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 - 16 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* Raw converters - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0b19041d3c6ee86c?hl=en
* Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555753247e2a15f7?hl=en
* Spanking For A Good Cause - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/213486fd88e75dfb?hl=en
* The Ultimate Photo-Bag - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d379eb3ce3f36aff?hl=en
* New Style Designer Rock & Republic Jeans - discount - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7fdd414de93031ef?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 5:53 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:guf5cc14ub@news5.newsguy.com...
>
> Whether He cares or not where's the harm in asking Him to? I doubt that
> He
> cares when anyone sneezes either but it's nonetheless polite to say the
> words.
Hold on a mo. if he's all powerful then I'm betting he wants people to
transmit bird flue, swine flu and everything else possible, perpahs those
transmiting his virus should be blessed.
Now whether or not God can compete with microsoft for spreading virus's
we'll just have to wait and see who makes it in to the Guinness book of
world records.
>
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 5:56 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:49-dneYu4NLqn5HXnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> When I hear somebody say "god bless America" I just wince.
> Of course you do, but do you also when someone says; "God save the Queen"?
I think .....
Fascist regime,
she made you a moron, a potential H bomb. :)
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 6:12 am
From: William Black
Mike wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 01:12:53 +0100, Jack Campin - bogus address
> <bogus@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Engels was mainly based in Manchester. I prefer to imagine it was
>>in a Lancashire pub, and Marx was explaining the MCM' theory of the
>>economic cycle by juggling a ferret from one trouserleg to the
other.
>
> aye lad, in t'flat 'at too.
Doubtful
It seem Engels was a foxhunting skirt chaser, so more likely a posh
Cheshire village coaching inn.
--
William Black
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 6:16 am
From: William Black
Mike wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:50:50 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke
<see@sig.nature>
> wrote:
>
>>And as every good marxist knows they
>>were in England at the time. So you could imagine them hanging out
in
>>London bars together discussing the definition of socialism.
>
> there's a story that might be true that a meeting was arranged above
a
> pub to do some "commie" plotting so the cloak and dagger boys put a
> spy in a cupboard to listen in, they neglected to get somebody who
> spoke Russian.........
That sounds horribly like our intelligence services.
Use a man on expenses to do a tape recorder's job, and make sure he
isn't trained to do the task he's been sent for...
--
William Black
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 6:21 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
They are aren;t they.
>what about hammers, baseball bats, knives, razor blades, and CARS? Why not
>ban them too?
We (UK) do under certain conditions.
But it's not that difficult to work out which is more dangerous.
That's one of the reason we and I assume the USA doesn;t sent it's troups to
Iraq and Afghanistan with hammers rather than tanks, aircraft, missles &
rockets.
> Point me to ONE case where a gun jumped out of a locked drawer, or case,
> and shot someone. Just one, please.
How about you tell me one case where a gun has jumped out of a locked draw
to save a life or protect an innocent person(s ).
or even one isnstance where a gun has done anythinjg by itself .
> Guns are TOOLS. How they are used is the crux of the matter.
yep I agree with that, but then again so is fire and a nuclear warhead.
>A rancher in the US west, or rural anywhere, will often use a handgun, or
>rifle for shooting game, or pests that predate on his livestock, or to
>protect himself against predators. People in the city use them to protect
>themselves and their property from those who would deprive them of same.
Some people use poisons to irradicate psets too, why restrict poisons.
why restrict anyone from having chemical or nuclear weapons ?
> Somehow I fail to understand the logic that impels people to want to take
> away a protection from the innocent,
What makes you think the innocent can protect themselves just because
they have a gun.
Are you saying all those that die from gun shots in the USA are all
criminals ?
You seem to think innocent people can;t be killed if they have a gun.
> and tools from those who need them, and give power to the criminals.
Why take away the power from 'innocent countries' and give rockets to the
Bushes
and Blairs of the world ?
If it's only the innocent that have access to guns then fine, but crime
stats tend to
show that criminals too use guns and far more often and with more
devastating effects
on other humans beings than the innocents do.
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 6:46 am
From: Chris Malcolm
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:40:31 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And you really believe that if all law-abiding citizens turned in their
>>> guns the criminals wouldn't use theirs? And you talk about logic?
>>
>> you have got yourselves into a difficult situation with lots of guns,
>> getting out of it isn't easy, as for logic, it would be nice if the
>> pro gun people would at least acknowledge what "dangerous" means, they
>> could follow on with "socialism".
> You think guns are dangerous, and knives aren't. There is no logic in
> this. Check the statistics and you will see that when suicides are
> removed from the figures, more people die by knives than guns.
Don't far more people die by motor car than knives and guns added
together?
--
Chris Malcolm
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 6:51 am
From: tony cooper
On Thu, 14 May 2009 08:49:38 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 23:59:17 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Yet, you know so much about the culture of Americans. You can't be
>>arsed to actually visit the place, but you know Americans don't
>>understand your culture.
>
>I'm not claiming to know everything (or anything much) American
>culture, I'm suggesting travel outside your own country (any country)
>broadens your knowledge more than travel within in. It seems I knew
>enough about the US to hit on an area where several Americans are
>rapidly proving they don't understand the first thing about what
>"socialism" means and have atypical views on gun control.
>I didn't say Americans don't understand my culture, so start thinking
>about the ignorance shown in this thread and stop trying to willy
>wave.
>
You're in a newsgroup, Mike. A group with a very, very limited amount
of participation. Read the thread and notice how few people are
involved. You have one American, and one Brit, who have expressed
what you call atypical views on gun control. You have one American
who has come up with a woefully ignorant definition of socialism.
And you want to project this discussion into some conclusion about
Americans?
I have seen some ignorance shown in this thread, but I'm cognizant
that this is a discussion primarily by a half-dozen or so people and
I'd have to be completely doolally to draw any conclusions about
anyone other than those few people from the opinions presented.
I have drawn some conclusions about you. When you make a statement
like "that's why Americans are usually ill informed about it
(socialism)" based on one American's statement that they've never been
in a political discussion in a bar, you come across as about as
ignorant as they come.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 6:58 am
From: tony cooper
On Thu, 14 May 2009 08:58:58 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:45:06 -0400, "J. Clarke"
><jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Whether He cares or not where's the harm in asking Him to? I doubt that He
>>cares when anyone sneezes either but it's nonetheless polite to say the
>>words.
>
>is it polite in a world where belief in gods is far from universal and
>the assumption is in addition that its the Christian god?
>
>When I hear somebody say "god bless America" I just wince.
I'm tougher than you. When I hear "God Save The Queen", the national
anthem of the UK, I never wince. However, I do hear different words
to the music; a knavish trick of the mind.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 7:02 am
From: tony cooper
On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:01:33 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:48:28 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>That's not a joke, either. When an American accuses another American
>>of being "UnAmerican", the accuser is always basing that on his own
>>beliefs of what is the American way of doing things. The accuser
>>considers his own way of doing things to be the only acceptable way.
>>He is presenting his own opinion as the standard for all.
>
>so it might well still be used, but the use would be seem by a
>sophisticated American as rather crass?
You would just know that the speaker is an egotistical ass who feels
that his beliefs, his values, and his conception of how things should
be done are correct.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 7:37 am
From: Princess Tiaamii
On May 14, 3:21 pm, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphun...@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> > Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>
> They are aren;t they.
>
> >what about hammers, baseball bats, knives, razor blades, and CARS? Why not
> >ban them too?
>
> We (UK) do under certain conditions.
>
> But it's not that difficult to work out which is more dangerous.
> That's one of the reason we and I assume the USA doesn;t sent it's troups to
> Iraq and Afghanistan with hammers rather than tanks, aircraft, missles &
> rockets.
>
> > Point me to ONE case where a gun jumped out of a locked drawer, or case,
> > and shot someone. Just one, please.
>
> How about you tell me one case where a gun has jumped out of a locked draw
> to save a life or protect an innocent person(s ).
> or even one isnstance where a gun has done anythinjg by itself .
>
> > Guns are TOOLS. How they are used is the crux of the matter.
>
> yep I agree with that, but then again so is fire and a nuclear warhead.
>
> >A rancher in the US west, or rural anywhere, will often use a handgun, or
> >rifle for shooting game, or pests that predate on his livestock, or to
> >protect himself against predators. People in the city use them to protect
> >themselves and their property from those who would deprive them of same.
>
> Some people use poisons to irradicate psets too, why restrict poisons.
> why restrict anyone from having chemical or nuclear weapons ?
>
> > Somehow I fail to understand the logic that impels people to want to take
> > away a protection from the innocent,
>
> What makes you think the innocent can protect themselves just because
> they have a gun.
> Are you saying all those that die from gun shots in the USA are all
> criminals ?
> You seem to think innocent people can;t be killed if they have a gun.
>
> > and tools from those who need them, and give power to the criminals.
>
> Why take away the power from 'innocent countries' and give rockets to the
> Bushes
> and Blairs of the world ?
>
> If it's only the innocent that have access to guns then fine, but crime
> stats tend to
> show that criminals too use guns and far more often and with more
> devastating effects
> on other humans beings than the innocents do.
the good thing about guns is that they stop terrorism
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 7:51 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-14 04:33:19 -0700, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> said:
> Mike wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:56:01 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As far as Antarctica goes, You might reconsider flying to South
>>> America first to get a little more out of your time in the area. Check
>>> Lindblad Expeditions
>>> http://www.expeditions.com/Destination44.asp?Destination=283
>>
>> the flying makes sense if you find planes acceptably comfortable,
>> maybe if I spent some capital on first class...
>
> Flying, or surface transportation usually comes down to time
> constraints. If you have time, and like it better, taking a boat might
> be more comfortable, most of the time, but the extended time that takes
> often weighs heavily in favor of flying. Costs would probably be
> comparable, unless you are inclined to book on 'tramp steamers'.
Actually, travel on freighters can be one of the great adventures,
particularly if you have the time and don't want to endure "Cruise Line
World."
It is difficult to find berths these days, but they are available on
container ships and some mixed freight, coastal general cargo ships
serving South American ports.
http://www.freighterworld.com/
http://www.travltips.com/
In the 70's I travelled to Cape Town, South Africa on a Danish
freighter, "Ditte Skou" chartered by SafMarine, a South African
shipping company, and returned to the US on a US Farrell Lines
freighter the "African Comet." One of my great travel experiences. The
discounted cost was the big thing, at the time about a third of the
cost of flying.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 7:47 am
From: Chris H
In message <guh5vu$koo$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>They are aren;t they.
If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>>what about hammers, baseball bats, knives, razor blades, and CARS? Why not
>>ban them too?
>
>We (UK) do under certain conditions.
>
>But it's not that difficult to work out which is more dangerous.
>That's one of the reason we and I assume the USA doesn;t sent it's troups to
>Iraq and Afghanistan with hammers rather than tanks, aircraft, missles &
>rockets.
But they do carry knives, batons and pick axes
>> Point me to ONE case where a gun jumped out of a locked drawer, or case,
>> and shot someone. Just one, please.
>
>How about you tell me one case where a gun has jumped out of a locked draw
>to save a life or protect an innocent person(s ).
>or even one isnstance where a gun has done anythinjg by itself .
Ditto knives, baseball bats, clubs, chemicals etc
It is not the object but the user.
What is different is the state of mind and perception of the user.
In the US is it is generally normal to think of using a private firearm
for self defence. It did not usually cross the mind of the average UK
gun owner.
>> Guns are TOOLS. How they are used is the crux of the matter.
>yep I agree with that, but then again so is fire and a nuclear warhead.
Fire kills more people than nuclear war heads. :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 8:23 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-14 07:37:22 -0700, Princess Tiaamii <michaelnewport@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
> the good thing about guns is that they stop terrorism
Surely you jest?
...and I know, "Please don't call me Shirley!"
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 9:17 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu
tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:25:33 -0700, Jürgen Exner
> <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "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.
>>
You are simply WRONG. You are using somebody else's definition of
socialism.
In the USA, socialism is government ownership of parts of the
economy (e.g. Chrysler or Bank of America)
OR
redistribution of money from taxpayers to those who do not
contribute to the the fund doing the dispersing.
It is BOTH.
IF you in Europe want to use only the first definition, so be it.
But don't tell us our own definitions.
These two things are, of course, closely related: they are the
government telling the people how to spend their money.
Doug McDonald
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 9:32 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu
tony cooper wrote:
> You have one American
> who has come up with a woefully ignorant definition of socialism.
>
that would be me.
What you have not understood is that you are arguing the
meaning of a word.
IF I ever meet you, I'll just pet you on the fanny
and wink. I suspect that you know what I imply my this.
That is, what matters is what a word means to the person
saying it, where he says it. I suspect you are not
a female, and not American. I am American. If I ever
DO meet you, I would, therefore, pat you on the fatty parts
of your rear, over the muscles that power you hips.
Same with "socialism". If it means only "means of production"
in Europe, so be it. In the US, to everybody, Medicaid **IS**
"socialized medicine" and therefore, socialism. That's what the words
mean here. If you wish to restrict to a different definition,
fine, but just realize that you are simply arguing what a word
means. That would not have any importance if we were arguing
about whether a certain concept would actually be desirable, or whether
we would vote for it. We would just have to make sure we
agreed on what concept we were discussing. Call the two things
"concept A" and "concept B".
Doug McDonald
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 9:37 am
From: Jürgen Exner
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:25:33 -0700, Jürgen Exner
>>> 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.
>
>You are simply WRONG. You are using somebody else's definition of
>socialism.
>
>In the USA, socialism is government ownership of parts of the
>economy (e.g. Chrysler or Bank of America)
Sort of. How much of the economy is owned/controlled by the government?
Unless that is at least 50%, or probably more than that, you can hardly
call it socialism. I don't care much about the exact percentage, but as
long as the vast majority (how much is it? 90%? 95%? 98$) is privately
owned you don't have socialism.
>OR
>
>redistribution of money from taxpayers to those who do not
>contribute to the the fund doing the dispersing.
>
>It is BOTH.
>
>IF you in Europe want to use only the first definition, so be it.
>
>But don't tell us our own definitions.
Would you agree that Webster is a US company, creating reference
literature like dictionaries by US people for the US market and usually
considered to be respectable and accurate?
Then here's their definition (from Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged
Dictionary of the English Language, published in New York(!)):
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 and 3 omitted because not not relevant in this context]
And just to be sure you understand: that "capitel" has nothing to do
with taxes but referes to investment capital, i.e. banks, fonds, funds,
...
>These two things are, of course, closely related: they are the
>government telling the people how to spend their money.
Oh my $Deity.
jue
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Raw converters
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0b19041d3c6ee86c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 6:18 am
From: adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes)
In article <luGdnTho14bdjJHXnZ2dnUVZ8opi4p2d@brightview.co.uk>,
bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>ray wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:53:39 -0500, Stephen Drummonds wrote:
>>
>>> I am wanting to try the Raw format on my camera. Can someone please
>>> tell me what raw conversion program that I need to start with? Thanks
>>> for any suggestions
>>> Steve
>>
>> I use ufraw. It's free and it's 'current'.
>
>Do you have any pointers to "how to" guides.
>
>I can use the controls, and they work "as described".
>
>But I don't know enough to use them subtly "in combination"
>to get the best results.
There are a bunch of books available for Adobe Camera Raw
(Photoshop). They should give you an idea of what can be done in anty
RAW converter. Look in a big mall bookstore, you don;t have to buy
one.
Basically;
You can "select" lighting, (shade, incadensent, direct sun, etc)
You can set the histogram range over a wider range. This means that you
have a wider effective dynamic range
On some you can clip
All of the above can be done over a wider range and with less "damage"
compared to what would happen if you tried it in jpg.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555753247e2a15f7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 6:47 am
From: "J. Clarke"
AnthonyL wrote:
> On 14 May 2009 09:53:37 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You don't need to fiddle with extenders of questionable optical
>> quality when you can buy high quality 2000mm and much bigger lenses.
>>
>
> Wouldn't you need to be Rich to buy one of those?
You'd not only have to Rich to buy one but you'd have to be Ahnold to carry
it around all day.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Spanking For A Good Cause
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/213486fd88e75dfb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 8:00 am
From: George Kerby
On 5/12/09 5:43 PM, in article
1tqdnT6Ke70yZpTXnZ2dnUVZ_jFi4p2d@giganews.com, "Al Bar"
<usenet@oaktowncrack.com> wrote:
> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/12/09 1:33 PM, in article
>> Qt6dnYE145WUXJTXnZ2dnUVZ_jNi4p2d@giganews.com, "Al Bar"
>> <usenet@oaktowncrack.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Amanda's Dad died of AIDS, and to celebrate his birthday she raised
>>> money for AIDS Walk NY with a spanking party:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mesolimbo/sets/72157617957563539/
>>
>> Looks like they are carrying on the tradition that caused the man's demise.
>>
>> R.I.P.
>>
>
> Spanking and unprotected sex are two different things ;)
You are saying unprotected spanking isn't the first step?
<G>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Ultimate Photo-Bag
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d379eb3ce3f36aff?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 8:23 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-05-13 17:05:51 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> said:
> On 2009-05-13 16:50:33 -0700, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> On 2009-05-13 14:38:10 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> said:
>>
>>> I was in town this morning and saw what one of our local "Pro"
>>> photographers had parked outside his store in Paso Robles.
>>>
>>> This is definitely what I would call the ultimate photo bag - no
>>> excuses for leaving anything behind!
>>>
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/Sites/JD-Devco1/index.html
>>
>> Great restoration job. Does not look quite finished, yet. You could
>> have a whole portable photo booth in there!
>
> It is a finished restoration and very good. I guess my shots don't do
> it justice.
> I was impressed he kept the artwork subtle and did not go over the top.
> I was just surprised to see it . I have lived in this area since 1986
> and I am familiar with many of the restored classic vehicles and
> hotrods around here, and this was the first time I have seen this
> Divco, and I pass this spot several times each week.
Maybe he would let you get some interior shots. I like the artwork,
too, for the same reason you do.
The reason it didn't look finished to me is that the name didn't look
complete, like he was going to add a last name or maybe contact
information. It probably matches his whole brand -- stationery,
business cards, delivery boxes, etc. The design is simple enough to be
easily embroidered on a shirt.
I could see some potential in a Divco. Some of them had refrigerated
bodies which would be well insulated to protect camera gear from heat
and cold. I would want to clear out everything in the cab, though, and
put real seats in it. Not that little folding seat that the milkman
used. And I probably would want a rear-view camera. Might be around
little kids a lot.
This would be great for wedding shoots.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 8:41 am
From: "Matt Clara"
"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:200905131438108228-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>I was in town this morning and saw what one of our local "Pro"
>photographers had parked outside his store in Paso Robles.
>
> This is definitely what I would call the ultimate photo bag - no excuses
> for leaving anything behind!
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/Sites/JD-Devco1/index.html
>
Looks like a mobile studio--perfect for those not-so-shy teen girls!
;-)
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 8:41 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-14 08:23:45 -0700, C J Campbell
<christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> said:
> On 2009-05-13 17:05:51 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> said:
>
>> On 2009-05-13 16:50:33 -0700, C J Campbell
>> <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On 2009-05-13 14:38:10 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> said:
>>>
>>>> I was in town this morning and saw what one of our local "Pro"
>>>> photographers had parked outside his store in Paso Robles.
>>>>
>>>> This is definitely what I would call the ultimate photo bag - no
>>>> excuses for leaving anything behind!
>>>>
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/Sites/JD-Devco1/index.html
>>>
>>> Great restoration job. Does not look quite finished, yet. You could
>>> have a whole portable photo booth in there!
>>
>> It is a finished restoration and very good. I guess my shots don't do
>> it justice.
>> I was impressed he kept the artwork subtle and did not go over the top.
>> I was just surprised to see it . I have lived in this area since 1986
>> and I am familiar with many of the restored classic vehicles and
>> hotrods around here, and this was the first time I have seen this
>> Divco, and I pass this spot several times each week.
>
> Maybe he would let you get some interior shots. I like the artwork,
> too, for the same reason you do.
Well we are a small town, so I plan to drop in on him and let him know
his name has been spread globally. He now owes it to all of us to
expose that interior :-)
>
> The reason it didn't look finished to me is that the name didn't look
> complete, like he was going to add a last name or maybe contact
> information. It probably matches his whole brand -- stationery,
> business cards, delivery boxes, etc. The design is simple enough to be
> easily embroidered on a shirt.
Yes, if you look at the 3rd shot in the set you can see his storefront
on the right where the signature logo is repeated.
On close inspection you will see the finish of the art work in the
signature logo is exceptional. The understated effect is far a more
powerful means of attracting attention and oozes quality. In my
opinion very clever.
It drove me to see if he had a web presence.
>
> I could see some potential in a Divco. Some of them had refrigerated
> bodies which would be well insulated to protect camera gear from heat
> and cold. I would want to clear out everything in the cab, though, and
> put real seats in it. Not that little folding seat that the milkman
> used. And I probably would want a rear-view camera. Might be around
> little kids a lot.
>
> This would be great for wedding shoots.
He seems to have his hands full with studio work, weddings, model
shoots and his artwork, so better than hauling everything around in the
back of an SUV, trailer or pickup.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 9:05 am
From: tony cooper
On Wed, 13 May 2009 17:21:24 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-05-13 16:52:51 -0700, TheRealSteve <steve@example.com> said:
>
>>
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:51:32 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> I was in town this morning and saw what one of our local "Pro"
>>>> photographers had parked outside his store in Paso Robles.
>>>>
>>>> This is definitely what I would call the ultimate photo bag - no excuses
>>>> for leaving anything behind!
>>>>
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/Sites/JD-Devco1/index.html
>>>
>>> Very nice statement as a pro - the restored truck is an eye catcher.
>>
>> There's a couple of companies around here still using those Divco
>> trucks. Hard to tell what year it is since they look pretty much the
>> same all the way until they stopped making them in 1986.
>>
>> Steve
>
>I did a little research and came up with this
>http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Divco/
I was going to respond to the first post on this and mention that this
is a restored milk delivery truck, but I see you've found this out.
A similar truck delivered milk to our neighborhood. I can almost hear
that early-morning clanking noise the milkman made when he carried the
crates of bottles around.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 9:34 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu
tony cooper wrote:
Oh ... I noticed your .sig, which does not appear in
quoted material.
Orlando, hmmm .... why are you using British definitions?
Doug McDonald
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Style Designer Rock & Republic Jeans - discount
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7fdd414de93031ef?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 8:33 am
From: adilan9@gmail.com
New Style Designer Rock & Republic Jeans.
Our Designer Rock & Republic Jeans are fine quality.
You can check them:
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Rock-Republic-Womens-Jeans-19.html
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Rock-Republic-Womens-Jeans-18.html
And find more new fashion apparels please view :
www.luxury-fashion.org
Welcome check our other pages or feel free contact us.
You can find what do you want here!
==============================================================================
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