Photography is tough to get your head around technically.

Add in video and it gets even tougher, but it does not help when the already contradictory terminology is confusingly or inaccurately described.

For example.

Apertures are wider (which means small numbers), not smaller, because smaller means a smaller aperture hole (which has a bigger number) and a resulting deeper depth of field rendering*. I have actually had to sit through a lengthy vlog post by a well liked and quite knowledgeable reviewer who constantly said a wide aperture lens had “more of a depth of field” (!?) when he actually meant it could achieve “shallower” depth of field (i.e. less), just to get to a small point of interest.

Occassionally there is an on screen correction, probably after the comments section pulls them up, but just as often, they do it all again in a later video.

Apart from the casual, on-trend use of English, the reviewer was just plain wrong, further confusing the already confusing. Even if he had said depth of field “effect”, he would have made some sense (assuming he meant more Bokeh or shallower), but the quantitive description was at odds with a qualitative get-out-of-jail.

It is hard.

Smaller numbers = wider apertures = less depth of field = more light.

Conversely bigger numbers = smaller apertures = deeper depth of field = less light.

This all makes little sense on the surface, but never the less is correct and unfortuantely Shutter speeds, ISO’s and other elements of the craft get similar treatment. Add all this to the difference in formats and the baked in pre-conceptions that come with them, which also have a couple of hard rules often ignored** and it all just gets brain melting, so it is even more important to be consistent.

This often seems to be more of a video thing, probably because the bulk of the new guard in this field are younger and their photographic grounding is less solid. Some of my favourite vloggers are guilty of this so I am not on a hate crusade, just hoping for a little more professionalism.

I am also accepting of the changing face of English, the largely AWOL “ly” in our current vernacular and the often redundant use of terms like “most unique” (it either is or it isn’t), but lets try to actually learn the right terms with the technical stuff, not just regurgitate the errors of those we follow.

Another bug-bear of mine is format bias, under qualification or even ignorance***. I remember reading the Lonely Planet guide to travel photography a few years ago, horrified to find the writer jumped between full frame and APS-C terms without any qualification. One sentence stated the standard lens was a full frame 24-70 L series (but big for travel I would have thought), the next sentence proposed the EF-S 10-22 as a wide and 55-250 as a long tele, ignoring the fact the latter two would not even fit on a full frame camera and they come from completely different stables of Canons range! It was like the writer cherry picked sentences from Canons Lenswork guide, but had little real idea.

It went on, interchanging formats, terminology and brands with little clarity, even dropping a picture of a medium format film camera in as a landscape option for fun. I wondered at the time how many people got confused, frustrated and even wasted money and time thanks to this tome of mis-information.

This also rears its ugly head when a presenter postulates that anything other than the format they use is useless, ignorant of the benefits or history of any others.

While we are at it;

It is Bo (as in Bone), ke (as in Kettle) not Bow-kerr. The “h” was added in the vain hope it would help with pronunciation. The source is Japanese, the Anglicisation dates back to a magazine article in the mid ‘90’s, so check if you need (not hard). Then send Apple a nasty email for their part in buggering it up.

Again, this one is a term for describing the quality of blurring and focus transition, not a measure of quantity. It applies to all images with any out of focus elements and their transition. More Bokeh is more Blur, but better Bokeh is subjective and everyone has a different take on it, so try not ot get too obsessed with it and be kind people. Nobody is wrong here unless they are, well…. wrong.

Rant over,

pretty photo,

moving on………. .

*I used to explain this one by “think of it as a unit of measurement. Bigger number equals deeper depth, like more inches or more fence posts, which is easier than trying to explain the idea of calibers.

**Such as the rule that the same focal length at the same distance to subject has the same DOF at the same aperture no matter the format, but the angle of view and magnification change.

***Like “full frame” is the standard and one true format, even though it was once a hard to sell compromise format based on necessity from its very beginning (don’t get me started). All formats are “full frame”, unless you accept that the term only applies to one, a bit like saying a V12 SUV is “full car” and all others are “cropped”. Try selling that to a Ferrari owner.

****. I just finished watching a lengthy video on the different focal lengths used by different cinematographers, with 19 of the greatest compared, their movies dissected and their thoughts translated. Even a helpful chart at the end. It only occurred to me half way through that it did not seem right. What they were saying and what I was seeing were two very different things. The wide angles talked about were wide, but not as wide as they should have looked. An entire movie like Alien ressurection shot on a full frame 14mm? Seemed fanciful and impractical, then it dawned on me.

At no time during the video or the written article it was embedded in, did the presenters bother to qualify the format parameters (although a shot of Spielberg draped over a super 35 camera might have given it away). They are, I now assume, talking about super 35mm focal lengths, or basically APS-C crop!

My assumption and probably the assumption made by most viewers in this full frame dominated world would have been full frame lenses on full frame hybrid cameras, because that is what most modern videographers are pushing as normal, especially those of us still learning (I was only reminded super 35 was/is the dominant cinema format when researching Anamorphic lenses and the S5).

The Cohen brothers using a 27mm makes more sense now. It is the s35 equivalent to a FF 40mm! Even Kubrick occassionally using a 9.8mm makes some sense (a FF 14mm).