rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Scenic areas in England - 20 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* Tripod recommendations - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e59e681e1ff2393a?hl=en
* How can I improve my shoots? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/20f68722a0441cc5?hl=en
* Cheapest way to capture golf swing impact? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e23aa73d6c7bf57e?hl=en
* May I know where to find these programs? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/db6cd71e48b688fe?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:56 am
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:03:47 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <uane059nfql6v52lghc7ob2ob7kshet4vr@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>>
>>>Well yes... I saw a program about the casinos in Las Vegas and the
>>>Americans were looking at the recreations of Venice and the Eiffel tower
>>>etc and saying it's all here we don't need to go to Europe... but I hope
>>>they are the exception
>>
>>Disneyland Europe, or whatever it is they call it, was built so
>>Europeans wouldn't need to bother coming to the US.
>
>Interestingly it has not been that much of a success, apparently. A
>lot of people do go but for some reason many like to go to Florida to
>see "the real thing" . No figures just some half remembered news items
>over the last few years.
>
>It has had a couple of re-branding and re-launches but I don't think it
>has the success that the US version had. Mind you siting it in France
>was possibly not the best idea.
Let me preface this by saying that I have not been to Disney Europe,
and that I have not personally experienced any more or less rudeness
from the French than from the people of any other nationality.
I have been to the Disney parks in Florida and California. Walking
into a Disney-run place is like being enveloped in sweetness. Every
employee is bright, chipper, friendly, helpful, and cheerful. I
suspect that any employee who is not all of these things is taken to
the subterranean tunnels and beaten on the soles of their feet and
immediately deported.
Given the perception that the French are rude to all but their
immediate relatives, I can't imagine a Disney attraction in France
being a destination of choice.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 2 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 7:08 am
From: "Mike"
On Mon, 11 May 2009 09:56:17 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Let me preface this by saying that I have not been to Disney Europe,
>and that I have not personally experienced any more or less rudeness
>from the French than from the people of any other nationality.
From *Parisians* I have (on average).
>I have been to the Disney parks in Florida and California. Walking
>into a Disney-run place is like being enveloped in sweetness. Every
>employee is bright, chipper, friendly, helpful, and cheerful. I
>suspect that any employee who is not all of these things is taken to
>the subterranean tunnels and beaten on the soles of their feet and
>immediately deported.
Now I run a mile from that, I much prefer the employee who tells me
the truth, I will put up with the surly ones for the benefit of a real
conversation with the ones I strike a rapport with
Italy can go to far though. I had to drag my cases up hundreds of
steps, find another taxi and lose an hour or two because the Italian
car hire had failed to inform anybody they moved office. We ended up
finding ourselves expected to be sympathetic to the clerk because he
had to live in the country like that all the time, we could go home!
But he was charming and it was very funny to look back on.
>Given the perception that the French are rude to all but their
>immediate relatives, I can't imagine a Disney attraction in France
>being a destination of choice.
I never intended going but you are talking me round :-)
--
Mike
== 3 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 7:36 am
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 11 May 2009 14:41:53 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:42:54 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Cultural difference is not limited to being around people who speak a
>>different language, native costumes, traditional dances, or cuisine.
>>These are cultural factors, but culture encompasses what is around us
>>in daily life. There's a major cultural difference between Manhattan
>>and Orlando. For the person who simply seeks change and different
>>experiences - and that's what most of us want on our holidays - travel
>>within the United States can offer that.
>
>I think while there are many differences between those two places
>there will also be many common factors that an American traveler will
>not realize are such. For instance, London is probably more similar
>to New York than Florida in some senses but the American traveler will
>probably only be confronted by the relative prevalence of atheism,
>lack of patriotism (less so recently), zero interest in "the
>constitution", zero advocacy for the right to bear arms, the different
>understanding and acceptance of what "socialism" is, wearing your
>pants under your trousers and certainly not patting a woman on her
>fanny in public, even if you know her intimately :-)
That is nothing short of bizarre. You have listed some points that
have some basis of truth in fact in the abstract, but absolutely
nothing - nothing - that an American tourist in London would notice,
think about, or consider.
You think that the American tourist in London looks around and wonders
if the people on the street beside him believe in God? Questions that
the British have no written constitution? Thinks about your gun laws?
Total bollocks. The American tourist in London is trying to get used
to looking right first when he steps off the curb (and doesn't care if
you spell it "kerb"), is trying to figure out what something costs in
a monetary system he's used to, and whether or not he's supposed to
tip the taxi driver.
Nothing you've mentioned affects the tourist unless he misplaces his
fanny pack and asks the clerk in Boots if they carry a replacement.
He's more likely to have vocabulary problems if he rents a car. He's
got to go through the hires-not-rents, hooter, wing, boot, off-side,
petrol, windscreen nomenclature differences.
>In short only leaving the US will show you those areas where the US
>citizen does not realize that there is an alternate view,
Oh, for Christ's Sake. I'm glad that I've been to the UK several
times and that I read other newsgroups where there are some sane and
reasonable Brits who have an understanding that Americans come in all
flavors.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 4 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 7:39 am
From: Chris H
In message <lvag05p3se2p11u1gf858uv24an3tdg5po@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:03:47 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <uane059nfql6v52lghc7ob2ob7kshet4vr@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>Well yes... I saw a program about the casinos in Las Vegas and the
>>>>Americans were looking at the recreations of Venice and the Eiffel tower
>>>>etc and saying it's all here we don't need to go to Europe... but I hope
>>>>they are the exception
>>>
>>>Disneyland Europe, or whatever it is they call it, was built so
>>>Europeans wouldn't need to bother coming to the US.
>>
>>Interestingly it has not been that much of a success, apparently. A
>>lot of people do go but for some reason many like to go to Florida to
>>see "the real thing" . No figures just some half remembered news items
>>over the last few years.
>>
>>It has had a couple of re-branding and re-launches but I don't think it
>>has the success that the US version had. Mind you siting it in France
>>was possibly not the best idea.
>
>Let me preface this by saying that I have not been to Disney Europe,
>and that I have not personally experienced any more or less rudeness
>from the French than from the people of any other nationality.
>
>I have been to the Disney parks in Florida and California. Walking
>into a Disney-run place is like being enveloped in sweetness. Every
>employee is bright, chipper, friendly, helpful, and cheerful. I
>suspect that any employee who is not all of these things is taken to
>the subterranean tunnels and beaten on the soles of their feet and
>immediately deported.
>
>Given the perception that the French are rude to all but their
>immediate relatives,
We it depends if you mean the French or the Parisians. (Not even the
French like the Parisians :-)
> I can't imagine a Disney attraction in France
>being a destination of choice.
I think they prefer things with more style and class (even if it kills
them :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 5 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 7:52 am
From: "Mike"
On Mon, 11 May 2009 10:36:29 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>I think while there are many differences between those two places
>>there will also be many common factors that an American traveler will
>>not realize are such. For instance, London is probably more similar
>>to New York than Florida in some senses but the American traveler will
>>probably only be confronted by the relative prevalence of atheism,
>>lack of patriotism (less so recently), zero interest in "the
>>constitution", zero advocacy for the right to bear arms, the different
>>understanding and acceptance of what "socialism" is, wearing your
>>pants under your trousers and certainly not patting a woman on her
>>fanny in public, even if you know her intimately :-)
>
>That is nothing short of bizarre. You have listed some points that
>have some basis of truth in fact in the abstract, but absolutely
>nothing - nothing - that an American tourist in London would notice,
>think about, or consider.
>
>You think that the American tourist in London looks around and wonders
>if the people on the street beside him believe in God? Questions that
>the British have no written constitution? Thinks about your gun laws?
wht ever not? Some travellers are interested in more than ticking off
the sights.
>Total bollocks. The American tourist in London is trying to get used
>to looking right first when he steps off the curb (and doesn't care if
>you spell it "kerb"), is trying to figure out what something costs in
>a monetary system he's used to, and whether or not he's supposed to
>tip the taxi driver.
that should take the first five minutes, as theres no language barrier
they could delve a bit deeper.
>Nothing you've mentioned affects the tourist unless he
thinks?
>misplaces his
>fanny pack and asks the clerk in Boots if they carry a replacement.
and that was just a joke, fairly obviously.
>He's more likely to have vocabulary problems if he rents a car. He's
>got to go through the hires-not-rents, hooter, wing, boot, off-side,
>petrol, windscreen nomenclature differences.
especially if its a diesel
>>In short only leaving the US will show you those areas where the US
>>citizen does not realize that there is an alternate view,
>
>Oh, for Christ's Sake. I'm glad that I've been to the UK several
>times and that I read other newsgroups where there are some sane and
>reasonable Brits who have an understanding that Americans come in all
>flavors.
Of course they do.
That does not mean that it wouldnt be interesting to see that an issue
where amercians hold opposing views, as in gun control, is a non issue
in Europe.
--
Mike
== 6 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 8:03 am
From: "William Black"
"Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote in message
news:javf05lgugcpavvvgkq5adi5rjbih4chm0@4ax.com...
> On 11 May 2009 09:52:29 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>We had to take over the Government in London
>
> does seem to be the case!
And now they're taking the blame...
--
William Black
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
== 7 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 8:15 am
From: "Mike"
On Mon, 11 May 2009 16:03:55 +0100, "William Black"
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>We had to take over the Government in London
>>
>> does seem to be the case!
>
>And now they're taking the blame...
I thought the tories claim of "browns recession", presumably including
fannie may (or whatever her name is) and Iceland a little silly,
although no doubt believed widely, but all this sub honest stuff with
expenses/allowances seems to show up the whole political class as
having no morality whatsoever.
--
Mike
== 8 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 8:13 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"
I can tell that you believe in personal slams, but not
giving out information.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a040e59$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Please remember that England is socialist. You don't have
> rights there, unless they decide you do. Please ask the
> local folks what is permitted, so you don't get in trouble
> with the law.
Are you kidding? I can tell that you've never been to
England!
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna
condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 9 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 8:15 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"
I suspect the RFID information provides more than passport
number.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gu6odj02jig@news3.newsguy.com...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Need to carry passport in a RF shield foil pouch, so
> everyone within range can't read your RFID information.
> Otherwise, it's the digital equivilant of having your
> personal information stencilled on your back, so everyone
> can read it.
So how does it benefit somebody to know your passport
number?
== 10 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 8:31 am
From: "Mike"
On Mon, 11 May 2009 11:13:54 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I can tell that you believe in personal slams, but not
>giving out information.
OK,
a) "England" does not have a government
b) Our socialist party is such only in name
--
Mike
== 11 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 8:45 am
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 11 May 2009 15:52:06 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 May 2009 10:36:29 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>I think while there are many differences between those two places
>>>there will also be many common factors that an American traveler will
>>>not realize are such. For instance, London is probably more similar
>>>to New York than Florida in some senses but the American traveler will
>>>probably only be confronted by the relative prevalence of atheism,
>>>lack of patriotism (less so recently), zero interest in "the
>>>constitution", zero advocacy for the right to bear arms, the different
>>>understanding and acceptance of what "socialism" is, wearing your
>>>pants under your trousers and certainly not patting a woman on her
>>>fanny in public, even if you know her intimately :-)
>>
>>That is nothing short of bizarre. You have listed some points that
>>have some basis of truth in fact in the abstract, but absolutely
>>nothing - nothing - that an American tourist in London would notice,
>>think about, or consider.
>>
>>You think that the American tourist in London looks around and wonders
>>if the people on the street beside him believe in God? Questions that
>>the British have no written constitution? Thinks about your gun laws?
>
>wht ever not? Some travellers are interested in more than ticking off
>the sights.
American tourists are not there to mentally survey the conceptual
attitudes of the British on religion, law, or governmental structure.
They are there to see the sights and get an impression of the country
and the people. Some do come away with the idea that the UK or Europe
is a more religious country than it is because every third major
tourist site is a cathedral or church. You can't blame an American
who is wandering through Westminster Abbey or York Minster for
thinking that maybe the English have at least a passing interest in
religion. It's irrelative and unnoticed to the American tourist that
the regular churches are not filled on Sunday morning.
>
>>Total bollocks. The American tourist in London is trying to get used
>>to looking right first when he steps off the curb (and doesn't care if
>>you spell it "kerb"), is trying to figure out what something costs in
>>a monetary system he's used to, and whether or not he's supposed to
>>tip the taxi driver.
>
>that should take the first five minutes, as theres no language barrier
>they could delve a bit deeper.
>
>>Nothing you've mentioned affects the tourist unless he
>
>thinks?
>
>>misplaces his
>>fanny pack and asks the clerk in Boots if they carry a replacement.
>
>and that was just a joke, fairly obviously.
>
>
>>He's more likely to have vocabulary problems if he rents a car. He's
>>got to go through the hires-not-rents, hooter, wing, boot, off-side,
>>petrol, windscreen nomenclature differences.
>
>especially if its a diesel
Why? You think we don't have diesel cars here? I owned one.
>>>>In short only leaving the US will show you those areas where the US
>>>citizen does not realize that there is an alternate view,
>>
>>Oh, for Christ's Sake. I'm glad that I've been to the UK several
>>times and that I read other newsgroups where there are some sane and
>>reasonable Brits who have an understanding that Americans come in all
>>flavors.
>
>Of course they do.
>That does not mean that it wouldnt be interesting to see that an issue
>where amercians hold opposing views, as in gun control, is a non issue
>in Europe.
Damn, but you're thick. Americans don't hold opposing views to
anything you've mentioned. There is not one coast-to-coast mentality
or agreement on any issue in the United States. There are Americans
who are religious, and Americans who are atheists. There are
Americans who are Second Amendment nuts, and Americans who are
strongly in favor of strict gun controls. There are Americans who
lean to the socialist side (though we may consider "socialist" to have
a different meaning than you do) and Americans who are very
conservative (again, we use the word differently).
Pick an American visiting your country and he is just as likely to be
in total agreement with you on some of these issues as he is to be in
opposition.
Statements like "Americans hold opposing views" are strong indications
to me that I'm not reading something written by someone who has any
idea of what they're blathering on about. Anyone with any sense
should know that a country with a population of over 300 million is
not a place where you can put all of the citizens in one neat little
box.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 12 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 9:08 am
From: "Mike"
On Mon, 11 May 2009 11:45:42 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>American tourists are not there to mentally survey the conceptual
>attitudes of the British on religion, law, or governmental structure.
>They are there to see the sights and get an impression of the country
>and the people.
yes, the people, of which notable differences are attitudes to gun
control etc and as you said, even Americans come in all flavours.
>Some do come away with the idea that the UK or Europe
>is a more religious country than it is because every third major
>tourist site is a cathedral or church. You can't blame an American
>who is wandering through Westminster Abbey or York Minster for
>thinking that maybe the English have at least a passing interest in
>religion.
indeed, its history not current life to many of us
>It's irrelative and unnoticed to the American tourist that
>the regular churches are not filled on Sunday morning.
I have noticed people going to church or not when traveling, why is
that beyond an American?
>>>He's more likely to have vocabulary problems if he rents a car. He's
>>>got to go through the hires-not-rents, hooter, wing, boot, off-side,
>>>petrol, windscreen nomenclature differences.
>>
>>especially if its a diesel
>
>Why? You think we don't have diesel cars here? I owned one.
No, I think they don't run on petrol
>>Of course they do.
>>That does not mean that it wouldnt be interesting to see that an issue
>>where amercians hold opposing views, as in gun control, is a non issue
>>in Europe.
>
>Damn, but you're thick.
sadly as is usual, the person who descends to insults is the one with
the problem.
>Americans don't hold opposing views to
>anything you've mentioned.
I will try and spell it out, perhaps its a language thing? Americans
have a debate about gun control, different views, we do not, that's a
difference, got it?
>There is not one coast-to-coast mentality
>or agreement on any issue in the United States.
nobody said there was, see above
>There are Americans
>who are religious, and Americans who are atheists.
yes of course there are, but the % is greater, nobody said all
Americans are the same.
>There are
>Americans who are Second Amendment nuts, and Americans who are
>strongly in favor of strict gun controls.
the point you are missing is that in the UK there are virtually no
constitution nuts, there isn't hardly anybody not in favour of gun
control, in the US there are, that's the point.
>There are Americans who
>lean to the socialist side (though we may consider "socialist" to have
>a different meaning than you do) and Americans who are very
>conservative (again, we use the word differently).
>
>Pick an American visiting your country and he is just as likely to be
>in total agreement with you on some of these issues as he is to be in
>opposition.
as I said the point has gone over your head, the Mercian, of what ever
view, can note there is no gun control debate here.
>Statements like "Americans hold opposing views" are strong indications
>to me that I'm not reading something written by someone who has any
>idea of what they're blathering on about.
I'm getting a strong indication you are jumping to the wrong
conclusions consistently.
>Anyone with any sense
>should know that a country with a population of over 300 million is
>not a place where you can put all of the citizens in one neat little
>box.
If you read more carefully you might make less of a fool of yourself.
--
Mike
== 13 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 9:11 am
From: "Mike"
On Mon, 11 May 2009 17:08:42 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>yes, the people, of which notable differences are attitudes to gun
>control etc and as you said, even Americans come in all flavours.
badly written
yes, study the people, of which a notable difference (US v UK) is
attitudes to gun control etc.
--
Mike
== 14 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 9:12 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu
Mike wrote:
>
> I think its a given the US has some great landscapes, they are of
> course as far away from parts of US as Iceland or Russia is from me in
> London. I can drive to the alps in a day, would I be right in assuming
> there are places in the middle of the US where its quite a trek to get
> anywhere interesting or some coast.
There is no place in the US where it is more than a long day's drive to
get to some place interesting and very nice. There are places where
that would not be a coast, however, or very big mountains.
Doug McDonald
== 15 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 9:19 am
From: "Mike"
On Mon, 11 May 2009 17:08:42 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>>>>petrol, windscreen nomenclature differences.
>>>
>>>especially if its a diesel
>>
>>Why? You think we don't have diesel cars here? I owned one.
>
>No, I think they don't run on petrol
I think the problems here are either
a) you don't understand a non American sense of humour
b) you think eiropeans must all be stupid
c) you need to calm down and read what I'm actually saying rather than
jump to wild assumptions based on the preconceived idea I must be
critizising the US at every turn.
you said the word "petrol" is a problem.
I said especially if your driving a diesel, thats a little joke, it
doesnt mean europeans think americans havent heard of deisels.
and so on......
--
Mike
== 16 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 9:28 am
From: "Mike"
On Mon, 11 May 2009 15:52:06 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>>Total bollocks
do Americans use the terms "Bollocks" and "blathering" I just wondered
if i'm being trolled?
--
Mike
== 17 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 9:36 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-11 09:08:42 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009 11:45:42 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> He's more likely to have vocabulary problems if he rents a car. He's
>>>> got to go through the hires-not-rents, hooter, wing, boot, off-side,
>>>> petrol, windscreen nomenclature differences.
>>>
>>> especially if its a diesel
>>
>> Why? You think we don't have diesel cars here? I owned one.
>
> No, I think they don't run on petrol
Mike I think you missed Tony's point. There are different words used in
the UK and USA for the same things; hire vs. rent, boot vs. trunk,
hooter vs. horn, lift vs. elevator and petrol vs. gas.
This was not a discussion on fuel or cars, but differences in usage of
what on the surface is supposed to be a common language. I am sure he
did not mention diesel, as it seems that is one word US English and UK
English have managed to find common ground with. Diesel is diesel on
both sides of the Atlantic.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 18 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 9:40 am
From: "Mike"
On Mon, 11 May 2009 09:36:16 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>> Why? You think we don't have diesel cars here? I owned one.
>>
>> No, I think they don't run on petrol
>
>Mike I think you missed Tony's point. There are different words used in
>the UK and USA for the same things; hire vs. rent, boot vs. trunk,
>hooter vs. horn, lift vs. elevator and petrol vs. gas.
>This was not a discussion on fuel or cars, but differences in usage of
>what on the surface is supposed to be a common language. I am sure he
>did not mention diesel, as it seems that is one word US English and UK
>English have managed to find common ground with. Diesel is diesel on
>both sides of the Atlantic.
I know, it was just a joke. He said you need to know the word
"petrol", I said not if your car is a diesel, something like that.
--
Mike
== 19 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 10:21 am
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 11 May 2009 09:27:56 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:35:13 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>Having said that, from where I live it is a few hours drive into, or
>>>over the Sierras, North into Coastal Redwoods or over to Death Valley.
>>>I think of Hwy1 and Big Sur as "Local" and I never tire of it.
>>>Then there is Alaska, the North West including B.C.
>
>I think its a given the US has some great landscapes, they are of
>course as far away from parts of US as Iceland or Russia is from me in
>London. I can drive to the alps in a day, would I be right in assuming
>there are places in the middle of the US where its quite a trek to get
>anywhere interesting or some coast. Everywhere in UK the coast is in
>range of a strong cyclist, I see this as an advantage although I would
>visit some of the US national parks if they were not so far away.
Doesn't that depend on what you considering to be "interesting"? The
coast is interesting, but it's not the only thing that is of interest
people.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 20 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 10:26 am
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 11 May 2009 17:19:46 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 May 2009 17:08:42 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>petrol, windscreen nomenclature differences.
>>>>
>>>>especially if its a diesel
>>>
>>>Why? You think we don't have diesel cars here? I owned one.
>>
>>No, I think they don't run on petrol
>
>I think the problems here are either
>
>a) you don't understand a non American sense of humour
If you come up with a sense of humor, I think I'll notice it.
>b) you think eiropeans must all be stupid
I think most of them spell better than you do.
>c) you need to calm down and read what I'm actually saying rather than
>jump to wild assumptions based on the preconceived idea I must be
>critizising the US at every turn.
>
>you said the word "petrol" is a problem.
Yes, hiring a car in the UK would require the American to adjust to
several unfamiliar terms. They would include, but not be limited to,
the word "petrol".
>I said especially if your driving a diesel, thats a little joke, it
>doesnt mean europeans think americans havent heard of deisels.
>
>and so on......
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tripod recommendations
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e59e681e1ff2393a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 7:35 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:76j1o4F1c731fU1@mid.individual.net...
> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:76gobhF1daolqU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>>>> Anyone have any thoughts or links that might be useful to her.
>>>> cheers
>>>
>>> It matters a lot whether the tripod will be used indoors or
>>> outdoors.
>
>> First off it will be in a disused warehouse/factory, broken windows etc..
>
> If there's no wind you can wait while a flimsy tripod settles down
> and stops quivering.
True, but as she hasn't a tripod, why buy a flimsy one, I have one like that
she could borrow, her boyfriend offered to buy her one, but I don;t think
he has any idea what she wants/needs.
>
>>> It matters a lot what size of output images she
>>> requires.
>
>> Mostly monochrome large enough to present so at least 10X8 hopefully
>> larger.
>
> "Hopefully larger" could possibly require the extra resolution of
> medium format :-)
She likes old cameras style wise, there was a Hasslblad 500 or something on
ebay
that she was tempted by.
>>> The longest focal length of the lens she will use is
>>> important. It matters a lot how high the camera will have to be.
>
>> Well not high or low, just 'standard' shooting height more likely to be
>> waist
>> height to head height .
>> Standard to wide angle lens I think.
>
> So far this doesn't sound very demanding of tripod stability,
> providing she's capable of the technique required to get stability out
> of a flimsy tripod.
That's what I was thinking but I've no idea how to evaluate a tripod,
in comparison cameras are easy. ;-)
>>> College project eh? Is she going to have to write up how she solved
>>> the tripod problem? "I got a friend to ask questions on the internet
>>> for me." That'll get good marks :-)
>
>> No, I can suss those sorts out.
>> TBH I'm not quite sure what she's up to, she's very arty.
>> her last attmept was in a disused basement at night.
>> She set up the 5X4, put it on B, then went around the room firing off a
>> flash gun (small) manually hoping to get something, but nothing,
>> I think the flash was too small and film speed to low, or she didn't;
>> set something up right.
>> At her next location, an old radiator was in her way so she moved it,
>> trouble was it was heavy cast iron and fell over trapping her hand,
>> she had to go to hospital and get her hand bandaged so that ended that
>> shoot.
>> Part of her study I think is to compare digital with film for low light
>> work
>> and whether reciprocity failure can be overcome using multiple exposures
>> on a digital camera[1] rather than one single long exposure on film.
>
> Reciprocity failure doesn't apply to digital images,
Well that's partly the point but does it make digital better for long
exposure photography is the question she needs to investigate.
>and in terms of
> film is simply overcome by the use of the appropriate time and filter
> functions which all suppliers of high quality film provide. Obviously
> you don't know the specific terms of the project, but it sounds as
> though there could easly be plenty of room for it to be partly
> baked :-)
True, but I think it's a training technique rather than finding the answer.
it is a college project after all.
But I.m curious to know the limits of digital sensors and how they'd
compare in very low light.
i.e if a picture required an expossure of 1/10th at f4 would 100 exposures
of
1/1000th at f4 give the same results.
>> Although I get the impression that the course organises just want
>> something
>> done
>> that she can write about to contribute to her Msc[2].
>
> Demonstrate that she's capable of learning and problem solving on her
> own in a novel technical field, and it doesn't really matter that the
> problems have been solved by others, because it will take her quite a
> of research to discover that, and quite a bit of intelligence if she
> does discover it to verify it in practice.
Probably, even though her course is primarily to do with illustrations
rather
than photography as she's done the photography course part.
She works teaching basic Photoshop in some sort of rehab centre for the
homeless
and ex alchol and drug users.
> It doesn't sound like a particularly demanding project, which from the
> sound of things is probably just as well. I'm pleased to hear there are
> colleges so devoted to the cause of education that they will lend a
> medium format camera to that kind of student :-)
well colleges have to make a living and if tehy can't get studetns to waste
their
time paying the course fees then there's a lot of academic
photographers/designers
and artists out of work.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How can I improve my shoots?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/20f68722a0441cc5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 7:48 am
From: tony cooper
On Fri, 8 May 2009 11:59:45 +1000, "Atheist Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov>
wrote:
>you assume too much grasshopper, I used to look at photos on flickr,
>generally randomly and sometimes by category so I could get some motivation
>and see just how good some people are. I soon noticed that some very
>ordinary photos were getting rave reviews, and it was becoming more common.
>I don't use flickr, I use Smugmug, nice, easy to personalise site and it
>loads fast on my crappy Australian upload speed.
I have a SmugMug page, and I read the SmugMug site - DigitalGrin -
where photos are displayed and critiqued. The critiques in
DigitalGrin range from "Nice shot" to constructively helpful. The
only advantage of DigitalGrin over Flickr is that there is one page
where the submissions are broken down by category (people, sports,
wildlife, macro, etc) and it is easier to skim through the
submissions.
Photo.net has a good critique forum, but the volume is high and the
critique forum images rotate so you have less exposure than in
DigitalGrin or Flickr. Again, comments range from meaningless praise
to helpful suggestions. It's all about individuals.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 9:06 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Atheist Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov> wrote in message
news:4a0827ca@news.x-privat.org...
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:gu94dv$qm$1@qmul...
>>
>> "Atheist Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov> wrote in message
>> news:4a0586e1@news.x-privat.org...
>>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:76l48jF1dmgmuU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
>>> photographic skills,
>>
>> How does flickr improve your skills I though it was just a place to show
>> photos.
>>
>
> because as some have said, there are people who will help by pointing out
> ways to improve your shots, self assessment generally doesn't work all
> that often.
The thing is I've never thought of flickr as a place to improve my photos.
I was a memeber of a photographic club where pictures were judged
by someone that was meant to know more about photgraphy than those
entering their pictures to be judged.
I had one picture that was entered in to the at the North London exibition
of
pictoral photography, I didn't learn a thing from that, no one commented
on the picture.
I wasn;t aware peolpe expected such things from flickr, I always assumed the
comment
were only meant to be "nice pussy how old is he" and those sort of comments
rather than, well you cleary shoudn;t have used a P&S but used a 50MP DSLR
if yuo reallt want the best picture of your cat.
I dount there's many pictures taken that could be better taken by someone
else.
As an example
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/3494607458/
Yes I know I should have cleared up, the backgrounds a little distracting.
I cut the top of the computer off, I should have waited until he turned
around.
it could have been framed better, the wires look a bit untidy.
>>>but my point still remains (however you try justify yours) flickr had a
>>>cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day, that's why I
>>>left and went to Smugmug,
>>
>> I didn;t want some of my more private photos diplayed on flickr so
>> I set up my own website.
>> I use flickr to display photos in a similar way some use exibition halls.
>>
>
> Funnily enough Smugmug allows you to set up private folders, and again
> anyone can set up a photo web site but how is that going to help improve
> your skills, or are you already "Ansel Adams" in your own mind :-)
Well I'd set up a site and ask for specified critasiscim rather than saying
my pussy
looks a bit scriffy, I'd state that I'd like comments of improving my
photography
rather than the choice of cat or computer.
For me and those I know flickr is like a photo album you get out when
friends come over
rather than a portfolio you take to an employer for a job interview.
>>> if I post a mediocre photo,
>> Why would you want to,
>>
>
> because sometimes you don't know its mediocre unless you show it to
> others, honest criticism is one of the fastest ways to learn what other
> people like and where you might have gone wrong.
I agree with that and if I want that I prefer to ask people that know about
that sort of thing.
If you look at flickr it's about sharing photos between friends/family.
>>> not have some self serving praise junkie try and blow smoke up my arse.
>> If they see something good in it then why does that worry you.
>
> It doesn't, but there are some who will put a positive comment expecting
> you to return the favour, even though you suspect its not exactly the
> greatest shot.
But some like things I don't and vica versa, I put a picture of a squirrel
on flickr, because it was fun to take, there I was walking along
on my way to work and there it was on a wall, so I just got my camera out of
my pocket
and shot a couple of pictures. I wasn;t aim to take the best picture ever of
a squirrel.
I know perhaps the backgroud couple have been more out of focus and the Sq.
a bit sharper, I should have perhaps lowered the ISO.
I wasn;t really interesed in hearing how bad it is compared to a pro in a
with £1000s worth of equipment and how they'd done it better.
Even if I did have a DSLR I wouldn;t carry it to work every day in my inside
pocket.
If I really wanted this to be seen as the best possible picture of a
squirrel ever taken
I would expect some pretty harsh criticism but I'm not really interested in
that.
But maybe I do know what you mean when I see all though blurry pictures
of a couples new born baby, I might be thinking that's an ugly brat, I'm
glad
it's a bit oput of focus and tehy really shouldnt; have taken it with snot
falling from it's nose.
>
>> I don;t see much of any talent in Picassos paintings and I wouldn't piss
>> on them
>> if they were on fire, but some seem to think they are great and actually
>> worth more
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but honest peer praise is worth more
Which is why I find it amusing that some of the impressionist painters have
been
so praised for paintings the way they captured the light etc... but now we
find it's because
they had blurred vision due to poor eye sight rather than an imaginative
skill.
>
>> than the picture of the tennis player scratching her arse.
>>
>>
>> >At east when someone takes the time to comment in
>>> Smugmug I get told if its a good photo and why, I also get told if it
>>> sucks, and why.
>> Well that's because you are after self satisfaction, your primary reason
>> for posting
>> is to find out what people think of your photos.
>
> Exactly, I like to know what people honestly think and if there is some
> way to make it a better shot.
I might consider joining such a thing if/when I have that sort of thing in
mind,
but for me flickr isn't for that.
If someone says my cat picture is great I don't see that as a tecnical
compliment
but do see it as a compliment for captuing the picture of my cat as he was
at the time
rather than polishiong him up for some cat show.
>
>> My primary reason for showing photos is so that other people might get
>> some
>> pleasure in viewing them.
>
> Exactly, but what's the point if you think your posting the next ceiling
> of the Sistine Chapel yet everyone else thinks it belongs in the cistern.
I'm not trying to sell them, although offers may be accepted.
>>> The end for me was when I posted a particularly lifeless photo as an
>>> experiment and was told by the praise junkies how wonderful it was,
>>
>> So, I'm sure the Spice girls or any number of boy bands are told what
>> wonder singers they are or how talented they are, do I care,
>
> you obviously care enough to comment :-)
well when I'm told a band is classed as better if they sell more, then I'm
sure that
upsets proper musicians. Same must go for pictures too.
>> I'd personally would have compared the Times to a tabliod.
>> if I want to see good photographs of sporting events I wouldn't buy the
>> Times
>>
>>> I have not encountered any of the groups where there was any such rule
>>> as you have to praise every (insert X number) for every shot you
>>> uploaded so I bow to your obvious experience there,
>>
>> There's no groups where you have to praise anyone, what there are is
>> groups were
>> you have to comment on one and post one and other variations.
>> It's a comment and post not a paraise and post.
>> Maybe you have a reading comprehension issue or is it a visual
>> comprehension issue ;-)
>
> I didnt bring that up in the first place, it was Chris Malcolm that
> mentioned those types of groups, see my comprehension is fine thanks,
> though my eyesight is not improving with age so there might just be
> something in that.
I guess it comes to us all, but at least with IS out shaking hands are less
of an issue.
Which is another interesting point if a photographer has shaky hands then
his photos
are likely to be blurry unless he uses a 'good' camera with a good IS.
system,
but how does that reflect on the photgrapher is he better or just better
equiped.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheapest way to capture golf swing impact?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e23aa73d6c7bf57e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 8:53 am
From: Prof Wonmug
What's the cheapest setup that I could get that would capture the
moment of impact of a golf club and the ball? I just want to capture
the moment of impact, not the whole swing.
If I've done the math correctly, I need a camera that can capture
about 50 frames/second. The speed of the club head for an average golf
swing is about 100 mph. That's about 147 feet/second or about 12
inches/second. If I want to get a frame about every 0.25 inches, that
comes out to be about 50 frames/second.
I only need a few frames before and after the actual impact, but it's
probably easier to have the camera running longer than that to avoid
difficult timing problems.
What would I need to be able to set up a camera that can take at least
50 frames per second for a few seconds?
What type of camera? I am really only interested in digital.
What type of start/stop mechanism?
I assume a standard tripod would work?
Anything else I need to know?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: May I know where to find these programs?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/db6cd71e48b688fe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 10:27 am
From: nospam
In article <L6udnXoZN4tCRZrXnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
> equal capability,
not even remotely true.
> but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
> significant advantage.
yes, gimp is free.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment