What is the correct way to express aperture and focal length?

[Frank Petronio]

Perhaps Dan will oblige. Or Oren. Or someone German, they can pretend to sound authoritative even if they aren't... what is the best way, in English, to "formally" describe a len's aperture and focal length?

For years I've been doing what most people do and writing "90/8" or "210/5.6". If I feel fancy I might use "210mm f/5.6". And I know that gets the information across. But please indulge me here. Should there be a slash before the aperture as though it is a fraction? Is "f/aperture" correct?

Also is it "len's aperture" or "lens's aperture" for a single lens?

[Vaughn]

210/5.6 is good enough for me when talking to fellow photographers.

The Rodenstock enlarging lens on my desk says: 1:4,5 f=135mm -- same for a couple Rodenstock view camera lenses.
But I have another newer Rodenstock that 1:5.6 f=150 -- using a point instead of the comma (but 150mm f/5.6 on the box!)
The Schneider says: 1:5,5/240 and another is 1:8/90
Graflex says: f/4.7, then the serial number, then 135mm
Wollensak says: 15 inch f/5.6
Nikkor says:150mm 1:5.6 (also the same on the enlarger lenses.
The Turner Reich triple convertible is just confused

So I don't think one will find a standard way of denoting focal length and aperture!




And it is the lens' aperture

[Preston]

Frank,

I will usually write something like this: 210mm/f-5.6 @ 1/30s, when I write anything at all.

I have no idea if my way is 'technically' correct, but it gets the point across.

--P

[Leigh]

Hi Frank,

The presumably "correct" way is to give the name of the lens and its aperture, followed by the focal length, as in
Planar f/2.8 80mm. All the lenses I've seen for all formats show the aperture first, followed by the focal length.

The reason is that Planar f/2.8 identifies the design. Designs can be scaled to different focal lengths.

I normally do it the other way around, because anybody will understand 210/5.6. That's f/5.6 since f = 210mm.

- Leigh

[polyglot]

You can do what you like with the numbers, but it's "lens' aperture".

[Sal Santamaura]

...what is the best way, in English, to "formally" describe a len's aperture and focal length?...The best way is the way that is understood by your target audience. :)


...I might use "210mm f/5.6"...That's the correct way.


...Should there be a slash before the aperture as though it is a fraction? Is "f/aperture" correct?...It is a fraction. When fully open, the aperture's diameter (in the case of your example) is 37.5mm, which is 210mm divided by 5.6.


..Also is it "len's aperture" or "lens's aperture" for a single lens?I've sworn off correcting grammar when intent is clear, but, since you asked, Vaughn and polyglot got it right: "lens' aperture."

[Oren Grad]

"Lens" is singular.

As Vaughn pointed out, various notations are used in practice to indicate the aperture. One advantage of the "f/" notation is that it's a nice reminder of where the number comes from. For a compound lens, at infinity focus, the entrance pupil diameter e, the equivalent focal length f and the relative aperture N are related by the formula N = f/e. If you turn it around, you have e = f/N. If you look at an aperture specified as, say, f/4, you're reminded that the entrance pupil diameter is equal to the equivalent focal length divided by the aperture number, in this case 4.

[Leigh]

The colon is frequently used to indicate ratio, as f:5.6
It means the same thing as f/5.6

- Leigh

[Tim Meisburger]

Oren is correct. Lens is singular, and no possessive is either needed or wanted.

[Vaughn]

Oren is correct. Lens is singular, and no possessive is either needed or wanted.

I think it depends...if one is meaning, "The aperture of the lens", then it would be the lens' aperture. If lens is used as a description of the type of aperture, then it would be a lens aperture.

If one is describing the type of hair, then it is cat hair (cat used as an adjective, I suppose). But if you are wondering whose hair it is, then it is the cat's hair.

And the grammatical rule is that if a word ends in 's', the possessive is s' - not s's. Hope the grammar police do not raid my home tonight!

Good night!

Vaughn

[Heroique]

Also is it “len’s aperture” or “lens’s aperture” for a single lens?


And it is the lens’ aperture.


You can do what you like with the numbers, but it’s “lens’ aperture.”


Vaughn and polyglot got it right: “lens’ aperture.”


“Lens” is singular. [i.e., no apostrophe, as in: “lens aperture”]


Oren is correct. Lens is singular, and no possessive is either needed or wanted.

It’s only a matter of time before someone recommends “lens’s aperture,” but for now, “lens’ aperture” is clearly winning – with support for “lens aperture” (no apostrophe) picking up steam.

And if it was “lense” – whoops, sorry – if it were “lense,” should one use an apostrophe? If yes, should it be “lense’ aperture,” or should one also add an “s”? And if one should add an “s,” should the “s” come before the apostrophe (“lenses’ aperture”) or after the apostrophe (“lense’s aperture) – or, should one add neither an apostrophe nor an “s” (“lense aperture”)?

Finally, should the commas in the paragraph above that appear before the quotation marks (‘ “lense,” ’) actually come after the quotation marks ( ‘ “lense”, ’)? And in the preceding sentence, when I type “ ‘ “lense,” ’ ” and “ ‘ “lense”, ’ ” – embedding quotation marks – would it be more clear to use two types of quotation marks as I have done (“ ” & ‘ ’), or only one type (either “ ” or ‘ ’)?

[Oren Grad]

Originally Posted by Oren Grad

[i.e., no apostrophe, as in: “lens aperture”]

Uh, no, I didn't say that. Or mean it.

Cheers...

[Struan Gray]

"f/2.8" is the 'proper' way to write photographic apertures.

Perhaps worth noting is that most of the optics textbooks intended for physicists call this the 'f-number' or 'focal ratio'. That's because there is another definition of aperture used in microscopy (and radiometrics) which is called the 'numerical aperture'. Just saying "lens' aperture" is ambiguous in wider contexts than pure photography.


PS: on eBay, of course, one should use "lenses's aperature".

[Heroique]

Len’s aperture is correct.

If Len chooses another, his image will suffer.

Let’s not question Len’s aperture.

[Doremus Scudder]

Oh boy, great topic; it takes me back to my days of discussing my dissertation with my doctoral committee... Nevertheless, it's worthwhile.

Manufacturers tend to use the ratio to express maximum aperture, e.g., 1:5.6 (for terms expressed in English) or 1:5,6 (for German and most other European languages, the comma replaces the decimal point). One would pronounce it "one to five-point-six" (oder "eins zu fünf-komma-sechs").

For a particular aperture setting within the aperture range, I like to use "f/," as in f/22, f/64, etc. This shows the fraction of the focal length by using the diagonal and is easy to type as well as understand; "f:32" seems easy enough to understand as well, but appears less used.

Designating a particular lens "Nikkor W f/5.6 210mm" is perfectly understandable, but I don't mind reversing the terms either, as in "Wide-field Ektar 135mm f/6,3."

I vote for the more modern "lens aperture," using the word "lens" as an adjective instead of a possessive noun. The Saxon genitive (lens') is disappearing in cases like this, but is still correct as well and I might prefer it for doctoral dissertations. However, I, like Struan, prefer "f-number" or "f-stop" when speaking of apertures since those terms are less ambiguous.

I have a tendency to use the terms "larger aperture" and "smaller aperture" as well at times, but often find myself stuck explaining that the larger aperture is the one with the smaller f-number, but not really, because the f-number is actually a fraction, so 1/5.6 is really larger than 1/22, so when I say use a smaller aperture than f/8 that means f/11, f/16, f/22... and so on. It seems hard to avoid this can of worms but at least you can tell someone to just look at the physical size of the aperture and larger is larger, smaller is smaller.

Rick; as for "where should I put the comma," vs. "where should I put the comma", you should use the former (since you are American). Those in the UK should use the latter (see the Chicago Manual of Style and compare it with the Oxford and Cambridge manuals).

Best

Doremus

[jcoldslabs]

"Len's aperture" makes me think of an orifice that opens and closes on the body of some guy named Len.

But if we're talking about "Frank's aperture" I have a few ideas as to what that could mean. ;)

Jonathan

[Ian David]

It’s only a matter of time before someone recommends “lens’s aperture”

Here I am! Yep, you could write lens aperture, with no apostrophe at all (if used in the same sense as other compound nouns like bottle top, or kitchen table). Or you can refer to the lens's aperture. I don't think lens' aperture is correct in any context. Angst and hand-wringing can of course be avoided by referring to the aperture of the lens. If this stuff floats your boat, Fowlers Modern English Usage is pretty much the pedant's bible.

[Dan Fromm]

Frank, since you asked for my opinion or idea or whatever, I'll reply.

It seems to me that the best answer can be found with lens manufacturers. They haven't always used the same way of describing their lenses' [lens, singular, possessive, lens'; lenses, plural, possessive, lenses'; English is irregular, live with it] properties.

For, say, a 210/5.6 [as I'm used to expressing it], 210/5.6, F = 210 1:5.6, F 210 1:5.6, 1:5.6 F 210, Foyer 210 1:5.6, and 5.6/210 have all been used and all work.

There's no point wrangling about conventions without a higher authority that decrees which convention the world should use. I don't see such an authority.

As for correctness in language, well, there's a school of thought that holds that every utterance by a native speaker is correct. Live with it.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . When fully open, the aperture's diameter (in the case of your example) is 37.5mm, which is 210mm divided by 5.6.

I've sworn off correcting grammar when intent is clear, but, since you asked, Vaughn and polyglot got it right: "lens' aperture."

"Lens'" is the possessive plural. He was asking about useage when talking about a single lens so it's not "lens' aperture."

I don't think it's necessary to use an apostrophe at all, "lens aperture," meaning the aperture of the lens, is fine. But if one felt compelled to use the possessive it would be "len's aperture" when talking about a single lens.

[Dan Fromm]

Brian, most cameras have a lens, not a len. The rule I was taught in grammar school was that the possessive of a singular noun that ends in "s" is the noun plus an apostrophe. Lens, lens'.

As I said, English is very irregular.

[Bill Burk]

52mm equivalent? That seems to be popular these days with fewer optics actually being designed for 35mm but everyone wants to compare to it.

210mm f/5.6

If we were talking about a fluid's container... I wouldn't write ga's tank or gas's tank.

[Steve Smith]

"f/2.8" is the 'proper' way to write photographic apertures.

The 'proper' way would be the way it is marked on the front of just about every lens I have ever seen. i.e. with the aperture as a ratio.

e.g. 1:1.4 f=50mm (50mm Nikkor-S)

or 1:5.6/210 (210mm Symmar)


If we were talking about a fluid's container... I wouldn't write ga's tank or gas's tank.

I have seen a sign outside a house offering items for sale. One of the items was a Ga's barbecue.


Steve.

[E. von Hoegh]

Or F:6.8, as it is marked on one of mine.

[Eric Rose]

Do you have a binder full of optimal lenses?

[Sal Santamaura]

...Also is it "len's aperture" or "lens's aperture" for a single lens?


..."lens' aperture."


"Lens'" is the possessive plural..."Lens" is singular. "Lenses" is plural. See Dan's response above.


...I don't think it's necessary to use an apostrophe at all, "lens aperture," meaning the aperture of the lens, is fine. But if one felt compelled to use the possessive it would be "len's aperture" when talking about a single lens.Frank's question offered a binary choice (from which I selected one, while some other posters sidestepped) that could apply to a description reading, for example, "this lens' aperture operates smoothly after being cleaned/adjusted and is free of incorrect lubricants."

When describing a single lens, the same thing could be said completely omitting those first two words and instead beginning the statement with "aperture operates smoothly after..." Either are perfectly correct.

Unnecessary words may offer creative writing critics something to complain about, but aren't necessarily wrong. :)

[E. von Hoegh]

Do you have a binder full of optimal lenses?

?? Me??

[E. von Hoegh]

I have seen a sign outside a house offering items for sale. One of the items was a Ga's barbecue.


Steve.

Did someone named "Ga" live in the house?

[Steve Smith]

Did someone named "Ga" live in the house?

Possibly.

Another sign outside a café near to me was advertising on its breakfast menu, the usual sausage's, egg's and bean's but the writer obviously got carried away with his apostrophe writing and added toas't.


Steve.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Another sign outside a café near to me was advertising on its breakfast menu, the usual sausage's, egg's and bean's but the writer obviously got carried away with his apostrophe writing and added toas't...Why on earth would the writer have used apostrophes for the plurals sausages, eggs or beans either? None of those are contractions or possessives. :D

[Steve Smith]

Why on earth would the writer have used apostrophes for the plurals sausages, eggs or beans either? None of those are contractions or possessives. :D

It's a common crime here, usually committed by shop keepers and market traders. Sometimes referred to as the greengrocers' apostrophe (I hope I put it in the right place there!).

From Wikipedia:

Superfluous apostrophes ("greengrocers' apostrophes")

Apostrophes used in a non-standard manner to form noun plurals are known as greengrocers' apostrophes or grocers' apostrophes, often called (spelled) greengrocer's apostrophes and grocer's apostrophes. They are sometimes humorously called greengrocers apostrophe's, rogue apostrophes, or idiot's apostrophes (a literal translation of the German word Deppenapostroph, which criticises the misapplication of apostrophes in Denglisch).

Some people seem to automatically write an apostrophe before an S regardless of context.


Steve.

[E. von Hoegh]

What if you prefer to call the lens an objective, as is done in some languages? Where does the apostrophe go then?

[Bill Burk]

I have seen a sign outside a house offering items for sale. One of the items was a Ga's barbecue.

I stand corrected.

To the original question, I prefer to include the units, in general I prefer to keep things clear.

So for example the Dallmeyer Dallon is a 12inch f/7.7

While the font/italic/size makes it more attractive, I'd only do that if I was typesetting. And I really don't like equivalent to 35mm notation, that was being snarky.

[Pawlowski6132]

We don't shoot through a lens. We shoot through a barrel with multiple lenses. Technically the device is an objective. We incorrectly refer to it as a lens.

[Mike Anderson]

You's guys and you're apostrophes.

[Dan Fromm]

We don't shoot through a lens. We shoot through a barrel with multiple lenses. Technically the device is an objective. We incorrectly refer to it as a lens.

I am a native speaker of English. I call my photographic objectives, all of which contain at least one element and are not to be confused with my photographic goals, lenses.

Lens is correct. It is used that way by native speakers.

[Mark Sawyer]

We don't shoot through a lens. We shoot through a barrel with multiple lenses. Technically the device is an objective. We incorrectly refer to it as a lens.

If it's sharp, it's an objective, but if it's soft-focus, it's a subjective. And if you pay too much for it on ebay, it's a pejorative.

[Struan Gray]

Is it too late to point out that the 'f' in the f-number should properly be in cursive script?

Somewhere in an early photographic journal I read a letter complaining how the heaving masses of dry plate whippersnappers don't even know how to write an f-number correctly.

[Struan Gray]

Swedish uses 'lins' for a single lens, 'objektiv' for complete lenses. 'Lins' shows it's classical roots as it's the same word as 'lentil'.

'Glugg' is the lovely Swedish photographers' cant for a lens.

I use 'lens' for any kind of lens, 'objective' for particular lenses operating as part of an optical system.

[BrianShaw]

If it's sharp, it's an objective, but if it's soft-focus, it's a subjective. And if you pay too much for it on ebay, it's a pejorative.

... and they all can be used to make a negative, or a positive.

[Oren Grad]

'Lins' shows it's classical roots as it's the same word as 'lentil'.

lentil = Lens culinaris

camera lens when used outside of the kitchen = Lens non-culinaris

camera lens when used in the kitchen = Lens culinaris

[Dan Fromm]

Oren, now you're cookin'.

Struan, its much the same in French. An objectif contains at least one lentille.

[Oren Grad]

Oren, now you're cookin'.

Yeah, cookin' with... cookin' with...

...lentils...

OK, I'm not going there.

[Dan Fromm]

Just what you want, Oren.

Yadra

2 chiles jalapeños en rajas – jalapeño chiles cut into strips [I’d use pickled jalapeños]
1 cebolla picada – chopped onion
2 tazas de lentejas cocidas – cups of cooked lentils
1 taza de aceite de oliva – cup of olive oil
1 taza de arroz – cup of rice
[2 tazas de caldo de lenteja – cups of lentil broth]

Acitronar la cebolla y las rajas de chile en aceite de oliva; escurrir – fry the onion and chile strips in olive oil until the onion is transparent; drain

Dorar el arroz en aceite, agregar las lentejas y su caldo; dejar resecar – brown the rice in oil, add the lentils and their broth; cook until dry

Incorporar la cebolla y chiles jalapeños – mix in the onion and jalapeño chiles

Rinde 6 raciones – serves 6

La Cocina Familiar en el Estado de Tabasco, p. 48

I recommend using pickled jalapeños but raw will work. I've found that when I fry jalapeños the longer I fry them the milder they become. When they're an olive drab color most of the capsaicin seems to have disappeared. This is very contrary to the standard result, that heat doesn't degrade capsaicin.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian, most cameras have a lens, not a len. The rule I was taught in grammar school was that the possessive of a singular noun that ends in "s" is the noun plus an apostrophe. Lens, lens'.

As I said, English is very irregular.

I certainly agree with the irregular part. But as for the rest, all words that end in "s" aren't necessarily plural. "Mess" for example is a word that is descriptive of this thread (: - )) that happens to end in "s" but the second "s" isn't there to indicate that there was more than one mess, the word just happens to be spelled that way. Similarly, "lens" is singular, the "s" doesn't mean there's more than one len.

[Colin Graham]

According to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style:

Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant:

Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witch's malice

This is actually the first rule listed in the book, so they must have felt strongly about it.

I can't find a reference in the book, but I was taught that plural possessives that end with s are followed with an apostrophe, such as lenses' apertures. But I always thought of 'lens aperture' more as a compound noun than possessive.

[Vaughn]

After all is said and done, there is actually no hard and fast rule about possessive singular nouns. It can be lens' and it can be lens's (but never len's, except in the case of poetic license), But it has been fun.

[Dan Fromm]

According to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style:

For what its worth, the academics who post here http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/ consistently condemn Strunk & White for errors, dishonesty, and wrongheadedness in general.

[Leigh]

For what its worth, the academics who post here http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/ consistently condemn Strunk & White for errors, dishonesty, and wrongheadedness in general.
So what?

The beauty of the internet is that with a bit of searching you can find 'academics' who will support
any position on any subject, and an equal number who will criticize that same position.

- Leigh

[Oren Grad]

The beauty of the internet is that with a bit of searching you can find 'academics' who will support
any position on any subject, and an equal number who will criticize that same position.

Chile recipes, too!

Dan, afraid that dietary capsaicin and I don't get along. At all.

[Steve Smith]

Hmmm... Americans arguing about English!


Steve.

[Colin Graham]

My post does read like I quoted the book as an attempt to put an end to the matter, but that wasn't my intention. It's just a reference, from a flawed but entertaining source.

[BetterSense]

I just wish that lens manufacturers specified the actual aperture...instead of relative aperture expressed as f/stop. How I would love it if diaphragms were actually in mm.

[Jody_S]

It can be lens' and it can be lens's (but never len's, except in the case of poetic license),

Unless, of course, you're referring to Len's lenses' apertures.

[Oren Grad]

I just wish that lens manufacturers specified the actual aperture...instead of relative aperture expressed as f/stop. How I would love it if diaphragms were actually in mm.

Ron Wisner provided tables with mm-equivalents for his Convertible Plasmat set. I don't know whether makers of classic casket sets did the same - perhaps one of our old-time lens experts would know.

[Dan Fromm]

I just wish that lens manufacturers specified the actual aperture...instead of relative aperture expressed as f/stop. How I would love it if diaphragms were actually in mm.

Why? Relative aperture = entrance pupil/focal length, not diaphragm opening/focal length. Entrance pupil doesn't have to be and isn't always the same size as the diaphragm opening.

Ancient Zeiss lenses and some macro lenses made by microscope manufacturers are engraved with the aperture's diameter in mm. I have some of the latter. They require mental arithmetic, make counting on the fingers to adjust aperture for magnification more difficult than it need be.

Remember, exposure meters' aperture scales aren't in mm, they're f/ numbers whose meaning is independent of focal length.

[Mike Anderson]

I think focal length should be specified in inches and aperture in terms of its diameter in millimeters. And real men don't use calculators.

[Vaughn]

Unless, of course, you're referring to Len's lenses' apertures.

Wasn't Len's aperture in C Minor?

[BetterSense]

Why?

Because I think that it's more important to know numerical aperture of the system than it is to know exposure, because the physics of light, in the real world, are constant. Complications with the photographic process itself should not be abstracted away by units at the expense of covering up fundamentals of light and image formation. The only good thing about F-stop is that it makes it easy to compare exposure between completely different camera systems. Exposure? Of film? What film? What sensor? It changes with technology. It's a stupid thing to base a unit on. Lets base our units on light; lets use units that make sense in the context of image formation, not on the camera construction techniques or gelatinous goo or sensors used in the 19th century...or 20th...or 21st...

The F/stop was obviously invented so that you can set the same f/stop on any lens, for any format, and get the same image-plane brightness. Wow. What convenience for photographers. Too bad we don't have any other information about the camera system, even something as basic as the lens aperture. This is what leads to the nonsense like "smaller formats have more DOF" and "shorter lenses have more DOF" and "bellow extension factors" and all kinds of other nonsense.

Light doesn't care what size your camera is, or how big of a piece of film you are using. It does care about the size of aperture on your optical system. It does not care anything about the camera behind it; that's your problem.

[Vaughn]

Wasn't Len's aperture in C Minor?

Sorry, I was thinking of Clarion's opus #9 in G

[Dan Fromm]

BetterSense, f/ number = 1/(2 * NA). Both representations of aperture carry the same information.

Emmanuel Bigler has posted any number of clear explanations of effective aperture (aperture corrected for magnification) here and on the French LF forum. It doesn't depend on the physical size of the aperture, does depend on the f/ number. He's also explained why relative aperture (that's the f/ number) should be calculated using the diameter of the entrance pupil, not using the aperture's diameter. I'm sorry that you missed his posts.

[C. D. Keth]

According to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style:

Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant:

Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witch's malice

This is actually the first rule listed in the book, so they must have felt strongly about it.


That's interesting. I've been taught my whole life that the possessive I should use for my name, Chris, is Chris'. If I use my full name, Christopher, it becomes Christopher's.

[BetterSense]

Yes, you can use f/stop to calculate a numeric aperture, but neither quantity is as photographically useful as the aperture diameter--to my way of thinking. The problem isn't with either F/stop or numeric aperture, but that lenses are marked in those units, when effective aperture diameter would be a more convenient unit for working photographically...to my way of thinking.

Two lenses of different focal length will have different F/stops and different numerical aperture at the same aperture diameter. However, both lenses will result in the same blur characteristics (i.e. what's pictorially important to me) provided the object distance and final magnification is the same. This means for many photographic situations like tabletop/studio/portrait photography, where distances are known, and final maginification is known, aperture diameter is what you really need to compare different camera systems.

If I set up a portrait or still-life, or even go out and set up for a landscape, I'm typically not going to change my perspective or change my print size depending on the film format that I'm using (although I might favor smaller prints for small formats, but that's because of grain). So depending on if I'm carrying a 35mm camera, or my RB67, or 8x10, I have to use different f/stops for each camera in order to capture the scene the same. That means I have to mentally remember which camera I am using and either remember or calculate the correct lens setting depending what I have in my hand.

What camera technology I have in my hand shouldn't matter. I should be able to look at the scene, the perspective that I want, and envision the final print I want, and mentally come up with an aperture setting that allows me to do that, regardless of which camera I brought today. Aperture diameter does that. F/stop doesn't.

[Vaughn]

That's interesting. I've been taught my whole life that the possessive I should use for my name, Chris, is Chris'. If I use my full name, Christopher, it becomes Christopher's.

If the name is a historic one that ends in a s, then one uses only the ' ...as in Archimedes' screw (whatever her/his name was) and supposively it is always Jesus' and never Jesus's. At least according to Fowler's Modern English Usage...which also states that modern names always use 's even with names ending in s...except for names ending in an iz sound.

More exceptions than rules!

[rdenney]

Let the record show (not that the record cares) that I side with Strunk and White. When a singular word ends in s, the possessive form requires an additional s.

I offer as justification not the opinions of academics, but what sounds right when talking to educated people. I have no way to pronounce "lens'" or "Chris'" that suggests the possessive, nor do I hear educated people pronouncing it in a way that sounds exactly like the non-possessive. But I can pronounce "lens's" and "Chris's" and nobody will think I'm saying it incorrectly. I don't think it's reasonable to intend someone to pronounce something written as "lens'" to sound like "lens-es". But, the possessive of "lenses" is "lenses'," and that pronounces just fine. When I give my speech on my crappy Soviet optics, and say "all those lenses' apertures (ahem! diaphragms) were stuck", nobody will be confused (or surprised).

There are two ways to express ratios. One is by showing it as a division, which we represent in type with a slash. Thus, f/2.8 is correct, as in: The aperture is the focal length divided by 2.8. Also, ratios can be expressed using a colon, as in 1:2.8, where the ratio of the aperture to the focal length is "1 to 2.8." Either seems to me correct.

But I do make a distinction between the aperture, which is the hole, and the apparatus which forms that hole, which may either be a stop or a diaphragm. So, I will usually write that I close down the diaphragm to choose a smaller aperture.

And the series of aperture settings, expressed as focal ratios, that each represent half or double the light admitted by their neighbors, are f-stops, by convention. This derives, as I recall, from waterhouse stops. Thus, f-stops are settings expressed as focal ratios, apertures are holes, and the apparatus used to create the hole is a stop or diaphragm.

Rick "I mean, as long as we're being picky" Denney

[Heroique]

According to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style:

Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant:

Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witch's malice

This is actually the first rule listed in the book, so they must have felt strongly about it.

Note that “Strunk” doesn’t get an “ 's ”.

I think S&W would agree here about breaking their very own first rule.

Yes, I remember they justify this glaring inconsistency, but I can’t remember why. Makes one think that: “The lens and camera’s owner is Ansel Adams” would win their approval, forcing “lens” to suffer the same tragic fate as “Strunk.”

-----
Maybe more important: If one came upon the phrase, “According to Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style,” what would keep that person from thinking that Strunk was simply a grammar expert and not an author, and that White was the sole author of The Elements of Style who may never have met or corresponded with Strunk? ;^)

[BetterSense]

That's English for you.

We should all just speak Latin.

[Alan Gales]

You guys will argue over anything and Frank will start an argument over anything! ;)

[Dan Fromm]

BS, I have two reactions to your reply. The first is that we might find we're in agreement if we left less unsaid. The other is that you're confused and contradict yourself. The two may be equivalent.

Oren, I'm sorry that capsaicin doesn't agree with you. I know its against received doctrine, but I've made a Nicaraguan salsa jalapena a fair number of times and have found that how long I fry the jalapenos consistently controls spiciness. I have empirical support for heresy but you shouldn't take silly risks.

Here's another lentil recipe for you that uses no chiles:

Lentejas guisadas

¼ k lentejas – lentils
200 g jitomate – tomato
4 cucharadas de aceite – tbsp of oil
2 perones – large yellow apples
1 diente de ajo – clove of garlic
1 rebanada de piña – slice of pineapple
1 trozo de cebolla – piece of onion
sal, al gusto – salt to taste

Cocer las lentejas en litro y medio de agua con sal – cook the lentils in a liter and a half of salted water

Freír el jitomate molido y colado con la cebolla y el ajo, en aceite; dejar sazonar – grind the tomato with onion and garlic, strain, fry in oil; let season

Agregar las lentejas cocidas junto con el caldo en el que se cocieron – add the cooked lentils and the broth in which they were cooked

Incorporar trozos de piña y los perones, sin cáscara y cortados en pedazos pequeños – add pieces of pineapple and the apples, peeled, cored, and cut into small pieces

Dejar hervir unos minutos más; servir luego – boil a few minutes longer; serve

Rinde 6 raciones – serves 6

La Cocina Familiar en el Estado de México, p. 28

[Alan Gales]

I don't know, Dan. Sometimes the questions that Frank asks, I think he just wants to get us all going for his entertainment. :)

As far as us all arguing, I'm just joking about that. If we were all in agreement all the time it would be a pretty boring world.

[Frank Petronio]

I almost forgot my question and if you look, I haven't participated. I do enjoy seeing how these threads evolve, I'm actually surprised this one has been so civil. If only we could discuss politics ;-/

[Dan Fromm]

I don't know, Dan. Sometimes the questions that Frank asks, I think he just wants to get us all going for his entertainment. :)


Interesting. You've just given one of the milder definitions of a troll. Perhaps Frank does in fact live under a bridge and subsist on goat. I wonder whether he has any good goat recipes to share with us.

[Colin Graham]

Heroique, I suspect you're just having a little fun, but the full title is The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr, with Revisions, an Introduction, and a Chapter on Writing by E.B. White. I shortened it myself to Strunk and White's for brevity. I thought about using Strunk's and White's Elements of Style, but since I could never bring myself to say it aloud that way I left it alone. Hobson's choice, wink wink.

Just be glad I didn't cite Funk's and Wagnalls's Standard Dictionary of the English Language.

[Frank Petronio]

I actually brought goat home from the city once, made a stew, it was, umm, edible but we never got it again.... yes, I with ~10K posts here I am the uber-troll, I don't really care about lenses that much.

[BetterSense]

I broke with Strunk & White after I believe the 3rd edition, where they caved on the correctness of using generic male pronouns, based not on sound principles but on political correctness.

[Bruce Watson]

Frank, you sure seem to be able to get the bored and pedantic to come out of the wood work. I don't know if that's a compliment or not.

[Alan Gales]

Interesting. You've just given one of the milder definitions of a troll. Perhaps Frank does in fact live under a bridge and subsist on goat. I wonder whether he has any good goat recipes to share with us.

Frank a troll? Hmmm that's something I hadn't considered! :D

Frank has a way of asking a seemingly benign question which ends up producing extended discussion. I do think he does it on purpose but of course it is not malicious in any way. He's simply trying to promote discussion and get away from the typical newbie questions once in a while.

It just strikes me as funny how some of these discussions grow and evolve.

[BrianShaw]

If only we could discuss politics ;-/

Two or more, but not your own. I'd rather talk politic's...

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

I'm not a native English speaker, but one who had to learn the English grammar, punctuation, and orthography, in UK, in Oxford, though that should make no difference, other than sound somewhat impressive. The rules, which I learned about the English possessive that is formed with an apostrophe, were:

For singular: add 's, even when the word ends with an s letter, though in that case the closing s might be left out, if it would not be pronounced: one teacher's, one lens's, one boss's, Chris's...
For plural: make plural, then add the apostrophe, without an s: many teachers', lenses', bosses'...
And, as usual in English, there would be a few hundred exceptions, to take care of: company names, places, possessive personal pronouns, plurals that do not use an ending s, plurals that do not use ending s but which would be ambiguous when followed with an 's, and many more...
I look forward to learning more about English spelling on LFPF.

[E. von Hoegh]

Interesting. You've just given one of the milder definitions of a troll. Perhaps Frank does in fact live under a bridge and subsist on goat. I wonder whether he has any good goat recipes to share with us.

Perhaps some goat and lentil stew?

[rdenney]

I look forward to learning more about English spelling on LFPF.

And I look forward to hearing more dry and subtle sarcasm, skillfully delivered. (That was a compliment.)

The issue came up on the company-name front for me. My former employer changed its name to a pseudo-Latin word that happened to end in "s". We had some argument about how to handle the possessive, but I suspect the issue was laid to rest when the CEO delivered a conference call to present a quarterly financial report, and used the possessive form of the company name repeatedly. He always pronounced the "s" following the apostrophe. After all, proper names of corporations are nearly always singular, at least in American English (not so in the UKoGBaNI).

Rick "whose language skills are largely driven by what sounds right" Denney

[Steve Smith]

Rick "whose language skills are largely driven by what sounds right" Denney

That's the French method!


Steve.

[jcoldslabs]

So what about making the term "still life" plural? I assume "still lifes" is correct, but it sounds odd.

Jonathan

[rdenney]

So what about making the term "still life" plural? I assume "still lifes" is correct, but it sounds odd.

Jonathan

Adopting my usual "sounds right" standard, I would not use it as a plural noun. Instead, I'd turn it into an adjective and make the noun it modifies the plural, such as "still life photographs" or "still life paintings".

Rick "only partly successful at weeding out stilted language" Denney

[jcoldslabs]

"The still life photographs of Edward Weston," or, "Edward Weston's still lifes."

I can't decide which sounds less cumbersome. (Rick, I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to put theory into practice.)

Jonathan

[Ian David]

Fowler is pretty emphatic that still lifes is correct :) I also think it sounds fine in this particular context.
Luckily the octopus doesn't come up that often in photography...

[rdenney]

"The still life photographs of Edward Weston," or, "Edward Weston's still lifes."

I can't decide which sounds less cumbersome. (Rick, I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to put theory into practice.)

Jonathan

Or, "Edward Weston's still life photographs."

But, of course, the problem with the "sound right" standard is that everyone's ears have received different training.

Rick "glad Weston's name doesn't end in 's'" Denney