rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll - 8 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
* Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go - 10 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
* Automatic Synchronization - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/57b2d58f43b64865?hl=en
* Genuine Fractals - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/48484611a04ef3f9?hl=en
* D90 with grip faster with AA batteries? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0cf4d98bd234f06e?hl=en
* New Mandate: Punography - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
* I hate environmentalists - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 11:51 pm
From: "Jack Torrence"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:CZdWAOLPwJ7JFAn8@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <200420090843000310%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>
> Fair enough but it does not answer my question. The "full frame"
> referred to 35mm FILM cameras. Digital is completely different other
> than the similarity in size and external appearance to 35mm cameras and
> the fact that most can sue the lenses originally for 35mm film cameras
>
> SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
> connected to the 35mm film size.
No. but at the current time it is. So live with it!
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 12:39 am
From: Jürgen Exner
"Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>>>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>>
>> Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
>> "digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
>> the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
>> manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
>> special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
>> illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
>> using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>
>Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?
>Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
As you said yourself, that would be an DX lens or APS-C lens or whatever
you want to call it. And as you pointed out yourself it has to do with
the size of the image cirlce but nothing, absolutely nothing, with
digital versus film.
jue
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 1:07 am
From: Chris H
In message <gsiu18$l4q$1@news.motzarella.org>, Charles
<charlesschuler@comcast.net> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:gYyOwpJz7I7JFAS9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>>
>> What is "full frame"?
>
>An "old" standard based on 35mm film, which is fading toward extinction (the
>film itself is, but not the size).
Now THAT will start the usual trolling as to whether 35mm fill cameras
are dead, live or expanding greatly because film sales have doubled from
2 to 4 rolls a week globally :-)))
> There are lots of lenses out there that
>were designed for 35mm, so the standard and the term "full frame" will
>outlive it roots.
>
>Railroad track spacing can be traced back to Roman times. It's the way
>technology progresses.
Hence it's effect on the size of the space shuttle boosters. I agree,
the term "full frame" is now marketing and does not really have any
relevance as it did. I suppose "full frame" is as good as DX+ or DX2 as
a name as much as "home made" (in our factory :-) or "original" etc
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 1:25 am
From: Chris H
In message <4qupu4thkc36lispqe615t5saee2ql986u@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
<bob@1776.COM> writes
>So as a practical matter, I think the debate now is indeed about terminology
>only, and "full frame" means whatever the term's users say it does. I think we
>should graciously accept Chris's assertion that his original post wasn't a
>troll. But the next time somebody brings the issue up in that form, it
>probably will be.
Thanks. It was thinking about it and came to the conclusion that as the
only connection between a DSLR and a 35mm SLR was the size and external
appearance or both. As noted elsewhere therer are P&S and phone cameras
for which iti is all irrelevant (MP is king :-) So the "full frame" for
a DSLR is independent for a "full frame" for a film camera.
As you say I think it comes down to marketing and the psychological link
between 35mm Cameras and the "35mm" DSLRs as opposed to the "Medium
Format" digital cameras.
I suppose "full frame" is as good as any other name. To be fair Nikon
do refer to it as FX I think over time it probably will be DX and FX
when Nik-anon pull out the next generation of sensors that are bigger...
so MX and "medium-Format"?
IT will be interesting to have physically similar with different sensors
going DX, Full frame, Medium format , the medium coming after the "full
frame" . Perhaps by that time there will be so few who remember the film
cameras that it will just be DX, FX and MX.
Then people will assume the size is just based on an alphabetical
progression.
Personally I am happy with my DX DSLRs and DX lenses with a 12Mp sensor
I can see not reason to go "full frame" The pictures I can produce are
as good as anything I could do with other "miniature" cameras as a
professional studio photographer I know used to know refer to 35mm
cameras.
I can see that the 25MP FX cameras are taking on the lower end Medium
format cameras for studio work. But here the nomenclature blurs as you
are using "full frame" (FX) DSLRs in a space where there are "medium"
format cameras (both Digital and film.) As I said above I think
eventually the next sensor size will be MX and go against the "Medium"
format cameras.
So what size do people call the digital backs for Medium format cameras
now?
BTW I am please to see that thus far it has (almost) been a sensible
discussion without it getting too silly.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 1:34 am
From: bugbear
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> What with Dxo (RAW processor) and Photoshop it seems irrelevant with
>> most of the pro-sumer and better DSLRs that the DX frame size is not the
>> same as the 35mm frame size.
>
> It is quite relevant if you care about producing medium format quality
> prints.
>
> There is a difference in image quality that is significant for the people
> who need it or want it. For 12x18" and larger prints, 21MP in FF is real
> nice. If you don't need the print size, you can use a smaller format.
>
>> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
>> pedants arguing.
>
> No, it's the image quality, stupid.
I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
sensors than so-called-full-frame.
BugBear
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 3:44 am
From: Derge
On Apr 21, 3:34 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
> I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
>
> If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
> sensors than so-called-full-frame.
>
> BugBear
Well we do, of course, but they're *really* expensive. Cost is the
other part of the equation.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:09 am
From: Chris Malcolm
Jurgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Jurgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>>>>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>>>
>>> Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
>>> "digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
>>> the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
>>> manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
>>> special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
>>> illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
>>> using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>>
>>Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?
>>Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
> As you said yourself, that would be an DX lens or APS-C lens or whatever
> you want to call it. And as you pointed out yourself it has to do with
> the size of the image cirlce but nothing, absolutely nothing, with
> digital versus film.
It's also really annoying that we specify lens focal lengths in terms
derived from Napoleon's mistaken estimate of the distance from the
North pole to Paris. I think what Chris H has stumbled upon is one of
the really annoying things about language :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:01 am
From: Chris H
In message <755nqnF16sq7iU6@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>Jurgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Jurgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>>>>>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>>>>
>>>> Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
>>>> "digital lenses".
There are lenses designed to be use specifically with digital cameras.
>>>> All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
>>>> the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
>>>> manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
>>>> special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
>>>> illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
>>>> using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>>>
>>>Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?
>>>Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
>
>> As you said yourself, that would be an DX lens or APS-C lens or whatever
>> you want to call it. And as you pointed out yourself it has to do with
>> the size of the image cirlce but nothing, absolutely nothing, with
>> digital versus film.
I was hoping that this thread would not descend into this sort of
stupidity
>It's also really annoying that we specify lens focal lengths in terms
>derived from Napoleon's mistaken estimate of the distance from the
>North pole to Paris. I think what Chris H has stumbled upon is one of
>the really annoying things about language :-)
I think so. Language and marketing. There is no real need to relate the
digital sensor size to that of one of the many film sizes.
I am quite happy with my DX format digital camera. I can see for various
technical reasons why a larger sensor would be advantageous than the
digital "full fame" APS-C sensor :-) but why call it after an obsolete
size from a different technology (probably should not have said
"obsolete" :-)
As I said Nikon have DX and FX digital. Formats. Give it a few more
years and apart from a very few still using 35mm cameras (who will not
accept "full frame" when applied to digital anyway) I think we will
loose the "full frame" when applied to Digital cameras.
You will have DX, FX and MX (?) when the need a size larger than the FX
arrives. In 15-20 years time the vast majority will assume it was just
an alphabetic progression. Nothing to do with film frame sizes.
As now we have "everyone" with P&S I suspect virtually all the
population who don't have a film camera or DSLR will have little or no
idea about wet film any more. My kid's in their 20's certainly don't
(OK I know there is some one out there with a 10-20 year old who still
develops all their own film at home)
So I think it is time to loose this ridiculous idea of "full frame" for
Digital cameras. They are DX and FX (or whatever the Canon, Olympus,
Sony etc equivalent is) The APS-C format is effectively "full Frame"
for Digital cameras.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 1:06 am
From: "Hans Kruse"
"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0776096-45e4-45bf-8f09-c6cc62dd9bf9@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> With film, and its low resolution (most of it) this was allowable.
> But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33903
This issue has been known for a long time. MLU is available for that reason.
The issue with light tripods and longer vibrations than what might be
expected is also known. You can find a comprehensive study here
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/TheSharpestImage/TheSharpestImage-info.html.
On modern DSLR's where you have live view you can also easily study the
phenomena yourself by turning on live view on a tripod and zoom in e.g. 10x
and see the vibrations. You will also see for nature photography how even a
light breeze of the wind will make movements. Live view is a great tool to
use to make sure that you get the sharpest image on a tripod. I use it all
the time instead of MLU.
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 1:36 am
From: bugbear
Hans Kruse wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e0776096-45e4-45bf-8f09-c6cc62dd9bf9@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> With film, and its low resolution (most of it) this was allowable.
>> But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.
>>
>> http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33903
>
> This issue has been known for a long time. MLU is available for that reason.
> The issue with light tripods and longer vibrations than what might be
> expected is also known. You can find a comprehensive study here
> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/TheSharpestImage/TheSharpestImage-info.html.
> On modern DSLR's where you have live view you can also easily study the
> phenomena yourself by turning on live view on a tripod and zoom in e.g. 10x
> and see the vibrations. You will also see for nature photography how even a
> light breeze of the wind will make movements. Live view is a great tool to
> use to make sure that you get the sharpest image on a tripod. I use it all
> the time instead of MLU.
>
Don't forget gain-up viewing in poor light.
BugBear
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 2:49 am
From: Chris Malcolm
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> RichA wrote:
>>> With film, and its low resolution (most of it) this was allowable.
>>> But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.
>>>
>>> http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33903
>>
>> As usual, you're an idiot, Rich. Mirror bounce is no more or less of an
>> issue than it's ever been.
> I'd even maintain it's less an issue, as better materials for the mirror
> and dampening pads have become available.
> No one has given any current data on meaningful effects of mirror slap
> over the last three or so years.
I notice mirror slap blurring on a fairly heavy tripod with column
extended at 500mm on a 14MP 1.5 crop sensor at shutter speeds of less
then about 1/250th sec. It's a slight vertical smear which higher
shutter speeds remove (Benbo tripod, Sony A350, Sony 500mm f8 reflex
lens). I've yet to discover whether such common sense options as fully
collapsing the column to increase tripod stiffness, not using a quick
release plate, adding some more mass or support to the lens, etc.,
will lower the speed at which it obtrudes.
Considering that the camera hasn't got MLU (or a shutter delay which
raises mirror a few secs before shot) this is an annoying discovery!
--
Chris Malcolm
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 3:10 am
From: "Hans Kruse"
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:7Y2dnbhyO4YAGHDUnZ2dnUVZ8gli4p2d@posted.plusnet...
>>
>
> Don't forget gain-up viewing in poor light.
>
In poor light go home ;-)
--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 3:50 am
From: bugbear
Hans Kruse wrote:
> You can find a comprehensive study here
> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/TheSharpestImage/TheSharpestImage-info.html.
Actually, I found a link to a paid for study, not a study.
BugBear
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:03 am
From: Chris Malcolm
In rec.photo.digital Hans Kruse <hans.kruse@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:7Y2dnbhyO4YAGHDUnZ2dnUVZ8gli4p2d@posted.plusnet...
>>>
>>
>> Don't forget gain-up viewing in poor light.
> In poor light go home ;-)
I see you have a brightly lit home :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:17 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <49ed7e81$0$90275$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Hans Kruse says
...
> This issue has been known for a long time. MLU is available for that reason.
According to the article:
"it was confirmed that the vibration generated by releasing the shutter
remains even when a picture is taken after a certain period of time from
the mirror lockup to prevent a mirror shock"
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:19 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <e0776096-45e4-45bf-8f09-c6cc62dd9bf9
@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, RichA says ...
> With film, and its low resolution (most of it) this was allowable.
> But with 15+ megapixel DSLRs, it is a problem.
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33903
Mirrorless cameras are the future. It's not just the mirror vibration.
Getting rid of that mirror allows you to place the lens much closer to
the sensor which is beneficial for the image quality.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:24 am
From: Bruce
"whinee" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The EVF is the future, whether you want it or not.
>It is cheaper to manufacture electronic viewing systems than traditional
>mechanical/optical hybrids.
If it's cheaper, it must be better, eh?
Complete nonsense!
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:44 am
From: "Wilba"
Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> Mirrorless cameras are the future. It's not just the mirror vibration.
> Getting rid of that mirror allows you to place the lens much closer to
> the sensor which is beneficial for the image quality.
Leaving aside the ergonomics of manual focus, would it be practical to focus
by moving the sensor, thus doing away with focus within the lens?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Automatic Synchronization
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/57b2d58f43b64865?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 1:29 am
From: Bigguy
Clo-Clo wrote:
> Any simple way to synchronize 2 or more (preferably identical) digital
> cameras?
>
> Synchronization of the order of 0,1 sec. or better?
>
> The cameras can be cheap and simple (point'n'shoot) or more advanced (DSLR).
>
> I will consider as I said the simplest solution.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
With DSLRs it is fairly simple; use two wired remotes and bodge the fire
buttons onto a relay or opto to get them to fire simultaneously. Or just
press both buttons at once. Or fire both with a single IR remote.
P+S cameras generally (?) don't have wired remotes and rarely any (IR)
remote at all. You can 'modify' the fire button - wiring directly into
the contacts on the switch.
I have seen kite photograhy rigs where the fire button is pressed using
a solenoid/actuator.
With P+S cameras there is also the autofocus/shutter lag problem; they
may not both respond at the same time. Are there any P+S models where
you can use pre/manual focus?
Maybe a simple pair of P+S cameras with an IR remote would sync
reasonably well - It's worth a try...
Guy
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Genuine Fractals
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/48484611a04ef3f9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 1:29 am
From: van dark
I should like to instal and use a Genuine Fractals on my PC. Is Genuine
Fractals able to run in Windows 2000 and Photoshop 7.0?
Thanx for reply
==============================================================================
TOPIC: D90 with grip faster with AA batteries?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0cf4d98bd234f06e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 2:54 am
From: douglas@fair-dinkum.com.au
On Apr 16, 10:06 am, "Focus" <d...@mail.me> wrote:
> If you can believe the manual: on page 184:
>
> "Higher frame rates are available with AA batteries; note, however, that in
> the case of AA batteries the frame
> rate will decrease as battery level drops."
>
> That's all. Nowhere it reads how many frames or how much difference between
> EN-EL3e and AA batteries and which kind.
> Does anybody know? I tried but I can't feel hear or see a difference.
>
> However, I do have a theory: it seems the D90 manual is a copy of the D300
> manual and a bad one. They left things in that a clearly about the D300.
>
> On page 178:
> "Exposure can be fine-tuned separately for each Custom Settings bank and is
> not affected by
> two-button resets."
>
> I searched high and low, but I'll be a donkey's ass if I can find any custom
> settings bank on the D90. However, the D300 did have 4 custom settings
> banks.
>
> --
> ---
> Focus
What it doesn't tell you is the life (number of frames) is no were
near that of using a pair of genuine batteries!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Punography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 3:51 am
From: Chris Malcolm
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Frank ess <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a
>>>>> naked girl with a pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for
>>>>> sure...
>>>>
>>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>>> would be language-independent.
>>
>>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without
>>> language... and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even
>>> in French. I've heard the word 'chat' used in France to describe a
>>> womans....!
>>
>> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I
>> guess it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
>> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical
>> problem I think purely in terms of mental images of things
>> interacting with one another. Not only are no words involved, but
>> it can be quite hard to find the words to describe what can be
>> easily seen in the mind's eye. It's also famously the case that
>> musical thinking can be very detailed and precise yet often
>> impossible to put into words.
>>
>> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
>> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.
> I guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun that
> does not depend on words.
> Please? More than one, if you got 'em.
A visual pun is something that looks like something else where the
concatenation of both likenesses is funny. I wouldn't like to second
guess what kind of sense of humour you have, but looking through any
book on optical illusions should get you started.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 3:55 am
From: Chris Malcolm
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:24:47 -0500, George Kerby
> <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 4/20/09 6:08 PM, in article
>>bISdnSMPQqzGnXDUnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Frank ess"
>><frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a
>>>>>>> naked girl with a pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for
>>>>>>> sure...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>>>>> would be language-independent.
>>>>
>>>>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without
>>>>> language... and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even
>>>>> in French. I've heard the word 'chat' used in France to describe a
>>>>> womans....!
>>>>
>>>> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I
>>>> guess it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
>>>> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical
>>>> problem I think purely in terms of mental images of things
>>>> interacting with one another. Not only are no words involved, but
>>>> it can be quite hard to find the words to describe what can be
>>>> easily seen in the mind's eye. It's also famously the case that
>>>> musical thinking can be very detailed and precise yet often
>>>> impossible to put into words.
>>>>
>>>> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
>>>> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.
>>>
>>> I guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun that
>>> does not depend on words.
>>>
>>> Please? More than one, if you got 'em.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>><http://www.lifeisajoke.com/pictures388_html.htm>
>>
>>You are welcome.
> All visual puns depend on words. It is the words that the visual
> suggests that makes the pun.
I argue that those are not visual puns, but verbal puns being referred
to visually.
> If we didn't know the words associated with the visual on the link, it
> would be neither a pun nor amusing.
That's why it's not a visual pun. A visual pun depends on "looks like"
rather than "there is another word which sounds like a word describing
this picture" which is a visual reference to a verbal pun.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:00 am
From: Chris Malcolm
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Robert Coe <bob@1776.com> wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> : In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
> :
> : > BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
> : > pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
> :
> : A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
> : would be language-independent.
> The concept of a language-independent pun is a challenge to the imagination.
Try subsituting "looks like" for "sounds like" plus any other
concomitant changes from auditory to visual in your definition of pun.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:36 am
From: Bruce
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>Fish puns anyone?
The only fish puns I know would be better not repeated here. ;-)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I hate environmentalists
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 4:50 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:LHtGl.22779$Db2.6555@edtnps83...
>
>
> Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote connection
> to recreational photography here...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
OK, then lets talk about his image, could we really do his image justice
using a P&S
or would you need a DLSR, and would he be upset depending on whether we use
a Canon or Nikon. What sort of exposure would be required.
Personally, the image I have of him is the south park representaion.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment