Ping Tony Cooper

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.

nor am i. what he said matches what i've said, yet you attack me and
not him.





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.

purchasing is not the issue nor has it ever been the issue.

whether or not someone buys a particular lens doesn't change what type
of lens it is.




*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.

nope. what you've provided is nothing more than arguing about long
versus long focus, bag versus case or other container and trying to
move the goalposts by bringing up purchasing choices and budget
constraints.

you also agree that my definition is correct yet you argue and attack.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:58:31 -0400, nospam
wrote:

This is pretty much a typical thread where nospam "contributes".

First, he will find something to argue about. Then he will continue
to argue as long as people respond to him.

At some point, he will say the other person doesn't know what he is
talking about, and then whine about being insulted. At some point he
will claim to be being attacked even though he is attacking the other
person. At some point he will say that something is not the issue
when it clearly is the issue.

Eventually he will twist around and claim the other person is agreeing
with him - even though they are not - and that the other person is the
one who is arguing.

If it's about words or terms, he will claim it's semantic bull****
even though his very argument is based on semantics.

And, he's indefatigable. As long as he gets a reply, he will reply to
that to stay in what he thinks is the center of attention.

You can prove him wrong, but you can't get him to admit to being
wrong. And, this is clearly a case where the meaning of "long lens"
is exactly how it was presented by me and by others.

A very sad little man. Predictable, but sad.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

This is pretty much a typical thread where nospam "contributes".

First, he will find something to argue about. Then he will continue
to argue as long as people respond to him.

At some point, he will say the other person doesn't know what he is
talking about, and then whine about being insulted. At some point he
will claim to be being attacked even though he is attacking the other
person. At some point he will say that something is not the issue
when it clearly is the issue.

Eventually he will twist around and claim the other person is agreeing
with him - even though they are not - and that the other person is the
one who is arguing.

If it's about words or terms, he will claim it's semantic bull****
even though his very argument is based on semantics.

And, he's indefatigable. As long as he gets a reply, he will reply to
that to stay in what he thinks is the center of attention.

You can prove him wrong, but you can't get him to admit to being
wrong. And, this is clearly a case where the meaning of "long lens"
is exactly how it was presented by me and by others.

nope. that's a flat out lie and you're *not* going to get away with it.

you initially claimed a long lens is an opinion (it's not), then you
*changed* that to what i said, all the while pretending i'm wrong.

A very sad little man. Predictable, but sad.

that would be you.

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

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.

How on earth can you say that whan I quoted them?

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.

He gets to know what he means, even if you find that task beyond your
powers.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 12:10:26 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

He isn't wrong and you misunderstand him.

You correctly quote him as saying "A "long" lens would be anything
longer than a "normal" lens." You failed to acknowledge that Ken
failed to define what to him is a normal lens. I expect that to him a
'normal' lens is a lens that he would use for the common majority of
shots. But what does he actually use? Wikipedia is not much use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens says:
"A test of what is a normal lens then, is to find one that renders a
printed (or otherwise displayed) photograph of a scene that when
held at 'normal' viewing distance (usually arms-length) in front of
the original scene and viewed with one eye, matches the real-world
and the rendered perspective, ..." (with various qualifications to
that statement following.)

Once again we have to fall back upon personal value judgements.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:58:31 -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.

nor am i. what he said matches what i've said, yet you attack me and
not him.

I thought it was the other way around. What you think of as Tony's
attack is in fact his vigorous defense.


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.

purchasing is not the issue nor has it ever been the issue.

whether or not someone buys a particular lens doesn't change what type
of lens it is.

When he hasn't yet bought a lens it does affect the type of lens is
may be considering buying.




*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.

nope. what you've provided is nothing more than arguing about long
versus long focus, bag versus case or other container and trying to
move the goalposts by bringing up purchasing choices and budget
constraints.

you also agree that my definition is correct yet you argue and attack.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:56:47 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

This is pretty much a typical thread where nospam "contributes".

First, he will find something to argue about. Then he will continue
to argue as long as people respond to him.

At some point, he will say the other person doesn't know what he is
talking about, and then whine about being insulted. At some point he
will claim to be being attacked even though he is attacking the other
person. At some point he will say that something is not the issue
when it clearly is the issue.

Eventually he will twist around and claim the other person is agreeing
with him - even though they are not - and that the other person is the
one who is arguing.

If it's about words or terms, he will claim it's semantic bull****
even though his very argument is based on semantics.

And, he's indefatigable. As long as he gets a reply, he will reply to
that to stay in what he thinks is the center of attention.

You can prove him wrong, but you can't get him to admit to being
wrong. And, this is clearly a case where the meaning of "long lens"
is exactly how it was presented by me and by others.

nope. that's a flat out lie and you're *not* going to get away with it.

you initially claimed a long lens is an opinion (it's not),

I think that was me.

then you
*changed* that to what i said, all the while pretending i'm wrong.

A very sad little man. Predictable, but sad.

that would be you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

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.

That's a standard trick of his although he denies that he does it.

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
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

help but know - that "long lens" is relative term and not a physical
attribute description of the lens.

it's not relative.

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.

you are once again moving the goalposts and arguing against what was
never said.

Nope. The discussion is about the term "long lens", not "long-focus
lens".

nope. they are equivalent terms.

If you try Googling 'long lens' you find:

the above definition as the first hit.

But I wasn't looking for 'long focus lens'. I was looking for 'long
lens' and that is what my quotes referred to. There is a difference
you know (or perhaps you don't?).

"a lens with a long focal length, especially as a camera attachment
for taking photographs from a great distance."

It also leads you to:

https://www.apogeephoto.com/lenses-t...d-short-of-it/
"When photographers use the words ³long² and ³short² to describe a
lens, they¹re talking about the magnification the lens provides. A
longer lens provides more subject magnificationÂ*so you can stand
farther from your subject and not have the subject appear too small
in the picture."

magnification is a function of focal length.

in other words, they're equivalent terms.

Your argument is fudge.

long lenses are also called telephoto lenses, although that actually
has a specific meaning.

You have tried to divert it to this, but is isn't working.

if anyone is trying to divert it, it would be you.

He is trying (quite successfully) to stick with his original subject.

nope. he doesn't understand basic photographic terms and only wants to
argue, as do you, since your own reference proves him wrong yet you
claim he's correct.

Please explain in one simple non-fudged explanation where my own
reference proves him wrong.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:18:58 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 09/27/2018 10:11 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:30:56 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:54:01 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
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.

You have to wonder how nospam mind works. He's been around a
photography group for yonks. He knows - you know he does - what
people mean when they refer to a "long lens". He knows - he couldn't
help but know - that "long lens" is relative term and not a physical
attribute description of the lens. He must have picked up that one
person's long lens is not necessarily some other person's long lens,
but both have a long lens in their bag. He surely must know that the
choice of what long lens to buy is largely based on what you intend to
photograph. And, of course, cost.

He must know that no one will agree with him, that he's not informing
anyone of anything, and that there's no point to his comment...but he
persists.

How desperate for attention must he be?

He also hangs out in the Linux groups. A poster there one time posted
that it was unfortunate: nospam is quite knowledgeable about Linux, but
his attitude and demeanor turn people off so quickly and completely that
they stop listening to him.

I have a theory about nospam:
He is not a person, but an AI experiment (probably Google or Wikipedia
sponsored). 'His' programming calls for him to pick out a word or
phrase, take a contrary or narrow meaning, and support it with clips
from searches. Note that 'he' has no original content, and frequently
uses catch-phrases.

I too have a theory, but I associate him with autism.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens