06:59 Aug 3 

Hah, now there's an interesting one!

Of course you're right — by all normal logic, that ought to be the sense; but somehow, instinctively, we've all read it the other way round, and I'm pretty sure that reading is correct.

I guess, strictly speaking, it ought to have been something like « proximité rapprochée ».

I simply couldn't explain it!

00:21 Aug 3 

I don't doubt that you're both right, but how is it that this term comes to mean closer (*greater* proxmity) whereas, say, mobilité réduite means *lesser* mobility?

13:40 Aug 2 

...in certain constructions, only 'proximity' can be used; but in the first example cited by Fiorsam, once again, we are talking about physical proximity, and it's really important to understand the subtlety of the difference here.

In Fiorsam's second example 'physical proximity' is a quite different concept, where 'vicinity' clearly couldn't work.

I have been working professionally in imaging technology for 30 years, as well as translating for some of the foremost, leading-edge companies and scientists working in the field of digital image processing.

12:50 Aug 2 

an even better reference: "Since sub-pixel rendering depends heavily upon the physical proximity of adjacent sub-pixels, ...
www.grc.com/ctwhat.htm"

12:42 Aug 2 

but I disagree with Tony. I've been doing digital photography (including editing) since its inception, and I find "proximity" a perfectly acceptable terms within the context. See for example: "Remember the 4 pillars of good photography: ***Proximity***, Focus, Exposure, ... A digital image is made up of data called pixels, which are tiny squares. ...
www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/authors.../photography_guidel..."

09:37 Aug 2 

I look forward to seeing your post then with appropriate supporting refs.

09:31 Aug 2 

All the refs. you quote include the word 'proximity', and also incidentally mention 'red-eye' — but there is no specific, close connection between the two terms, and so they cannot be considered as highly relevant.

Your fourth patent ref. is more directly relevant, since it is indeed talking about image analysis, and refers to "close spatial proximity"; however, in this instance, the way the expression is being used would have precluded the use of 'vicinity' in any case, since one couldn't really say 'in close spatial vicinity'; in Jennifer's context, 'in the immediate / general vicinity' fits perfectly.

I agree that both terms are viable; but from my pretty extensive experience of digital image processing texts at a very advanced level [PhD], I feel that the important concept of 'neighbourhoods' etc. tips the balance firmly in favour of 'vicinity'.

09:22 Aug 2 

I have to say I don't entirely agree with Helen's preference for 'proximity', and I certainly don't feel that 'vicinity' is "too general".

In all three refs. Helen kindly quotes, 'proximity' is being used in a general sense (i.e. not specifically related to red-eye itself: the first 2 refer to flash-to-lens axis distance, the third, to camera-to-subject distance), and describing a physical distance (measured in some number of centimetres, for example).

However, in your example of image analysis, the kind of 'proximité' involved is more like at pixel level — and it's not so much the actual distance involved as 'the quality of being nearby'; in image processing, we talk a lot about 'neighbouring' pixels and 'neighbourhoods', so I think that 'vicinity' is actually ideal here.

07:00 Aug 2 

I would say that your suggestion of 'general/immediate vicinity' is more appropriate than your original ideas, yes.

06:52 Aug 2 

Could this be "general vicinity" and "immediate vicinity"?