To: kakaman <email@example.com>
From: Chuck Hester <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Read this --------------
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:30:03 -0700
X-mir-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-mir-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Writing is a craft that is developed over a period of time. Each person (writer) has their own style and flair. When trying edit someone else's material it is very tough to maintain their style especially when the content is historical in nature or technically rich. Too much detail and the material can be confusing along with being hard to digest. Too little detail and the story can be lost or vague in its meaning. When writing for the masses simplicity works the best, because not everyone reads or comprehends on the same level. It is like a double edge sword that can cut both ways. One way it reaches the general population and is understandable the other way it offends those who comprehend at a higher lever.
I am in the first group that is considered simple and somewhat intelligent. I say this even though my background is technical in nature. That is why I try and keep it simple but yet sound intelligent when I try and rewrite stuff for your web sites. I am not a highly educated man and I find the process of writing tough at best. It may take me hours to edit one or two paragraphs so that they read smoothly and are easily understood (by me). If you don't want to sound stupid you have to find the fine line that is somewhat ordinary so that the information that you are presenting is interesting even at higher levels.
All people have a certain rhythm in their writing along with their skill level. When you interrupt this by editing out there style and rhythm it can make them sound unintelligent even though they are not. When preparing sites like these it would be tremendously beneficial for you to have someone else more versed in editing this kind of content other than me.
Don't take this as a dart. It is not meant to hurt or offend you in anyway. But rather to express my feelings regarding the above mentioned. My hat is off to you in what you have done all on these web sites. Especially knowing the challenge that you face in trying to convey your content in english. I am sure that it is a lot tougher than I could ever imagine.
| Back |
Nikon F | Nikon F2 | Nikon F3 | Nikon F4 | Nikon F5 | Nikon F6 | Nikkormat / Nikomat | Nikon FM | Nikon FE/ FA | Nikon EM/FG/FG20 | Nikon Digital SLRs | Nikon - Other models
The Eyes of Nikon:-
Nikon Auto Focus Nikkor lenses:- Main Index Page
Nikon Manual Focus Nikkor lenses:- Fisheye-Nikkor Lenses - Circular | Full Frame | Ultrawides Lenses - 13mm15mm18mm20mm | Wideangle Lenses - 24mm28mm35mm | Standard Lenses - 45mm 50mm 58mm | Telephoto Lenses - 85mm105mm135mm180mm & 200mm | Super-Telephoto Lenses - 300mm 400mm 500mm 600mm 800mm 1200mm |
Special Application lenses:
Micro-Nikkor Lenses - 50mm~55mm -60mm 85mm -105mm 200mm Micro-Zoom 70-180mm
Perspective Control (PC) - 28mm 35mm PC-Micro 85mm
Dedicated Lenses for Nikon F3AF: AF 80mm f/2.8 | AF 200mm f/3.5 EDIF
Depth of Field Control (DC): 105mm 135mm
Medical Nikkor: 120mm 200mm
Reflex-Nikkor Lenses - 500mm 1000mm 2000mm
Others: Noct Nikkor | OP-Nikkor | UV Nikkor 55mm 105mm | Focusing Units | Bellows-Nikkor 105mm 135mm
Nikon Series E Lenses: 28mm35mm50mm100mm135mm | E-Series Zoom lenses: 36~72mm75~150mm70~210mm
MF Zoom-Nikkor Lenses: 25~50mm | 28~45mm | 28~50mm | 28~85mm | 35~70mm | 36~72mm E | 35~85mm | 35~105mm | 35~135mm | 35~200mm | 43~86mm | 50~135mm | 50~300mm | 70~210mm E | 75~150mm E | 80~200mm | 85~250mm | 100~300mm | 180~600mm | 200~400mm | 200~600mm | 360~1200mm | 1200~1700mm
Tele-Converters: TC-1 | TC-2 | TC-200 | TC-201 | TC-300 | TC-301 | TC-14 | TC-14A | TC-14B | TC-14C | TC-14E | TC-16 | TC-16A | TC-20E
Recommended links to understand more technical details related to the Nikkor F-mount and production Serial Number:
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-153.html by: my friend, Rick Oleson
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/fmount.htm by: Hansen, Lars Holst