rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Why EVFs will replace reflex systems - 5 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
* Scenic areas in England - 13 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* Auto Travel across the USA - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/05db2ce565396666?hl=en
* New Mandate: Filters! - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6ca44008ad5d3083?hl=en
* Photos of Scripta - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/876346bf4c08d3ef?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why EVFs will replace reflex systems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:14 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Eric Stevens added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>>These days, I tend to use the small built-in speedlite now that
>>the XSi is a usable high ISO camera (and I can up the speed to
>>compensate for the low GN), when I am "serious" about flash in a
>>museum, I take my external flash which has the side benefit of
>>saving the camera battery.
>
> I don't know of any museum which will let photographs be taken
> with a flash. How do you manage?
I manage quite well, thank you. I have taken flash pictures in all
the museums of the Smithsonian, the Henry Ford Museum, the Walter
P. Chrysler Musueum, and many other, smaller museums across our
great country. The ONLY place where flash is generally forbidden in
places I've personally been in the DIA (Detroit Institute of Art)
because they are fearful of damage to the paintings. Those places
which still have a flash restriction often still have it not
because there is a real risk of damage to the artifacts on exhibit
but because their policy hasn't been updated since the days of
flash bulbs which literally did explode at times.
Incidently, I also took flash pictures at the Imperial War Museum
in London, but flash was pretty much prohibited in the castles I
visited in Germany.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:20 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>> OK - so you figure 4x is 'prodigious' and I don't - I can live
>> with that. Problem is, figures quoted above by David J Taylor
>> indicate the difference is no more than 3.4x. Significantly
>> short of your threshold.
>
> Ray,
>
> I only took some figures off the review pages, and they were
> /not/ for the cameras which Jerry was comparing.
>
> The key difference is that for the sort of number of photos some
> of us can take in a day, with the DSLR battery life isn't an
> issue, whereas with the EVF-class of cameras it's something you
> need to take into consideration when planning your trip.
> Whether that's a precise factor of 3, 4, or 5 doesn't really
> come into it.
>
David, don't waste your breath on ray. As to my stats, they are
hardly scientific, as I'm sure you're aware. I do recall one day at
the Plymouth Road Office Complex Wild Wheels at Work Day car show
with my now broken Nikon 5700. It was outdoors and I used no flash,
yet I still burned through 3 of my 4 batteries and the 4th was
pretty well dead. I took a total of about 630 images that day.
I think the point is, certainly the one I made, is that an EVF will
drain batteries much faster than a DSLR because it essentially has
an LCD display on at all times, albeit a smaller one. But, this
argument is like so many in this NG, someone makes a comment then
the various factions get involved in a futile debate. Isn't it far
more worthwhile to talk about the relative advantages and
disadvantages of a given digital camera type in terms of a user's
specific needs and wants than this?
Have a great Hump Day, David!
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:22 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Dolts R They added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
> You can haul around 20 extra lbs. of glass+tripod in a camera
> back-pack but you can't put a few extra AA cells in a jacket
> pocket? Get real. 550+ shots per set of NiMHs (1500+ on a set of
> lithiums) on my EVF/LCD cameras is more than enough. If you're
> any kind of decent photographer that is. That's equivalent to 15
> to 42 rolls of 35mm, 36exp. film. That's many many days of good
> shots worth, weeks even, on just one set of cells. Unless you're
> like all the online photographers around here that play
> machine-gun with their DSLR's in auto P&S mode, hoping one out
> of one-thousand might turn out by random chance alone. Then by
> all means, battery-drain issues in any camera will be of
> paramount importance to you.
>
> Hint: When you finally figure out how to use any camera then
> most every shot will be a keeper worth printing and framing.
>
You have a handle worthy of your logic, Dolts. The discussion isn't
about how many pounds a DSLR user wants to haul around vs the few
ounces of AA batteries, it is the utter stupidity of the original
comments.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:24 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>> Maybe you, but the overwhelming majority of people do not shoot
>> hundreds of photos per day.
>
> So different people have different requirements, meaning that
> blanket statements such as "Battery life is no problem with
> LCD/EVF cameras" are inaccurate, in that they may, or may not,
> apply to you.
>
Exactly, David! People have widely differing needs AND wants, those
aren't the same. Some want ultra-compact, others want ultra-
quality. Where the elitists and prima donnas fall off the North Rim
of the Grand Canyon in their arguments is ASSUMING that if others
do not do as they do, that they are somehow stupid. If this were
so, then the hundreds of camera models on sale today would not
exist.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:06 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-13 08:11:23 -0700, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> said:
> Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>> Few people are foolish enough to think the future of
>>> photography is anything at all mechanical. But, the "future" is
>>> a long time, and mirrorless is still science fiction for most
>>> of us.
>>
>> It'll go the way of the solid rear axel.
>>
> What's an "axel"? Do you mean "axle"? Last time I looked, Hotchkiss
> drive had hardly gone away. It is still alive and well and still
> used today in trucks. Independent rear suspension has replaced it
> in cars and largely in SUVs, but if we're going to use cars as an
> analogy or metaphor, I think that far more progress has been made
> since, say, the end of WWII than has been made on the basics of SLR
> technology.
I didn't notice that typo before, maybe he meant a variation of the
figure skating jump?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:15 am
From: Jürgen Exner
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-12 13:33:10 -0700, "Stormin Mormon"
>> <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> Mostly I use socialism as a descriptor for excessive
>>> government regulation.
>
>In a practical sense, a country practices socialism when it takes money
>from someone via taxes, and gives it to someone else who didn't earn it.
> Under than definition, both the US, and UK are socialist countries.
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,
published in New York(!), Yes, this is the/a US definition:
socialism:
1: a theory or system of social organisation that advocates the vesting
of the ownership and control of the means of production and
distribution, of capital and land etc., in the community as a whole
2: procedure or practice in accordance with this therory
3: (in Marxist theroy) the stage following capitalizsm in the transition
of society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation
of collectivist principles
Neither "excessive government regulations" nor "taxes" comes even close
to this definition. For the taxes you are probably confusing "socialist"
and "social". Yes, most Western European coutries are social countries
and proud of it.
But calling any Western European country a socialist country is just
ludicrious. In recent years many actually privatized former public
enterprises like postal services, railroads, airlines, garbage
collection and disposal, hospitals, and others. Of course not everywhere
and of course not always, but the trend is unmistakable for everyone who
watches news.
jue
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:24 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:06:06 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>>>If Cornwall fights the rest of England and declares independence that
>>>would be a civil war....
>>
>>Hmmmm. Yes I suppose so.
>
>However Cornwall is attached physically to England where as America is
>not so your argument holds.
only just, above the Tamar. Is physical contiguousness it, I'm not
sure? If the outer Hebrides revolted, it will be the same rule.
If Scotland revolted, would it be reasserting an ancient right and
therefore a rebellion of a subject state as in the revolts against the
USSR?
How about this, its a civil war when the two sides want to control the
whole home country. So independence for Tooting or Cornwall is a war
of independence not a civil war? If Lancaster and York fight for the
English crown (William will fill in details :-)) that would be a civil
war.
--
Mike
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:25 am
From: Jürgen Exner
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>Economic socialism is taking money from some people and giving
>it to others without regard to their (present or past) tax payments
>or their services to the government.
No, that is not socialism, that is social.
>Thus, Social Security is not socialism,
Right
>since the more you pay
>in the more you get, and there is a maximum limit on payments.
Maybe, but irrelevant. It is called _SOCIAL_ security for a reason. It
has nothing with government control over the means of industrial or
agricultural production, that's why it is not socialism.
>Medicare is near-socialism since payouts are not dependent on
>payins. Medicaid is pure socialism. AFDC is socialism.
Neither has anything to do with government ownership and control over
production and land, therefore they are not socialism. They are social.
Same applies to your other examples which I snipped.
jue
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:48 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-12 23:57:54 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
> In message <moKdnUwzSZ02aJTXnZ2dnUVZ_i1i4p2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> writes
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-05-12 13:33:10 -0700, "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock
>>> ##@hotmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Mostly I use socialism as a descriptor for excessive
>>>> government regulation.
>>> ...and therein lies your problem.
>>> You are actually ignorant as to what "socialism" is or means.
>>> You are not even aware there are Marxist and non-Marxist social
>>> theories, and none of the accepted definitions meet your personal
>>> fabrication.
>>> I have a feeling your idea of socialism grew from over exposure to
>>> the Cheney/Limbaugh postulation.
>>>
>>
>> In a practical sense, a country practices socialism when it takes money
>> from someone via taxes, and gives it to someone else who didn't earn
>> it. Under than definition, both the US, and UK are socialist
>> countries.
>
> By that definition ALL countries are socialist and all countries since
> the beginning of time,.
>
> Clearly your definition of socialism is different to that used by the
> rest of the world
"Socialism" has been used as an epithet by the the lunatic fringe,
right in the US, since the days of the rise of the unions in the 20's &
30's and McCarthyism in the 50's. The general theme is, socialism =
communism = bad.
Any program these people disagree with is labelled "socialist" to bring
it into the area of political doubt, through ignorance, and the fear
that, "our way of life will change forever."
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:53 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-13 02:29:23 -0700, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> said:
> In rec.photo.digital Mike <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:22:40 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>> wrote:
>
>>>> People outside of the US know all this.
>>>
>>> Its because they don't travel out side the US.....
>>> (here we go again :-)
>
>> you could probably learn all that plus what anarchism is in an all
>> nighter in a Madrid bar, trouble is next day you cannot remember.
>
> You could learn it anywhere in the world by reading a book, and in
> most places in the developed world by googling. That some Americans
> don't know it is as weird as some South Africans thinking garlic cures
> AIDS.
No! No! No! It's a shower that cures/prevents AIDS.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:10 am
From: Chris H
In message <07pl051j198r48vujtcpic30rl16pf514g@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:06:06 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>>If Cornwall fights the rest of England and declares independence that
>>>>would be a civil war....
>>>
>>>Hmmmm. Yes I suppose so.
>>
>>However Cornwall is attached physically to England where as America is
>>not so your argument holds.
>
>only just, above the Tamar. Is physical contiguousness it, I'm not
>sure? If the outer Hebrides revolted, it will be the same rule.
>If Scotland revolted, would it be reasserting an ancient right and
>therefore a rebellion of a subject state as in the revolts against the
>USSR?
>How about this, its a civil war when the two sides want to control the
>whole home country. So independence for Tooting or Cornwall is a war
>of independence not a civil war? If Lancaster and York fight for the
>English crown (William will fill in details :-)) that would be a civil
>war.
Sounds good to me.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:14 am
From: Jürgen Exner
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>In message <07pl051j198r48vujtcpic30rl16pf514g@4ax.com>, Mike
>>How about this, its a civil war when the two sides want to control the
>>whole home country. So independence for Tooting or Cornwall is a war
>>of independence not a civil war? If Lancaster and York fight for the
>>English crown (William will fill in details :-)) that would be a civil
>>war.
>
>Sounds good to me.
You just declared the US Civil War not to be a civil war :-))
jue
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:16 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:48:09 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>"Socialism" has been used as an epithet by the the lunatic fringe,
>right in the US, since the days of the rise of the unions in the 20's &
>30's and McCarthyism in the 50's. The general theme is, socialism =
>communism = bad.
>
>Any program these people disagree with is labelled "socialist" to bring
>it into the area of political doubt, through ignorance, and the fear
>that, "our way of life will change forever."
Am I right in saying that "commie" may be used by some as just a
general insult?
What would "unamerican" currently mean, if anything?
--
Mike
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:20 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:15:18 -0700, Jürgen Exner
<jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But calling any Western European country a socialist country is just
>ludicrious. In recent years many actually privatized former public
>enterprises like postal services, railroads, airlines, garbage
>collection and disposal, hospitals, and others. Of course not everywhere
>and of course not always, but the trend is unmistakable for everyone who
>watches news.
and our "socialist" party is social democrat, as are most, I think
there's an active small communist party in Italy or somewhere, they
formally ditched some sentence from their constitution years ago, in
fact most criticism of "new labour" is of their conservative
tendencies.
--
Mike
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:32 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:14:22 -0700, Jürgen Exner
<jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>How about this, its a civil war when the two sides want to control the
>>>whole home country. So independence for Tooting or Cornwall is a war
>>>of independence not a civil war? If Lancaster and York fight for the
>>>English crown (William will fill in details :-)) that would be a civil
>>>war.
>>
>>Sounds good to me.
>
>You just declared the US Civil War not to be a civil war :-))
It was a rebellion
American Civil War
(1861–65) A war between the Northern (Union) and Southern
(confederacy) states of the USA. It was officially known as the War of
the Rebellion and usually called the War between the States in the
South.
but this dictionary/encyclopedia includes wars of secession as civil
wars:-
civil war
(or internal war) A state of sustained, large-scale violent conflict
between political, religious, ethnic, or ideological groups within a
state. Such conflict can take place in order to overthrow the
government, or to secede from the state. An example of the former is
the civil war in Russia (1918–20), which followed the 1917 Russian
Revolution; an example of the latter is the American Civil War
(1861–65), which resulted from the attempt at secession on the part of
the Confederate States. Groups may resort to war if they feel their
interests are not fairly reflected in government, or if they want to
impose on the state an alternative ideology or political regime. Many
wars since 1945 have been internal or civil wars, brought about by
state boundaries fixed in the colonial period which ignore ethnic.....
impose on the state an alternative
--
Mike
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:34 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-13 09:16:10 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:48:09 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> "Socialism" has been used as an epithet by the the lunatic fringe,
>> right in the US, since the days of the rise of the unions in the 20's &
>> 30's and McCarthyism in the 50's. The general theme is, socialism =
>> communism = bad.
>>
>> Any program these people disagree with is labelled "socialist" to bring
>> it into the area of political doubt, through ignorance, and the fear
>> that, "our way of life will change forever."
>
> Am I right in saying that "commie" may be used by some as just a
> general insult?
> What would "unamerican" currently mean, if anything?
Oh! 1950's "unamerican" would have related to the McCarthy era HUAC or
House UnAmerican Committee. An ugly time which brought us, among other
things the addition of "One Nation under God" to the pledge of
allegiance. Another distasteful test of "patriotism" for Americans.
For some it might mean not caring who is playing in the Super Bowl or
following NASCAR.
Generally though "commie," "socialist," "unamerican" "Californian,"
"New Yorker," "Washinton insider," "Atheist" are all used freely as
insults.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:36 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:34:15 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>Generally though "commie," "socialist," "unamerican" "Californian,"
>"New Yorker," "Washinton insider," "Atheist" are all used freely as
>insults.
Atheist! Blimey. Thanks for that.
--
Mike
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:42 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-13 09:36:22 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:34:15 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> Generally though "commie," "socialist," "unamerican" "Californian,"
>> "New Yorker," "Washinton insider," "Atheist" are all used freely as
>> insults.
>
> Atheist! Blimey. Thanks for that.
Yup, and you have no idea how amusing that is when you are an atheist,
and are tempted to use "Lunatic Fringe Christian Right" as an insult
without insulting people who have a sincere faith.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Auto Travel across the USA
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/05db2ce565396666?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 8:36 am
From: "David Ruether"
<piotrekwas@interia.pl> wrote in message
news:e0418b5f-c315-429d-81cb-354149db7cae@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Auto Travel across the USA
>
>
> Piotr Was
VERY nice photos, with some the nicest I've seen of areas I'm very
familiar with (although some are near duplicates, there may be an excess
of photos of you two [but they are sometimes also useful for scale] and
the car, and Flash may not be ideal...), and you got to many places others
often miss, like some of my favorites, the Black Canyon of the Gunnison,
Goosenecks, Canyon de Chelley, the slot canyons, and some of the high
areas in Zion. It was amusing to see an "aerial" of that lonely bed and
breakfast in the Valley of the Gods (and I hope you did not have any
near misses on the narrow switch-back dirt road that climbs that high
cliff, used by tractor-trailer trucks!!!). Without captions, one could not
tell that those scrubby looking shrub-like things may be some of the oldest
trees on earth. Great weather, too (in spring?), during your trip in the
South West. Thanks for the excellent photos!
As for the list of locations for your next trip, these are my favorites:
2. Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming).
4. Glacier National Park (Montana).
6. Mt. Rainier National Park (Washington).
Maybe my favorite national park, but watch out - it is *very*
easy to get into trouble here!!! (We once did, taking an
"innocent" short walk...)
9. Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic (Washington).
11. Redwood National Park (California). (See also the
related state parks and the Rockefeller Woods, especially.)
13. San Francisco City (California). (Ride the cable cars in the
evening - WOW! ;-) Also, walk Grant St. from Market St.
to the water at the north - it passes through several *interesting*
neighborhoods. From Grant on the way, detour toward Coit
Tower, take mysterious "hole-in-the-sidewalk" streets that
go off VERY interestingly over cliffs and through hidden
gardens down the hill to the east.) If you can take the time, take
route 1 south from San Francisco to see some beautiful coastline
(the "good stuff" starts just south of Monterey, where Pt. Lobos,
Edward Weston's hang out was). Start in the hills south of SF on
Skyline Drive past the reservoirs, though (there are neat rolling
hills with golden grass and redwood groves here and there). Driving
across the Golden Gate bridge is also a "hoot", especially with a
sun roof so you can look up. Stop at the overlook at the north end,
which has a great view of the bridge and city (after a very short
drive).
25. Niagara Falls (The view from the Canadian side is best, but
there is not much of interest in the city. Consider the Cave of the
Winds and Maid of the Mist tours - but you WILL get WET!
Be careful of passports - travel across the border isn't as casual
as it once was, darn! Close to the Falls area on the Canadian side
is an interesting butterfly conservatory.)
Since you appear to go through Chicago, I suggest trying to stop at
Millennium Park to see the huge mirrored "Chicago Bean" (I have a video
of it here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPhPA8IP_ig&fmt=18), the
nearby glass towers, and the Frank Gehry amphitheater - all very worthwhile,
and definitely "fun"!
BTW, it looks like you may go near Ithaca, New York on the route map.
There are some wonders here (Taughannock Falls, the highest free falls in
the E. US, Buttermilk Falls Park glen, upper Treman Park trail, and the
nearby Watkins Glen Park in the city of Watkins Glen - a favorite narrow
winding glen with many waterfalls, two of which you walk behind). BTW, if
you were not going to Niagara Falls (but do! ;-), I would suggest crossing
the south-western half of New York and then into Pennsylvania on the main
highway there - it is bee-yoo-ti-ful, with nothing but rolling hills, forests,
lakes, streams, meadows (but by August, it may not be at its best unless we
have a wet spring and early summer...). If you do travel up along Lake Ontario
to Rochester (more fun than the Throughway), try the local (ripe) peaches if
in season, sold at farmers' stands. You will then know what a peach SHOULD
taste like! ;-) If you do hit Ithaca, maybe I can show you around here. Oh,
and for parts of the trip in the SW and South, I do trust you will have
operating air conditioning in the car (you WILL need it!!!).
Sigh...! Have fun!
--DR (d_ruether@hotmail.com)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:48 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
? <piotrekwas@interia.pl> ?????? ??? ??????
news:790679c0-c628-402f-a237-6c8df5ff37fe@s20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Auto Travel across the USA
>
> www.photopio.com
>
> Piotr Was
Very nice compositions, with strong, vibrant colours. Reminds me of very
good slide film, like Velvia, taken with good glass. I also liked another
post, recently, which was as if taken with one of those agfa films, the
triade system, Portrait, Optima and Ultra, they looked like Ultra at 50 ISO,
which produced vibrant colours, too.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Filters!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6ca44008ad5d3083?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:05 am
From: Bowser
Annika1980 wrote:
> On May 13, 12:16 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Annika can't figure out what a visual pun is, and we're stuck with
>> "filters"? What's the mandate for July? Infra-red photos of
>> Tennessee osprey?
>
> Oooh, great idea!
>
> The filter mandate is a brilliant idea. Kudos to the genius that
> thought of it.
> It should certainly open up more opportunites for submissions than a
> visual pun, which is an oxymoron .... unlike the regular type of moron
> who came up with that stupid mandate.
At least us regular morons could figure out how to shot a pic that met
the mandate. Use the force, Luke. Let go.
>
> Don't forget that you don't have to use the filter on your lens.
> There are lighting filters as well.
> That's all I'm sayin.
>
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:07 am
From: Bowser
Annika1980 wrote:
> On May 13, 12:16 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Annika can't figure out what a visual pun is, and we're stuck with
>> "filters"? What's the mandate for July? Infra-red photos of
>> Tennessee osprey?
>
> Oooh, great idea!
>
> The filter mandate is a brilliant idea. Kudos to the genius that
> thought of it.
> It should certainly open up more opportunites for submissions than a
> visual pun, which is an oxymoron .... unlike the regular type of moron
> who came up with that stupid mandate.
At least us regular morons could figure out how to shot a pic that met
the mandate. Use the force, Luke. Let go.
>
> Don't forget that you don't have to use the filter on your lens.
> There are lighting filters as well.
> That's all I'm sayin.
>
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:19 am
From: Annika1980
On May 13, 12:07 pm, Bowser <o...@the.rainbow> wrote:
>
> At least us regular morons could figure out how to shot a pic that met
> the mandate.
Really? Which entries would you consider Puns?
Now, in the spirit of the game I shall Filter any further comments
from you.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:21 am
From: Annika1980
On May 12, 6:18 pm, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote:
> Courtesy of Prince Annika of Bug Tussel, the new mandate is Filters.
Good call. We can always do the Macro Cheerleader thing during
football season.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photos of Scripta
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/876346bf4c08d3ef?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:37 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
? "Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> ?????? ??? ??????
news:76up5tF1f6ogmU2@mid.individual.net...
> Hello, recently I did these photos:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043780/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043786/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043790/
>
> Your comments about photography always are interesting.
>
> --
I liked very much your closeups, are you sure its Scripta? I think they have
two orange dots at their "cheeks" (aka side of the head). I had a pair of
them in a miniature pool in my room, I called them Pipis and Lili, they even
laid eggs (so probably had sex, too). Very cute.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
==============================================================================
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