RONKONKOMA, NY, Jan. 27, 2012 – With great sadness, Sigma Corporation of America today announced the passing of Sigma Corporation’s founder and CEO Michihiro Yamaki. He died of liver cancer in Tokyo, Japan, on Jan. 18 at the age of 78

“We are deeply saddened by this loss,” said Mark Amir-Hamzeh, president of Sigma Corporation of America. “Mr. Yamaki was an industry visionary, and his leadership and enthusiasm has been the driving force behind our company’s innovation for more than 50 years. We’re sending our deepest condolences to the Yamaki family, and our entire Sigma family around the world, during this very difficult time.”

Yamaki founded Sigma Corporation on Sept. 9, 1961 with the development of the first-ever rear attached lens converter. At that time, most photo enthusiasts believed that a lens converter could only be attached to the front of a camera lens and the 27-year-old optical engineer turned conventional optical theory on its head. Sigma Corporation celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2011 with Yamaki still at the company’s helm.

Throughout his years in the photo industry, Yamaki has been focused on producing high-quality, high-performance photographic technology at moderate prices. His goal for the company has always been to make outstanding image quality accessible to all photographers. To this end, he grew the family-owned organization into a leading researcher, developer, manufacturer and service provider of lenses, cameras and flashes. The company is now known as the largest, independent SLR lens manufacturer in the world, producing more than 50 current lenses that are compatible with most manufacturers, including Sigma, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Sony.

In 2008, under Yamaki’s direction, Sigma Corporation purchased Foveon, a California-based company that’s renowned for developing the X3 image sensor technology. This patented, three-layer image sensor captures all primary RGB colors at each pixel location arranged in three layers to deliver outstanding, high-resolution, high-definition images with impressive three-dimensional detail and rich gradation. Last year, the company announced the arrival of its SD1, a groundbreaking, 46-megapixel direct image sensor camera, offering more megapixels than any other DSLR currently on the market. Sigma Corporation continued its theme of addressing gaps in the industry and the needs of photographers by kicking off 2012 with the launch of its new, Digital Neo (DN) line of lenses for Micro Four Thirds and E-mount camera systems.

In addition to his inventions and photographic foresight, Yamaki made many other contributions to the industry in his 78 years of life. He served organizations such as: the Japan Photographic Enterprises Association, Japan Machinery Design Center, Japan Optomechatronics Association, Photographic Society of Japan, and Japan Camera Industry Institute. He has also been honored with the “Person of the Year” award from The Photoimaging Manufacturers & Distributors Association (PMDA), the “Hall of Fame” award from the International Photographic Council (IPC), and the Golden Photokina Pin for his longtime contribution to the imaging industry.

About Sigma Corporation

For more than 50 years, Sigma Corporation’s expertise and innovation has driven the company’s core philosophy of “knowledge, plus experience, plus imagination,” with an emphasis on producing high-quality, high-performance photographic technology at moderate prices. This family-owned organization is the largest, independent SLR lens manufacturer in the world, producing more than 40 lenses that are compatible with most manufacturers, including Sigma, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic and Pentax. Sigma Corporation also produces digital SLR cameras and high-definition digital compact cameras. The company is headquartered in Japan, with offices strategically located throughout Europe, Asia and North America. For information, please visit www.sigmaphoto.com.

Wedding & Portrait Photographers International (WPPI) announces today the “This is My WPPI” video contest. Open to seasoned professional photographers as well as those just beginning their photography career, WPPI is looking for the best 30-second video clip creatively expressing what makes it “your” WPPI.  Photographers are encouraged to submit their most imaginative, original and memorable “This is My WPPI” video for a chance to win a trip to attend WPPI 2012 in Las Vegas, NV.

Videos will be voted on by the public. The video that receives the most votes on the www.wppionline.com site will receive national exposure on WPPIonline.com, Rangefinder magazine and a trip to WPPI 2012. The winner will receive a 4-night/5-day prize package from (2/19/12 – 2/23/12) including round-trip airfare plus hotel accommodations, ground transportation and a full registration pass to WPPI 2012.

“Our first video contest was such a huge success and so much fun that we just had to bring back this opportunity again,” said George Varanakis, Show Director of WPPI and Publisher of Rangefinder.  “We can’t wait to see how creative photographers can get as they tell the public why this is their WPPI. Is it about the education, the inspiration, the energy of Vegas, making new friends and catching up with old ones? We want to know why WPPI is important to our photography community. And we want to see people have a lot of fun with this.”

Directions to enter the “This is MY WPPI” video contest:

• Complete a 30-second video (max 100 MB). Video files must be provided in one of the following file formats: .MPEG; .MOV; .AVI;  .WMV; MP4.
• Name video file as first and last name. Example:  FirstName_LastName
• Fill in the subject line: This is My WPPI Video
• Fill in the body of email: First and Last Name, Email and Phone Number
• Upload video file here.

The contest is open to legal U.S. residents, age 18 and over. Limit one entry per person. The contest is open to entries until Monday, January 9, 2012 (at 11:59 p.m. PT). The winner will be announced January 18, 2012. For full “This is My WPPI” 2012 Video Contest Rules click here. Contestants will be disqualified if directions and rules are not met.

All WPPI 2012 classes, events and trade show will take place at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, NV, from February 16-23, 2012. WPPI is the biggest show in the world for wedding and portrait photographers. Last year, more than 16,000 professional photographers gathered in Las Vegas, NV, to learn from the best and see the latest and greatest products from the hundreds of exhibitors that participate in the trade show.

Popular programs and events like Launch Pad, WPPI Plus, Photographers Ignite and the Awards Night extravaganza, as well as helpful features like Pre-Board, will make WPPI 2012 the most exciting ever.

Registration for all WPPI 2012 classes, workshops, events and the trade show is open now: http://www.wppionline.com/show/register.shtml . The Full Registration pass is $259 for WPPI members and $399 for non-WPPI members. These rates include one (1) free guest pass, 90 Platform classes to choose from and admission to special evening events and the biggest 3-day trade show for wedding and portrait photographers. For information on class offerings and schedules please visit: http://www.wppionline.com/show/classes.shtml

For more information about WPPI 2012 and all of its workshops and events, please visit: www.wppionline.com .

Check it out, and if you like what you see, add it to you feeds or sign up for email alerts.

What’s ASPP?

ASPP is a unique photography industry association in that it includes photographers and picture agencies and picture researchers and end users, a.k.a. publishers. This means that when you are part of ASPP, you are not just dealing with your colleague-competitors, but also networking with your colleague-potential-clients.

ASPP is a close-knit, supportive community (I know; I am a former board member), and as a photographer ASPP gives you the opportunity to befriend supportive professionals at picture agencies you might want to work with (to license your images) as well as researchers (who might want to license your images).

ASPP’s $125 membership fee might seem steep, but it’s a small price to pay for access to this unique community. So definitely consider joining ASPP.

The Old ASPP News

Until recently ASPP sent out a massive monthly email newsletter to members that was stuffed with industry and member updates. Two problems:

• Way, way too much to digest, check out, sift through, enjoy.

• You couldn’t get at it if you were not a member.

The Super Cool New ASPP eNews Blog

It’s the same content, but on steroids: with images, links, embedded videos.

Some content, like the monthly “President’s Corner,” is clearly geared for members. However, you can ignore this content or, better yet, give it a peek as a kind of “trial run” of ASPP membership.

Some content is from members who are industry experts, like Jim Pickerell, who offers these image licensing insights.

Then there is news related to the industry, like “Update on the Senate Hearing about Intellectual Property” and info about contests, like the “Focus Project 2011.

ASPP agency members are dishing up news about their collections, like the “Lebrecht on Self-Portraits.”

And then you have photographer members sharing their latest efforts, like Wolfgang Kaehler’s “Run with the Wolfies.”

And this was all in the past two weeks!

Think about wedding photography. Why does everyone have a photographer documenting their wedding? It’s kind of a weird tradition. It’s because it validates the commitment. The event is more important because it’s documented.

Krogh went on to say:

It’s amazing how a good wedding photographer ends up being kind of a wedding couch. They are there the whole time. They can spend more time with the couple than anyone else. The wedding photographer’s job is much more important than just taking pictures.

It wasn't so much that Celeste really wanted a picture of her getting makeup applied; she wanted the moment to be documented, to make it more meaningful.

Beyond Pretty Wedding Pictures

Krogh didn’t need to explain what he was talking about. I’ve only photographed a handful of weddings, but I quickly got used to the couples thanking me profusely at the end of the day — without seeing a single image! Obviously they were responding to my presence, and to the fact that I had somehow made their wedding a much better experience.

If you are a wedding photographer, you know this: The images you are making are important, but it’s just as important that you providing an experience that best appeals to the specific couple.

If you would like to be a wedding photographer, or to improve your wedding photography: Think less about perfecting your images, and focus more on how to be the kind of wedding coach that Krogh mentions.

I was amazed how, after only a couple weddings, I was able to provide couples with valuable (and desired) advice about the Big Day. And why shouldn’t I be able to do so? After all, I had been intimately involved in other weddings, seeing them from the most angles and witnessing the most intimate moments.

A Great Time To Be a Wedding Photographer!

Old-fashioned wedding photographers bemoaned the advent of digital; savvy wedding photographers welcomed it.

Now that photography has become so easy for all, if you are interested in wedding photography, you have more and not less opportunities. This is because you don’t have to be stressed out about making the photographs. You can focus on bearing witness and, if you are really good, being a kind of off-the-record wedding coach, even if that’s not how you advertise your services.

As Krogh explained to me, what couples really want, whether they know it or not, is for the photographer to validated their experiences by bearing witness through the act of documenting.

I wonder what Mc Kiernan would think of Patrick, whose last name — forget direct email — remain a mystery to me, even after 10 minutes of searching. And I really wanted to know. In fact, I wanted to promote his savy marketing with this blog post, having (almost) come to know him though this video:

Is Patrick’s Marketing Web 3.0?

What happened is that — thanks to the daily email from Vimeo that serves up video inspiration — I came across “the world’s largest aquarium.” Like the snowy video I posted last week, I thought it was a great sample to share with still photographers. Then, when I noticed that it was featured on a Vimeo channel with 205 videos, I thought, “Hey, what a great Web presence!” I planned to check out the creator’s work, and then share with you how photographers can use Vimeo to lure in potential clients and fans.

So much thinking up a blog post before researching it. You see. . .

The “largest aquarim” on Vimeo led to both the creator’s personal blog (stillmotion Patrick) as well as the main stillmotion Vimeo page (with the 205 videos). Patrick’s personal blog led to the stillmotion blog, and the stillmotion Vimeo page led to the stillmotion’s main Web site, and both led to each other. But even as I clicked with intention — encountering enticing content — I could not fined what I wanted: Patrick’s last name, and a clear understanding of who he is and what he does.

I also could not figure out what stillmotion is beyond “a small team of artists that love to discover all the little things that make our couple who they are.”

I gave up, and started writing this post.

In writing this post I have, finally found a contact form on the stillmotion Web site that, like Mc Kiernan, I am loathe to fill out. And now I see (maybe my eyes are bad?) there is a phone number (two, in fact) and an email, but it’s a general one.

Maybe I’m Too 2.0?

This post is not going to turn into a rant about Patrick or stillmotion’s faulty marketing. They look like a cool, forward-thinking group that is having fun and churning out good content. But . . . well . . .who, what and where are they?

In his video, Patrick does a wonderful job of showing off little fish in a big aquarium; shouldn’t he make it easy for us to better identify him within the massive, proverbial pond of professional image making?

Or am I too Web 2.0? Maybe Patrick and stillmotion are onto something that I just don’t understand. More and more often I find myself finding content online for which I cannot identify the creator’s name. Yet many, like Patrick, are clearly putting thought and effort into building a strong Web presence. And he seems to have quite a following. So am I’m missing something? Do little fish not need name tags?

“It’s ingenious, but totally impractical,” Colin Harding emphasises, and then with a kind of respectful glee adds, “It’s such a stupid idea, really.”

Harding, the curator of photographic technology at the National Media Museum, is discussing why the Thompson Revolver Camera is one of his favorite items in the museums photo technology collection. He appreciates the craftsmanship and ingenuity but he clearly loves the “total lack of common sense” that went into this 1862 invention. As he says, “If you can across someone who was waving this in your direction, the last thing you’d want to do is smile.”

In the second half of this video, Harding delves nicely into concepts related to the history of photography in the 1860s, illuminating an era when making photographs was as challenging as it was rare. Back then, having any picture-making device pointed at you could be unnerving — but nothing as unnerving as a gun itself, even if a camera.

I asked this in a post two years back while pondering who really invited photography and why there seems to be so much confusion about the issue. (Even the typically-stated date of invention — 1839 — seems to blatantly contradict the facts.) In a recent British Journal of Photography article, “New early photographic process to force history re-write,” Olivier Laurent reports that “Joseph Nicéphore Niépce’s contribution to the history of photography has been elevated after the National Media Museum and the Getty Conservation Institute revealed new findings stemming from three of Niépce’s photographic plates.”

Un Claire de Lune, c. 1827 © The Royal Photographic Society Collection at National Media Museum/SSPL.

Created by Niépce circa 1827, Un Claire de Lune is the name of the work that’s really got photographic history re-writers excited. Laurent explains that the image — truly beautiful and evocative, hardly a mere photographic experiment — was long thought to be “enhanced with etching” but that “it is actually a photograph without any hand tooling at all.”

To better understand the confusion regarding the early years of photographic history, check out my earlier post and see how Louis Daguerre usually gets pitted against William Henry Fox Talbot, while Niépce seems to get such short thrift because:

1. Apparently he was not able to demonstrate his work to the Royal Society in London. (Something about the organization being in turmoil, says that National Media Museum.)

2. He died in 1833. (Never good for standing up for one’s place in history.)

According to the National Media Museum, these facts left Niépce’s “sometimes collaborator Louis Daguerre to publicly reveal photography to the world in 1839.”

Beauty Beyond Theft

This might make it sounds like Daguerre was an opportunist and a thief, and maybe he was. But as I mentioned earlier regarding “who was first”:

“Niépce, Talbot, Daguerre. Who cares? . . . Clearly, all of these amazing inventors were onto something about the same time, and they all played a significant role in the evolution of photography.”

Well, OK, maybe this is true and that these three men (and others) combined to serve the group effort, over time, that was the invention of photography. However, I’m glad that Niépce seems to getting a little more light shed on him.

For one thing, there seems to be little argument that Niépce really was the first one to figure out how to expose with light and fix the results. For another thing, this latest research shows something just as exciting: Niépce had a wonderful sense of photographic vision — visually speaking.

Personally, I’ve always had a fond spot for View from the Window at Le Gras. However, made only a year or so later, Un Claire de Lune is an image we should all be aware of — both for its place in history and for its intrinsic beauty.

“If it doesn’t look like we did anything, then we did our job,” Matusik told me, which might seem like an obvious comment about retouching, but which Matusik says is a lesson that many photographers still need to learn. In the article I note that Matusik “believes strongly that any specific techniques are far less important than a retoucher thinking like a photographer and seeing like an artist.”

“Transforming Celebrities” was a great assignment. I had already written an article about Matusik for Rangefinder, and I really digged his work, attitude and perspectives. This piece gave me a chance to meet Price, and to learn about the ins and outs of retouching without getting into the ins and outs of specific techniques. Naively, I hadn’t realized there would be so much meat to the critical subject of retouching, and I appreciated the chance to learn and share.

If you are interested in retouching — for relatively light skin correction the most complex composting, of which Matusik is a unique master — you’ll likely enjoy “Transforming Celebrities.”

Excerpt on the Killing

“We contributed to the death of the supermodel,” says Matusik, referring specifically to DigitalRetouch as well as excellent retouchers throughout the industry. “Fashion magazines would always feature models on their covers. Models are freaks of nature—skinny, perfect skin, unusual symmetry.” He explains that the new possibilities of digital retouching have allowed celebrities to take the place once reserved for models. “Celebrities on the cover of every magazine is very new. It’s hard to remember that six years ago, when we started DigitalRetouch. It just wasn’t being done.” Today, of course, maga- zines put a celebrity on every cover possible, and celebrities are also featured in print ad campaigns like never before. “Think of it this way,” Matusik suggests. “In your Revlon ad, do you want to feature a model that 10 people have heard of, or a celebrity that is known to 99 percent of your global market?”

“Supermodels look really good, and celebrities really don’t,” Price notes of the retouching challenge that has come with the celebrity takeover. “In the photographs we work on, the celebrities have to look like themselves, but they also have to look beautiful. We are really good at making normal-looking people look beautiful and still look like themselves. It’s all about creating symmetry and removing faults. But we do leave in some faults so they still look real.”

“Retouching is really the fine art of knowing what reality is,” says Matusik, who notes that, “Ultimately, all fashion pho- tography is fantasy.” Regarding the interplay of reality, fantasy and retouching, Matusik says, “It’s all kind of relative. If I retouch Halle Berry to appear how she would in nice lighting, am I evil? Am I distorting reality?” He notes that if he were talking to Berry in a candlelit restaurant she’d look a lot better than in bright sunlight. “There’s a reason they invented mood lighting. With candles and a few beers everyone looks attractive.”

While candlelight and beer is a sure recipe for improving looks, Matusik explains that there is no recipe for making a celebrity look more dreadful than plastering an unretouched close-up of his or her face on a magazine cover. “The cover of a magazine is a moment frozen in time with a magnifying glass over it,” Matusik says. “Imagine I’m meeting you for the first time and I grab your hand and stare into your face from two inches away, and then I just keep on look- ing. I can see every single one of your pores, every nose hair, every blemish. Every single little imperfection stands out. That is the reality of a magazine cover.”

Clearly the editors at dpreview.com have a different idea, and it seems that so do the majority of people writing and publishing about raw files. And given the fact that the conventions of editorial styles change more fluidly than the rules of grammar, there’s no problem with this. If The People write “raw,” then it’s “raw.” If The People write “RAW,” then it’s “RAW.” A raw file can be a RAW file if you want it to be, but if you don’t write about COMPUTER files and NEGATIVE film, you might want to tone things done and just refer to raw files as raw files, which are comprised of raw data and not RAW data, even for editors who chose to write about RAW files rather than raw files.

Just as “admin” was peeved by the use of “HD DSLR” instead of “HDSLR,” I used to be lightly, pettly peeved about the use of “RAW” instead of “raw.” This pet peeve was born when I interviewed Adobe’s Tom Hogarty in December 2006 (or December of 2006, depending on your style) for my very first AfterCapture article. Hogarty had read something of mine in which I had written RAW instead of raw, and gently explained why raw file made more sense than a RAW file.

This was before RAW files had become firmly entrenched, and Hogarty was trying to keep raw files raw. Given the fact that we were talking about the long, careful process Adobe was engaged in to make the DNG raw file format an international standard, Hogarty’s attention to detail seemed appropriate. I joined the raw struggle, but clearly Hogarty and I have lost the struggle with RAW.

“A raw (or camera raw) file is the unprocessed linear data captured. . .” begins the defintion of “Raw file” in the glossary at dpBestflow.com. This illustrates that the experts editing this site agree with Hogarty and me. “Raw” should only get one capital “r” if the word comes at the beginning of a sentence. Not surprisingly, Adobe sets a great example of how to write about raw files without using capital letters. The single, best example being when they write about the Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in. If you don’t use all caps IN the name of A piece of software THAN when WOULD you?

After talking to Hogarty, I passed the word on to all the editors I worked with, including Bill Hurter, the editor of AfterCapture. “Thanks,” Hurter replied and then, in the first issue of the magazine, replaced all my raws with RAW. Was there any point in complaining? Of course not. He’s the editor. And if there’s one good reason to write RAW instead of raw, it’s because you’re getting paid TO.

– Professional musician confused about nomenclature.

What’s in a name? Sometimes nothing. But when it comes to photographic professionalism, using correct terms is just part of the job. I made up the quote above to illustrate this point. Wouldn’t it be ridiculous if a professional musician didn’t know the name of his instrument? Well, it seems that an analogous situation is plaguing the photography world.

Throughout a recent article I wrote on multimedia and video I refer to “HD DSLRs,” as I have a number of times in this blog. Of course I’m referring to hybrid cameras that, like the Canon 5D Mark II, record both still and video. Sure you know what I’m talking about, but are you aware that this kind of camera is not called an “HD DSLR”? I haven’t known, which is a major oops.

It is called an “HDSLR,” and nothing else would make sense — at least, I’m pretty sure.

“It is a DSLR and not a HD DSLR!” is a brief, clear blog post on Canon5DTips in which “admin” shares his pet peeve about people incorrectly calling an “HDSLR” an “HD DSLR”; explains why it’s called an “HDSLR”; and asks us to “Pass the word.”

Passing the HDSLR Word

Here’s the heart of what “admin” explains:

• SLR = “single lens reflex” camera.

• DSLR = “digital single lens reflex” camera.

• HDSLR = “hybrid digital single lens reflex” camera, as in hybrid still-video capture.

• HD DSLR = a mistake that got introduced somewhere along the line, with “HD” representing “high definition,” which does not make sense because, as “admin” explains: #1. “DSLR already produced high definition images,” and #2, “[The name] does not say anything about the video capability of the camera.”

Makes perfect sense to me. So from now on I’m going to call it an “HDSLR,” and I’m going to ask you to do the same.

Not So HD Fast

I’d love to end this post here, with confidence, but I’ve been doing a bunch of poking around on the Web to confirm that “HDSLR” is as correct as I think. I’ve ended up pretty confused, only 99% sure “HDSLR” is right. Even if it is right I’m not sure what the “H” is stands for.

Why All the HD Confusion?

If you do a  search on “HD DSLR” or “HD-DSLR” you will get a lot of results from a lot of professional sources. Many pros clearly think that an HDSLR is really called an “HD DSLR,” just as I did until Friday. I’m assuming that these people are just making a mistake, not giving the matter much thought. And yet, some of these sources are quite influential in the industry. I also can’t ignore the fact that six experts proofed my article filled with “HD DSLR,” and no one commented on this apparent error. Either it’s not an error or it’s one that is quickly getting accepted as either an alternate to “HDSLR,” or as the correct name itself. I suppose there’s a slight chance the two things refer to two different kinds of cameras, but I really doubt that.

I turned to PhotoCineNews to see what term this well-respected site’s authors are using. It was clear that the folks writing for PhotoCineNews know that an HDSLR is an HDSLR and not an HD DSLR. When writers don’t mention an HDSLR directly, they talk about “DSLR video,” which makes perfect sense. For example, “I use my HDSLR mostly for stills,” or “I’m doing a lot of video work, capturing both with HDSLRs and camcorders.”

When I did a search on the PhotoCineNews site for “HD DSLR,” four posts come up. It turns out that all these posts are quoting sources that have used “HD DSLR.” For example, “HD DSLR” appears in this post that reposts information from a film festival and that also mentions movies “shot using ONLY the Canon EOS HD enabled DSLRs.” The person who wrote this not only thinks that an HDSLR is an HD DSLR, but they also seem to be using “HD” as an abbreviation for “high definition video.” Shouldn’t this person have said “video-enabled,” instead of “HD enabled”? My Canon 40D captures high-definition still images, but it doesn’t capture video.

If “HD” does stand for “high definition video,” and not “hybrid,” shouldn’t the Canon 5D Mark II be called an “HDVDSLR”?

Can you see why I’m so confused? I’m writing so much about this issue because I’ve been an unwitting culprit in this confusion — casually throwing around “HD DSLR” without really knowing what it means — and so I wouldn’t be surprised if you, too, are confused. And as serious photographers, it seems that we should know what the hell our camera is called, and why. (If you are not confused, please straighten me out with a comment below.)

A Pronunciation-Conflict Theory

I’m not sure what’s going on, but I have a theory that “HD DSLR” has become so contagiously popular because two, main factors. One is the incredible appeal of the phrase “high definition.” These days it seems that to sell anything you have to call it “high definition,” which is why I now only eat HD empanadas, and why I recently bought HD tango shoes.

Another factor is that it seems a lot easier to say “HD DSLR” than it is to say the “HDSLR.” Sure, shorter would seem to be easier but “HDSLR” seems to be a tongue-twister. Try alternating saying “HD DSLR” and “HDSLR” out loud. Which is easier? Maybe I have a speech impediment, but I keep on tripping on the “HDSLR,” while the double-D consonants of “HD DSLR” are easier to handle.

As a side note, I started thinking about all this pronunciation stuff when I noticed that “admin” used an “a” and not an “an” before “HDSLR.” In this world of blogs without editors (which might very well be a third factor contributing to the rapid spread of “HD DSLR” usage), it seemed appropriate that “admin” would make an error while correcting another.

To my way of thinking (be warned, this is thinking that has no editorial over site), we should say “an HDSR” and not “a HDSLR” because, as Wiki, Knower of All Things, tells us, when it comes to using articles, “The form ‘an’ is always prescribed before words beginning with a silent h,” and the letter “h” is pronounced just like it is spelled: “aitch.” This, of course, makes the “h” in “HDSLR” a silent one.

So it’s an HDSLR, even if lots of photographers are writing about “a HD DSLR.”

Am I Wrong, and Was I Right?

Even though I think it’s “and DSLR,” I can’t find definitive confirmation. For example, the folks I trust over at dpBestflow.org don’t list either “HDSLR” or “HD DSLR” in their glossary. And considering that Wiki is the Knower of All Things, I find it a little distressing that right there in their article on DSLRs they do something very confusing. The site (which has extremely questionable editorial over site) provides a perfect definition of the still-video hybrid nature HDSLRs, but calls them “High definition DSLRs (HDSLRs).” What? This makes no sense in terms of abbreviation nor, of greater concern, it terms of what “admin” points out about the nonsensical use of “high definition” instead of “hybrid.”

So is an HDSLR really a “high definition digital single lens reflex camera”? This doesn’t make much sense because there is no mention of “video” nor of “hybrid.” However, if it is so, it means that I got the name right in my article, but just not the abbreviation, which, um, was actually right: HDDSLR — just with a space thrown in. (Actually, in a number of posts like this one I started referring to these camera’s as HD-DSLRs, which made the most sense to me — at least for something that didn’t really make sense. Am I living example of the danger of no editorial over site, or what?)

What IS the Answer? — From Anderson, Mooney or YOU

Was there this much confusion with the advent of the first film SLRs? Who cares! What I really want is a clear answer to the one, correct name for DSLR cameras that capture stills and video.

“HDSLR” or “HD DSLR” or both, and why? “High definition” or “hybrid” or both, and why? And if “HD DSLR” is wrong, why is it being used so extensively, and why does no one seem to mind?

If you know (or think you know) the answers to these questions (or simply want to confess your own confusion), please share.

In the mean time, I’m going to forwarding this post to Richard Anderson and Gail Mooney, and ask for their insights. Anderson’s started working in video and is one of the minds behind dpBestflow.org, and he is all about calling things by their proper names. Mooney seems less finicky about proper terminology but she’s a smart cookie who is neck deep in using hybrid cameras.