV as light, at least to the wavelengths that fall within their visual capabilities, and within the context of the visual systems of those ceatures. It is not something that bothers me enormously, but you are probably technically correct about the rest.
 
One cannot but balk at any of the terminology associated with mainstream model photography, especially the digital type. It is so far removed from what I consider to be proper photography, that it seems like an alien recreation form usurping our terminology. Half-worlds such as 'tog rile me, and I had to enquire what exactly TFCD meant (and still took a while to get my head around why either the 'tog or wannabe model would bother). I suppose it is new tools, same old vanity.

"Bokeh", "sharp", "contrast", "micro-contrast" and a few other similar terms in the hands of the untalented can ruin an otherwise good conversation. "Soup" is another one I don't take to. Even "brew" seems more appropriate by comparison. Grain in reference to digital files, is another pet peeve. And to top it, someone must tell me a digital camera produces "film-like" images. I then instantly doubt the sincerity of the statement.

The term "Fine-art photography" has a very special place right at the top of my list of unscratchable itches. I cannot imagine the photography world any poorer should it disappear.

"Shoot" and "shot" fall into the same category of "snap", "click" etc. As long as those terms are used relating to family photographs or the weekend's party pics, or even to street or candid photographs where the theme is the hunt or the quickness of the taking moment, it does not particularly seem out of place. It would seem strange to use such a term for night photography or anything made with a pinhole, 4x5 or larger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
life's too short to go around hating anything, let alone words.
trite, I know, but really, the only consequence of other people using words in a way one doesn't like them to be used is one's own irritation.
get (as they say) over it.
 
Interesting responses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pdeeh said:
the only consequence of other people using words in a way one doesn't like them to be used is one's own irritation.
Click to expand...

yes, but often, they are not even words. Like alot.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register