Improving your vocabulary for LF

[Heroique]

One to start off – mainly for well-meaning beginners, or veterans who can't break the habit:

When comparing two aperture sizes, it's usually best to avoid the adjectives, "bigger," "larger," "smaller," "lesser," etc.

Better would be "wider" and "narrower."

Poor vocabulary: "I'm using a bigger aperture."

• Better #1: "I'm using a narrower aperture" (if by "bigger aperture" you mean a bigger f-number – for example, f/22 instead of f/16)
• Better #2: "I'm using a wider aperture" (if by "bigger aperture" you really do mean a wider aperture)

Poor vocabulary: "I'm using a smaller aperture."

• Better #1: "I’m using a wider aperture" (if by "smaller aperture" you mean a smaller f-number) – for example, f/8 instead of f/11)
• Better #2: "I'm using a narrower aperture" (if by "smaller aperture" you really do mean a narrower aperture)

In the spirit of improving discussions around here, what's your top suggestion about the many problematic words of LF?

[richardman]

How about just "larger opening." There's no ambiguity. Wider aperture still has the same issue.

[Heroique]

That also sounds like it would help reduce ambiguity and clarify posts.

Another problem word, when used w/o a clear context, is "perspective."

Some people mean "geometric perspective" (for example, using back tilt, or back swing, to manage converging lines); other people mean "viewpoint perspective" (tripod/camera location, lens rise, lens shift).

So go ahead, tell us what you really mean! ;^)

[Vaughn]

Open and close.

As in "open up the aperture more and let some light hit that film!"

or

"Close that puppy down for more DoF."

[evan clarke]

I'm using f4... I'm using f64...etc,etc.

[vinny]

large means big hole, small means little hole. simple. that's it, officially. Alotta folks don't c it that way.

[Heroique]

Another important word that needs our help is the geometric term "plane" – as in plane of focus.

In many discussions, this "plane" mysteriously grows in thickness or depth, usually by "closing that puppy down" (Thanks, Vaughn).

But a plane, in a manner of speaking, is always infinitely flat.

[Vaughn]

So it is not the words themselves that need our help, but instead, the people using them improperly.

[DennisD]

This idea of " improving vocabulary " is an excellent thought.

Perhaps some of the resulting suggestions (or at least brief examples) could be mentioned in the User Guidelines of the Forum. That may help to better acquaint newcomers and users with importance of clear wording in posts.

Otherwise, this thread will ultimately be lost in the endless flow of forum posts.

Dennis "as far as I'm concerned, f64 really is a smaller aperture even though it's a larger number" D.

(With sincere apologies to Rick Denny. I won't do it again. )

[Heroique]

So it is not the words themselves that need our help, but instead, the people using them improperly.

That's right, but I think several important LF words often need to be rescued from our occasional (and habitual) misunderstanding and abuse.

Sometimes, I can even hear these words calling for our help. :D

On the other hand, I don't think they need our help – no matter how loudly they call – when people simply misspell them. They can survive that. So can the poorest of the spellers here, many of whom post the best images and know what they're talking about.

[Maris Rusis]

That's right, but I think several important LF words often need to be rescued from our occasional (and habitual) misunderstanding....

The great philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out that many misunderstandings, fallacies, and mental blind spots are not due to profound philosophical challenges but rather the simple misuse of language. If you don't get the words right you can't think the thoughts that the words carry. Worse still, the very concepts that the thoughts address remain forever closed. There are many examples of unconscious deceits in language that are so common and widespread that most people don't even notice them.

Silver paper? No, there is no silver involved.
A tin of beans? No. A can of beans perhaps.
I'm wearing glasses? No, my spectacles include no glass.
A print? No, a photograph on paper.
A photograph? No, just another picture except for the rare case of a picture made out of light-sensitive materials.
An 8x10 photograph? Possibly, except if it's in portrait format when it becomes a 10x8.
Pinhole lens? Lens shutter should be lens opener? 6x17 roll-film is large format?
...and so it goes!

[Doremus Scudder]

How about just "larger opening." There's no ambiguity. Wider aperture still has the same issue.

"Aperture" means "opening." There is no ambiguity. A larger aperture is a larger opening and a smaller aperture is a smaller opening.

With respect for both the posters and language, I'm not about to dumb down my communication or be less accurate just because some do not understand the meaning of words. I stick with "larger aperture" or "smaller f-number" and let the chips fall where they may. However, "open" and "close" are fine here (and reinforce the meaning of the word "aperture"!)



... Another problem word, when used w/o a clear context, is "perspective."

Some people mean "geometric perspective" (for example, using back tilt, or back swing, to manage converging lines); other people mean "viewpoint perspective" (tripod/camera location, lens rise, lens shift).

So go ahead, tell us what you really mean! ;^)

This is an issue of defining too narrowly. Many words have extended or second meanings which are just as valid as the original definition. It is up to us to disambiguate when needed by providing modifiers and explanations. Both meanings above (and a few others) are fine for the word "perspective."
Maybe we need a new perspective on language here...


Another important word that needs our help is the geometric term "plane" – as in plane of focus.

In many discussions, this "plane" mysteriously grows in thickness or depth, usually by "closing that puppy down" (Thanks, Vaughn).

But a plane, in a manner of speaking, is always infinitely flat.

Here is a case of misusing a word. A geometric plane, by definition, is two-dimensional. Having it be three-dimensional is simply wrong; use a different word!


So it is not the words themselves that need our help, but instead, the people using them improperly.

Literacy is a wonderful thing. We sometimes forget what a rare commodity it really is. Public education doesn't help much anymore in that department, so it is, indeed, up to us to gently assist those in need and educate when we can so that knowledge doesn't simply disappear.


The great philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out that many misunderstandings, fallacies, and mental blind spots are not due to profound philosophical challenges but rather the simple misuse of language. If you don't get the words right you can't think the thoughts that the words carry. Worse still, the very concepts that the thoughts address remain forever closed. There are many examples of unconscious deceits in language that are so common and widespread that most people don't even notice them.

Silver paper? No, there is no silver involved.
A tin of beans? No. A can of beans perhaps.
I'm wearing glasses? No, my spectacles include no glass.
A print? No, a photograph on paper.
A photograph? No, just another picture except for the rare case of a picture made out of light-sensitive materials.
An 8x10 photograph? Possibly, except if it's in portrait format when it becomes a 10x8.
Pinhole lens? Lens shutter should be lens opener? 6x17 roll-film is large format?
...and so it goes!


Exactly! Lack of precision and misuse of our language is a deficiency syndrome and needs to be treated. Those of us who aspire to disciplined thinking need to beware of the growing tendency to dumb things down and counter by being all the more accurate. With a new word comes a new thought. Illiteracy doesn't necessarily mean lack of intelligence, but a lack of education does mean a lack of thoughts.

However, Maris, I might contend some of your examples:rolleyes:

Silver paper does indeed have silver in it... That's what forms the photographic image. Silver-gelatin paper is a fairly exact description of black-and-white photographic paper.

"Tin" instead of "can" is a holdover from when cans were indeed made of tin. Some still are. I'll let that pass in the interest of etymological history.

The same for "glasses." Although most spectacle lenses are polycarbonate these days, I have a couple of pair that are indeed glass.

A photographic "print..." Now here is a can of worms. I'll stick with "print," however, as a valid usage for describing a photograph made on photo paper even though nothing is really pressed into or onto the paper.

A "photograph" is simply a "drawing made with light," so if there is a light-sensitive image capture in the process, I believe it is accurate to describe the resulting image as a photograph.

How about "portrait 8x10" and "landscape 8x10"? I accept the different conventions between American and British English usage in putting the smaller unit either first or last, respectively.

"Pinhole lens" is an oxymoron and a great example of unclear thinking!

And so it goes...

When I taught university classes, one of the first things I did was pass out a sheet with a short list of writing guidelines; very simple writing guidelines such as, "never form a plural by using " 's."

I also took off a letter grade from papers that had obviously not been spell checked. I'll spend my time explaining the difference between "advice" and "advise," but I'm not going to correct spelling when that can be accomplished by the push of a button.

Laziness is another topic, but seems rampant as well: "I'm to lazy to search the forum so I'll ask my question..... sorry... (multiple smileys)"

Heroique, maybe you can start another thread about that?

Best,

Doremus

[Peter Mounier]

Bellows extension (as in bellows extension factor for 1:1 close-ups) was a problem for me for a long time. I always thought it was the total distance the bellows was extended from a closed position. Of course it's extension distance from infinity focus. I don't have a better word for it. Any suggestions?

[DannL]

I have always considered "bugger off" to be a term having many uses in photography. It just works. In the darkroom I often use it to describe the current events. Sometimes I will use it in the field to describe the current lighting situation, or weather conditions. I may even use it when being told I'm not speaking according to the The King's English. ;-)

The use of "a larger stop" and "a smaller stop", "a larger aperture" and "a smaller aperture" has been documented in photographic publications since the advent of photography. Correct or incorrect, the meaning is understood. I suspect "wider and narrower" have been used to a lesser degree. But, using such terms would also "create an opening" for terms such as "a taller stop" and "a shorter stop".

[BradS]

My current irritatant is the seemingly ubiquitous usage of the words "shoot" and "shot" to refer to all manner of photographic activities (and even to the state of film!). There was even a post here or over on APUG that referred to exposed film as "shot film"....hideous. Wish that we could get back to using words like "exposed" and "photograph".

[Vaughn]

And the sun never sets (nor does it rise)...the earth is rotating.


Of course it's extension distance from infinity focus. Nope...Bellows extension is just that -- the distance between the front and rear standards (actually film plane and somewhere in the lens). Nothing to do with that distance relative to infinity focus. Now, if you plug in the bellows extension at infinity into the bellows extension factor equation, you should get a factor of 1.

Pinhole lens is an oxymoron? I disagree. Some pinholes create lenses, some are leaks in your bellows -- or in your rubbers (and when was the last time they were made out of rubber? :) )

'wide' and 'long' lenses -- without reference to format can be confusing. And 'long' lenses are not automatically telescopic in design.

And so on and so on...

[Vaughn]

My current irritatant is the seemingly ubiquitous usage of the words "shoot" and "shot" to refer to all manner of photographic activities (and even to the state of film!). ...

I remember when Brett Weston showed his work and talked with my class. Our instructor (he had assisted Brett at one time) had a similar view about the word "shoot" and mentioned it in Brett's presence. Brett made a point to use 'shoot' every time for the rest of his talk with us.

[Peter Mounier]

Nope...Bellows extension is just that -- the distance between the front and rear standards (actually film plane and somewhere in the lens). Nothing to do with that distance relative to infinity focus. Now, if you plug in the bellows extension at infinity into the bellows extension factor equation, you should get a factor of 1.

Thanks for that Vaughn.
I've always had overexposed negs when calculating the B.E.F. by measuring the total distance. I thought my problem was due to a faulty measurement of the extension. I haven't shot close-ups in many years, so I haven't dealt with this in a long time, but I'll have to try again.

[Mark Sawyer]

I remember when Brett Weston showed his work and talked with my class. Our instructor (he had assisted Brett at one time) had a similar view about the word "shoot" and mentioned it in Brett's presence. Brett made a point to use 'shoot' every time for the rest of his talk with us.

Indeed. I use "shoot" when I'm going to take a photograph, "shot" after I've' taken a photograph, and "shit" after I've printed a photograph...

Sometimes the terminology is a little sloppy or informal, and sometimes just technically wrong. How many times have you heard some variation on "A 300mm lens is a normal lens on an 8x10, but it's a telephoto lens on a 4x5"?

[BradS]

Indeed. I use "shoot" when I'm going to take a photograph, "shot" after I've' taken a photograph, and "shit" after I've printed a photograph...

I don't completely object to the usage of "shoot" and "shot" - it just that nobody seems to use anything else anymore. It is as if the correct words had disappeared from usage.

I too often say "shit" when printing....:)


Sometimes the terminology is a little sloppy or informal, and sometimes just technically wrong. How many times have you heard some variation on "A 300mm lens is a normal lens on an 8x10, but it's a telephoto lens on a 4x5"?

I usually just chalk that one up to ignorance.

[Vaughn]

Thanks for that Vaughn.
I've always had overexposed negs when calculating the B.E.F. by measuring the total distance. I thought my problem was due to a faulty measurement of the extension. I haven't shot close-ups in many years, so I haven't dealt with this in a long time, but I'll have to try again.

There are many ways to skin a cat; http://www.largeformatphotography.info/bellows-factor.html

I just use the equation; bellows extension squared divided by the focal length squared = factor

If I am using a 180mm (7") lens and the bellows are extended 10" (from film plane to lens diaphram) then it is 10x10/7x7 = 100/49 = 2 So I double the exposure. I usually want to 'shoot' at a particular aperture, so I usually apply this to the length of the exposure.

[Peter Mounier]

I just use the equation; bellows extension squared divided by the focal length squared = factor

That's the same formula I was using with poor results. That's why I thought my bellows extension figure was too long when measuring the total ext.

[Vaughn]

That is odd, then. First time I have heard of the formula failing. I suggest trying some of the other methods in the link I provided and cross-checking the results. I do not do enough close-up work to trouble-shoot and find the possible error in your calculations. Good luck!

I also use B&W film and usually have resciprocity failure to deal with, so I expose a sheet, process it, then make any needed adjustments in focus and/or exposure.

PS -- probably not the problem, but the factor is a multiplier -- not the number of stops. So a factor of 2 equals one stop increase (or doubling ones exposure time).

[Heroique]

Speaking of darkroom work, mixing ratios, such as 1:3 and 1+3, cause occasional confusion.

For example, 1+3 is misunderstood as "one third" – as in one part A, two parts B, for a total of three.

One might call this a mixed-up solution. ;^)

[Vaughn]

After reading some long threads on that topic, there is no solution!

[Heroique]

Another important word that needs our help is the geometric term "plane" – as in plane of focus.

In many discussions, this "plane" mysteriously grows in thickness or depth, usually by "closing that puppy down" (Thanks, Vaughn).

But a plane, in a manner of speaking, is always infinitely flat.


Here is a case of misusing a word. A geometric plane, by definition, is two-dimensional. Having it be three-dimensional is simply wrong; use a different word!

Hmm, a case of misreading a reply that describes planes as always infinitely flat?

-----
I just have to share some more math vocabulary, since math is so much fun, and this seems to be a recurring phenomenon here:

Let's say someone enlarges a 4x5 negative to an 8x10 print.

Half the people here will describe this as a "2x enlargement," while the other half will describe this as a "4x enlargement." Strangely, each group seems to understand what the other group means, and with a good-natured snicker, will overlook what they consider to be inaccurate w/o offering any overly-precise comments.

Maybe this is a case of half the people being all right half the time, or all the people being half-right all the time. That's for Wittgenstein :D. But whatever the case, all the people can't be all right all the time.

And of course half of everyone here knows which is right, right? ;^)

[Michael Clark]

Hmm, a case of misreading a reply that describes planes as always infinitely flat?

-----
I just have to share some more math vocabulary, since math is so much fun, and this seems to be a recurring phenomenon here:

Let's say someone enlarges a 4x5 negative to an 8x10 print.

Half the people here will describe this as a "2x enlargement," while the other half will describe this as a "4x enlargement." Strangely, each group seems to understand what the other group means, and with a good-natured snicker, will overlook what they consider to be inaccurate w/o offering any overly-precise comments.

Maybe this is a case of half the people being all right half the time, or all the people being half-right all the time. That's for Wittgenstein :D. But whatever the case, all the people can't be all right all the time.

And of course half of everyone here knows which is right, right? ;^)
Hi Heroique, which is it ,a 2x enlargement or a 4x enlargement.I'll go for the 4x enlargement, 5x7 gotta be a 2x.?

[zelph]

One to start off – mainly for well-meaning beginners, or veterans who can't break the habit:

When comparing two aperture sizes, it's usually best to avoid the adjectives, "bigger," "larger," "smaller," "lesser," etc.

Better would be "wider" and "narrower."

Poor vocabulary: "I'm using a bigger aperture."

• Better #1: "I'm using a narrower aperture" (if by "bigger aperture" you mean a bigger f-number – for example, f/22 instead of f/16)
• Better #2: "I'm using a wider aperture" (if by "bigger aperture" you really do mean a wider aperture)

Poor vocabulary: "I'm using a smaller aperture."

• Better #1: "I’m using a wider aperture" (if by "smaller aperture" you mean a smaller f-number) – for example, f/8 instead of f/11)
• Better #2: "I'm using a narrower aperture" (if by "smaller aperture" you really do mean a narrower aperture)

In the spirit of improving discussions around here, what's your top suggestion about the many problematic words of LF?


"wider" and "narrower"? Are you talking slot canyons or lenses?

How about open up and stop down?

[Vaughn]

Hi Heroique, which is it ,a 2x enlargement or a 4x enlargement.I'll go for the 4x enlargement, 5x7 gotta be a 2x.?

Going from 4x5 to 8x10 is doubling the dimensions...:cool:

[Heroique]

I'll go for the 4x enlargement… [4 x the area]


How about open up and stop down?


Going from 4x5 to 8x10 is doubling the dimensions... :cool:

Like it! Like it! Like it!

The clarity around here is spreading like the rays from a rising sun... :cool:

Hope we can address some additional LF terms – important and problematic ones – before this party ends...

[rdenney]

Many of these come from not understanding the basic words, rather than the specific terms of jargon. For example a factor is a factor because it is used in mulitplication. Thus, filter factors and bellows factors are not the same things as filter corrections and bellows extension.

And people, even in technical professions, routinely confuse dimensions with effects, performance measures with objectives, and settings with values. F-stops are settings, the dimension is the focal ratio, and the thing being adjusted is the aperture. An overexposure is a performance measure, an increase in exposure is an objective which may or may not lead to overexposure. Thus, I make a mental note when I hear someone say, "I would like to increase density so I will overexpose by adding a stop to the aperture." Argh! How about "My objective is to increase density, so I will increase the exposure by using a larger aperture."

The problem is not that people confuse bigger and smaller apertures with bigger and smaller F-stop settings, but that they confuse settings with the thing being set. "Wider" and "narrower" skirts the problem without correcting it. And it's harder to type.

But most of all, people sometimes seek to enforce their own point of view by how things are defined, rather than by debate, and they consistently use terms in ways the rest of the world does not to enforce that point of view. I love Maris, but when I look at those wonderful images and see "16x20 photograph" I have to translate that to "16x20 print". Or maybe Maris's camera is bigger than I thought, heh.

In the end, words mean what people think they mean, and any attempt to use them in other ways forces further explanation or undermines communication. The transmitter has no control over the receiver other than putting out a clear signal, but it must be in the proper mode for the receiver if it is to be understood. The only influence we will have on that is by setting a good example and using our superior understanding to make mental translations with good humor.

Rick "enjoying the humor of many responses" Denney

[Maris Rusis]

... I love Maris, but when I look at those wonderful images and see "16x20 photograph" I have to translate that to "16x20 print". Or maybe Maris's camera is bigger than I thought, heh...
Rick "enjoying the humor of many responses" Denney

A very perceptive comment indeed.

A 16x20 photograph on paper alias a "print" is easy to make with a good large format camera that most darkroom workers already possess. But they don't call it a camera. Rather they call it an enlarger even though it really is a projection camera which may serve for enlargements, same size repro, or reductions. Because the enlarger has notionally lost its identity as a camera (which it actually is) the products of its operation have notionally lost their identity as photographs (which they actually are).

A while ago I checked the technical coherence of this view by using my 8x10 enlarger as "copy camera" with gelatin-silver paper in the negative carrier and a transilluminated 8x10 neg on the baseboard. Then I reversed things by putting the negative in the negative carrier and gelatin-silver paper on the baseboard. Yep, the system works both ways and a nice gelatin-silver photograph resulted both times. Just to make sure I then taped a 8x10 negative to a bright window and photographed it using my 8x10 camera with gelatin-silver paper instead of film. Yep, another nice gelatin-silver photograph.

The subtle and pervasive confusions of "enlarger" versus "camera", "film" versus "paper", "photograph" versus "print" are an outcome of the way vocabulary circumscribes the concepts we can think about. At worst it is a form of blindness.

[Doremus Scudder]

... The subtle and pervasive confusions of "enlarger" versus "camera", "film" versus "paper", "photograph" versus "print" are an outcome of the way vocabulary circumscribes the concepts we can think about. At worst it is a form of blindness.

I think we can accept terminology based on accepted usage and in terms of function, even when the function is not a complete description of the system.

We have come to call machines that expose photosensitive material cameras. That's accepted usage and there isn't really another common term that I'm aware of. The word "enlarger" relates to the function of the machine to enlarge negatives. Sure, the optical system is similar to that of a camera and, with a few manipulations and adding a light source, a camera can be turned into an enlarger. But now, the function is different; it would be less precise to call both these machines "cameras." I don't think the difference is all that subtle or confusing:rolleyes:

Again, etymology proves interesting: "Camera," in this case, is short for "camera obscura," or "dark room." The negative is in there in the dark, so we can think of the camera as a dark, enclosed space, and call it a camera. An enlarger is indeed a projector. And, it has a light source built in, so by definition, it is not a camera obscura since it is not dark. (BTW, the original camera obscura was used to project and image to be copied by an artist, oh-oh.... ambiguity again! At least it only had the lens image as the light source, like our present-day cameras.)

I really think "print" is alright too, if only to differentiate it from the negative, both of which are "photograhps." "Photograph" is a rather general term and can mean lots of things from negative to print to hybrid print to...

Film vs paper: well, photographic paper is an emulsion coated on, well... uh... paper. Yes, we could be more precise and always say "photographic paper" to differentiate it from drawing paper and flypaper and... but context is usually adequate here.

Photographic film is an emulsion coated on (you guessed it) film. A commonly used term for a thin, transparent substance.

Yes, you can make a negative or a positive image on either, but one is opaque and one isn't. I think "film" and "paper" are just fine, although it does eliminate the common element, the photosensitive emulsion, which functions the same regardless of the base it is coated on.

I agree that over-simplifying and over-generalizing are a "form of blindness" in their most egregious states, and I really love drawing the connections and similarities between our materials and equipment. but I really don't feel I have a lot of trouble being precise within a photographic context when using the terms "camera," "enlarger," "film," "paper," "print," "negative" and "photograph."

Don't misunderstand me; I hate ambiguity and imprecision and over-generalization. Moreover, as you suggest, we do well to keep the connections and possibilities in mind so we don't limit ourselves due to lack of awareness, i.e., allowing the terminology to limit our thinking. Language is our friend and our enemy here, but it's the best tool we have till we develop some kind of telepathy...

Best,

Doremus

[gleaf]

I have great respect for the effort to bring clarity as it brings accuracy. Truth is that with out the word being in the language the thought it represents is not in the culture. I did not appreciate the scope of the English Language problem until the small pair of flags in the Helgoland store window. English spoken here. American understood. As to apperature. I did check my old brass new arrival.. the f stops run in the modern system. Bigger number smaller opening. Stop it down.. bigger number... oh my.

[ImSoNegative]

I say stop down or WIDE F@CKN OPEN

[Heroique]

Truth is that without the word being in the language, the thought it represents is not in the culture.

Yes, makes one think of all the undiscovered LF terms that are only waiting for us to name and describe them, so we can begin using and sharing them.

LF optimists believe it's an inexhaustible supply; LF pessimists think it's all been done.

I suspect most people migrate between the poles, depending on the day.

[Vaughn]

...In the end, words mean what people think they mean, and any attempt to use them in other ways forces further explanation or undermines communication...

Ah, but if a writer, or speaker, can use words in a new way or in an unexpected way, sometimes a new understanding or way of looking at the world can occur. The reader or listener must be of an opened mind, true. Sometimes it is worth the risk.

[Heroique]

I think Vaughn raises an often neglected, but important point.

Improving one's aptitude for vocabulary isn't just about learning and being a conservator of accepted uses; it's also about being open to new & novel uses that are on their way to becoming accepted. Call it a tolerance for "new wine" – sometimes in an old bottle when presented with old words, sometimes in a new bottle when presented with newly coined words.

The new vintage pours easier when there's an effort to understand, before trying to be understood.

[Michael Clark]

Going from 4x5 to 8x10 is doubling the dimensions...:cool:
The area is four times larger 4x5 to 8x10.??

[Vaughn]

Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn Going from 4x5 to 8x10 is doubling the dimensions...
The area is four times larger 4x5 to 8x10.??

Doubling the dimensions of 4x5, which are 4 and 5, would be 8 and 10. Is 'area' a dimension, or the product of two dimensions? :cool:

[Michael Clark]

Well of course 2 dimensions Length and width.Take's two dimensions to make an area.except a circle maybe.

[Michael Clark]

You are right Vaughn, my wife just explained it to me, math is not my subject.
Heroigue, here is one we use to use in high school,"souping the film" or" dunking the film in the soup."

[Lffbug]

.

Doubling the dimensions of 4x5, which are 4 and 5, would be 8 and 10. Is 'area' a dimension, or the product of two dimensions? :cool:

You've 2x'ed the width, 2x'ed the height, and 4x'ed the area. It's hard to say anyone is either right or wrong if they haven't specified what dimensions they're referring. :)

[Heroique]

Heroique, here is one we use to use in high school, "souping the film" or "dunking the film in the soup."

Think I'll uncork a Merlot to go with that.

Make that Champagne, it's New Year's Eve!

:D

[Michael Clark]

4 hours to go,yeeehaa.

[Vaughn]

I did not offer it as a right or wrong sort of thing -- just being mathematically obnoxious! ;)