Leaderboard

Yes, there is a time and place for ambiguity, whether intentional, ironic or otherwise. I once told a friend, on learning that he had been recently hospitalised after a car crash: 'I'm sorry to hear that you're recovering from an accident'. The two-edged comment was not intended to suggest that I applauded his injury rather than his recovery - but I quite understood the look of surprise he gave me, and he then quite understood my embarrassment. There are many better examples!

Who told you?

I think of myself as have a great face for radio, and the perfect voice for print.

As a frequent and creative user of ambiguity, I think it is a fine thing and am delighted by how regularly one finds opportunities to use it to good effect. Like the air we breathe, ambiguity is everywhere. Long may it be so. I might add that 'yes' or 'no' answers are not always a good thing either, even - I might even say especially - when one personally wants to be clear of any ambiguity. I have travelled much in Africa and have learned never to ask questions that can be answered with just a 'yes' or a 'no'. Locals there - many of them anyway - like to be agreeable to foreigners and very often say 'yes;' to anything. Is this the bus to Douala? Yes. Is this the bus to Yaounde? Yes. Does it leave at 2 o'clock? Yes? Does it leave at four? Yes. I like to have my cake and eat it too

This confusion (if indeed there is one) has arisen because I listed four discrete categories of potential male participants, of which the last was unspecified and open to suggestion. Replies referring to 'the latter' logically referred to that last unspecified category (which remained unspecified) but did in fact more or less fit the third one, as subsequent exchanges confirmed. If I framed the original statement in a manner which caused misunderstanding, then I apologise. Perhaps, at the risk of over-formality, I should have given each category a number! An answer to a question may be accurate to the best of a respondent's knowledge and belief, but if the question was misunderstood and the answer no longer 'fits', then it is not by definition an accurate answer to the question actually asked. But I think your point, Freddy, is more that a majority view must defeat a minority one. Sorry, but that cannot be true if the matter is being dealt with truly objectively - although the parameters of the objectivity may themselves be under debate. If there can be little factual doubt that some specified trees are indeed green, it doesn't matter how many people see them subjectively as blue - they are all wrong (because respondents are possibly colourblind?). They have provided a valid opinion in good faith (subjective) but it may be defeated by information that effectively constitutes the definitive and authoritative statement of fact (objective). On the other hand, of course, there may be no factual answer to a question where only subjective opinion is possible, e.g. 'Does beer taste good?' Most of my professional life has been spent in drafting technical/legal documents and writing articles on similar matters. I am therefore mindful of the need for clear, intelligible language (as well as good English) that maximises understanding and minimises doubt or ambiguity. I hope that I have broadly succeeded; my track record elsewhere (including appearance in court as an expert witness) suggests that I have. One rule I am conscious of is that of contra proferentem: that any ambiguity in a document will be construed against the person who drafted it. A point to keep in mind when trying to bulldoze the opposition by stipulating all the terms of a contract etc. I had not heard of Poka-yoke by that name, but of course the concept of idiot-proofing is well understood. It can be applied to written instructions, questionnaires etc but, alas, it often is not. Just look at a self-assessment tax return if you want some examples of questions that cannot be answered in the manner HMRC expects if they are interpreted as they have been simply (and inaccurately) written. By the way, nothing I've written above is intended as a full and authoritative statement of fact relating to any matter addressed or ignored - so there!

I remember a very pretty red haired girl in my class (circa 1970) who often wore white go-go boots to school. I liked her (from afar) and I liked the dash she cut with thise boots. I wanted a pair too, not really comprehending at first, in those age if Aquarius days of softer gender lines in fashion that what I wanted were girl's boots and therefore 'forbidden'. I was really quite embarrassed when the penny finally dropped and I shoved such things out of my mind and began distrusting my tastes and sense of style and sought the saftey that is found in always following the herd. Not a good thing. I had no interest whatever in women's shoes and still don't have any interest at all. I liked boots, but without ever being obsessed. When autumn would roll around though I would feel wistful that tall fashion boots were not permissible for guys and wished that I could have and wear a pair. Because of the strong association with tall boots and women, I linked them with heels. The funny thing is, though, now that I have given myself permission to have and wear a pair of nice otk boots, I realise that the heels had little to do with it. I find flat otk boots equally, perhaps even more, appealing.

I think you really should shoot RAW or at the very least acquaint yourself with the possibilities it opens up for post processing. I really do not know much about the capabilities of low and medium range cameras, at least not first hand, but all of the pro grade cameras I use or am familiar with are superior is every respect to film. Again I go back to client demands. If film were better, they would want it.. They don't. There is just no demand. the convenience of digital is nice, but in advertising, art, architecture and longer term magazine orojects there are no rush deadlnes. Clients would be more than happy to wait for images to be processed if it was a matter if getting truly better images. That they go with digital over film speaks for itself. i too used to have medium format cameras - a Pentas 6x7 and a Mamiya RB67. Loved em both. Sold them both long ago, too. Most other pros I know sld their medium format gear too. Digital is just better and where medium format sized shot are required, digital medium firmat such as Phase One, Hassleblad etc fill the bill. Almost nobody uses film. large format, 4x5 and 8x10, for landscapes and studio, can outperform digital on resolution but that is because there is very little cmpetition at that end of the spectrum. I have been in this game a long time, and just cannot think of any good reason to shoot film any more other than nostalgia. And nostalgia, as they say, ain't what it used to be! :-)