[monochrome]

Thin crust or thick crust?

---

Last edited by monochrome; 03-11-2017 at 12:31 PM.

[BrianR]

A consistent vocabulary across people of any kind is something that has never once happened in the history of language. The beauty of language (particularly English) is that it is quite so fluid and adaptable, but that does mean that between localities, countries, generations and eras, terms can differ significantly, but all the same we can use experience and context to understand easily what each other means.

Unfortunately a lot of people, particularly on forums, feign ignorance to claim that sombody else's use of language is definitively incorrect and that their own is definitively correct, whereas in fact neither can ever be true.

I agree that the fluidity of English is great, but for the clear communication of technical ideas, having a standardized set of terms makes life so much easier. I'm used to textbooks and papers which are consistent within themselves and authors who generally provide the commonly used alternate terms when there isn't a universally accepted standard terminology (and at a minimum provide clear definitions when terms are first introduced). Make no mistake, it was a pipe dream on my part, especially in the context of photography forums.

I definitely agree with the feigned ignorance - there's an all-too common tendency to just assume someone else is off their rocker instead of trying to sort out what they're saying, and I've seen fiery swords brandished by people trying to claim certain terms have one and only one meaning. Words and terms evolve and are often appropriated to multiple uses whether we like it or not. It can be confusing, but there's really no fighting it, just living with it.

[normhead]

If someone honestly can't understand what you're saying because of the term we used, that's one thing.
But someone please save us from those who think they are guardians of "propriety" for they are often pompous asses.

[BrianR]

If someone honestly can't understand what you're saying because of the term we used, that's one thing.

And that's fine, people can ask for clarification, I think that's totally fair. There's an internet-wide eagerness to declare someone as being wrong before taking adequate time to understand what they're saying. I find this frustrating and not helpful. I'm sure I'm guilty of it, but I've been trying to give people the benefit of the doubt and sort through possible communication issues (on both ends) before deciding whether they know what they're talking about or not. I know I can be a dumbass at any moment and misunderstand the obvious, so I try to keep that in mind.

---

Last edited by BrianR; 03-07-2017 at 10:38 AM.

[goatsNdonkey]

A good thing about a forum like this is that people of different backgrounds and levels of knowledge can ask questions about terms others are using, whether those terms are part of a standard accepted set or invented for convenience by individuals.

Friends who used to run a hardware store told me that it was not uncommon for someone trying to do some sort of home repair would begin their inquiry at the store counter saying something like, "I need a thing that fits on a thing." Eventually, through a combination of patience and experience their follow-up questions could usually ferret out what the person actually needed.

[victormeldrew]

I think if we're talking a scientific definition like mistakenly saying 'sodium chloride' when you meant 'sodium hypochlorite' then maybe it's life or death.

When we're discussing an artistic concept like depth of field and it's either 'thick/thin', 'wide/narrow' or 'fat/skinny' or whatever it is...we all get what they're saying, they all mean the same thing and it really doesn't matter if we misunderstand.

[bertwert]

Narrow, Thin
Trousers, Pants
Crisps, Chips
Chips, Fries
Colour, Color
Flavour, Flavor
...

It's all the same thing really...

[p38arover]

Chips, Fries

It's all the same thing really...

I dunno. Down here, real chips are about 10-12mm sq in cross-section, fries are the things Maccas sell, about 3-4mm sq in cross-section. They have different flavours and textures as they cook differently.

Iced coffees aren't the same, either. See my post: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/132-pentaxian-lounge/244510-your-place-759.html#post3934800

[rgknief60]

I think of shallow or deep...except when I'm focus stacking and think in terms of the thin slices (like CT scan) needed to assemble the image. Wonder if "thin" has gained usage as a result of focus stacking technology.

[emergo]

I worked with a so-called "director of photography" on a film shoot years ago who misunderstood basic camera directions and terminology. Every time he claimed he wanted to "stop down" the lens, he would open the aperture wider (and vice versa).

[Jonathan Mac]

"Thin" seems very odd to me, the accepted standard term "shallow" is far more appropriate.

[ChrisPlatt]

I worked with a so-called "director of photography" on a film shoot years ago who misunderstood basic camera directions and terminology.
Every time he claimed he wanted to "stop down" the lens, he would open the aperture wider (and vice versa).

I had a similar experience with the instructor of a ACE photo course I took years ago.
The instructor was a sculptor. Though his artistic perspective and enthusiasm were refreshing
his lack of knowledge of proper terminology and understanding of exposure were exasperating.

Chris

[Wheatfield]

When I started photography (the Sixties) up until I joined PF, depth of field for wide apertures was referred to as shallow.

On PF, I seem many (most?) use the term "thin". When did it change or is it an Americanism?

I think it happened when pedants tried to hijack the language that photographers have always used.
Resist this.

[DeadJohn]

I dunno. Down here, real chips are about 10-12mm sq in cross-section, fries are the things Maccas sell...

I had to look that up to figure what you were talking about.

[Jonathan Mac]

I think referring to "thin" depth of field goes into the same photo-linguistic bucket as "lense" and bokah / bokey / bookeh etc