The Best and Worst of 2025

[David_B]

If you are trying to come across as intelligent by using “difficult” words, it helps:

1. If you look up their meaning, so you know they have nothing to do with my post.
2. If you spell them correctly.

Exactly! Where's automatic spell correction when you need it!

 

[David_B]

They always "lied" - focal lengths are idealised and rounded, as are aperture ratios. Angle of view and t-stops are more accurate, but rarely used by stills photographers. None of this is secret, and you can of course use these new lenses with all corrections turned off. You can also still choose from a vast range of older lens designs.

You're right about this. I feel that this is where having 3rd party lenses would benefit consumers because they wouldn't be able to take advantage of DLO and other features and thus would produce lenses that weren't compromised like this. Without that competition, consumers are at Canon's mercy.

I am not labouring under the illusion of some kind of purity. All digital images are the product of a combination of hardware and software. Every aspect - from lens design to the precise nature of filter arrays, to the software settings, to the display device (or printer) - has an impact. How could it be otherwise?

It may be as CR guy says, some of us can accept this and some can'. That's just the way it is.

 

[Jethro]

Because the response from the crowd here was basically she's a nobody because they already knew about her or some other random reason. Maybe the cut-n-paste missed a detail here and there, but that was a far far less or a sin than the other comments that were diminishing of her achievements, notably by people that will probably never achieve anything close to what she achieved, which all comes across as misogny to me.

This is, again, complete rubbish. No-one in that thread called her 'a nobody', or in any way diminished her achievements. In fact a number of people confirmed (some of) what you reported about her, from their own experience in similar fields. While pointing out the factual errors you've already admitted.

Why don't you just admit - even just to yourself if you're not mature enough to do so here in public - that your overwrought reaction to this, and your offensive accusations of misogyny (yes, your spellcheck and diligent checking of the dictionary definition missed it again ...) are just you avoiding admitting that you are wrong?

 

[AlanF]

Because the response from the crowd here was basically she's a nobody because they already knew about her or some other random reason. Maybe the cut-n-paste missed a detail here and there, but that was a far far less or a sin than the other comments that were diminishing of her achievements, notably by people that will probably never achieve anything close to what she achieved, which all comes across as misogny to me.

Your post concluded:

She invented technology that changed how humanity sees the world.
And for decades, history couldn't see her.
But now we do.
Now we remember that every barrier broken makes the next one easier to break.
That every woman told "you don't belong" who succeeds anyway creates possibility for the next generation.
Katharine Burr Blodgett made glass invisible.
History tried to make her invisible too.
We're bringing her back into focus.

@P-visie gave the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett to her Wikipedia Entry that had the impressive recognition, full deserved, she had received in her lifetime. That's what people told you - she was recognised for her marvellous achievements, and no-one here denigrated her. The responses from here were just about your false statements she wasn't recognised in her lifetime. Here is the text of @P-visie's link, with her birth and death dates so you can see when she was honoured with respect to them.

Katharine Burr Blodgett 1898-1979

Awards

Blodgett received numerous awards during her lifetime. She received a star in the seventh edition of American Men of Science (1943), recognizing her as one of the 1,000 most distinguished scientists in the United States.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-siegel-19">[19]</a> In 1945, the American Association of University Women honored her with its Annual Achievement Award.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-siegel-19">[19]</a>

In 1951 she received the prestigious Francis Garvan Medal from the American Chemical Society for her work on thin films. That same year, she was chosen by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as one of 15 "women of achievement." Also in 1951, she was honored in Boston's First Assembly of American Women in Achievement (the only scientist in the group),<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-proffitt-6">[6]</a> and the mayor of Schenectady honored her with Katharine Blodgett Day on June 13, 1951, because of all the honor she had brought to her community.

In 1972, the Photographic Society of America presented her with its Annual Achievement Award<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-ogilvie-7">[7]</a> and in 2007 she was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-20">[20]</a> In 2008, an elementary school in Schenectady bearing her name was opened.

She received honorary doctorates from Elmira College (1939), Western College (1942), Brown University (1942), and Russell Sage College (1944).<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett#cite_note-ogilvie-7">[7]</a>

Blodgett's accomplishments were widely recognized, earning her several prestigious awards. In 1945, she received the Achievement Award from the American Association of University Women, and in 1951, she was honored with the Garvan-Olin Medal by the American Chemical Society. These accolades were a testament to her groundbreaking work as a scientist and her role as a trailblazer for women in the field.