Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 6 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Ford, The Survivor - 11 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
* The Ultimate Photo-Bag - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d379eb3ce3f36aff?hl=en
* Scenic areas in England - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* What kind of caterpillar is this (and will it turn into a butterfly or a
moth)? - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5dca641871b211f3?hl=en
* Polarizing Filters and Olympus E500 - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/00b4d33651a56602?hl=en
* grim news for photographers tourism and rights - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ford, The Survivor
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 10:38 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-16 10:33:36 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> said:

> On 2009-05-16 10:13:48 -0700, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-05-15 23:27:25 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-05-15 23:18:10 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? I thought they were black? You camera's got _serious_ color rendition
>>>>> problems<g>.
>>>>
>>>> No! Model-T was the Ford of "You can have it in any color, as long as
>>>> it is black."
>>>>
>>>> This is a Model A, which was offered in various color options, but not black
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1927-1931)
>>>
>>> ...but if you want black, I found this parked in town last week:
>>>
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0509.JPG
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0511.JPG
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0507.JPG
>>
>> Could you at least post these reduced to about 1600 x 1000 pixels?
>>
>> You complain about Flash BW, but then you post monster JPG's that don't
>> look particularly good until reduced to less than screen size...
>
> OK! OK! Mea Culpa.
> I was lazy and was looking for a quick response for David.
>
> BTW I have no particular personal issue with Flash, but I know there
> are some here who have broadband issues, and I apologize to them for my
> fat Jag post.

...but other than that, what did you think of the XK120?
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:00 am
From: Alan Browne

Savageduck wrote:

> I have become a Mercedes lover, with first a 560SEL, then an S600 coupe
> (I loved that V12 until the AC compressor died and the $2800 fix and gas
> prices goaded me to trade it) and now for the last 18 months I have
> owned an E350, which has been trouble free.

Mercedez are middle of the pack for defect rates in the first 3 years
per quality surveys. This is as much due to system complexity as
anything else, however, very richly featured cars like the Accura and
Lexus line fare much better than 'benz.

A friend bought a CLK320 and in the 2nd year one of the front wheel
assemblies cracked and broke off. He was in a turn at the time and not
at all amused.

He left the car in the road and took a train home. He told 'benz where
it was (about 300km from his home). When he got home, 'benz had a
loaner car waiting for him and his own car was returned a few days
later. (His car has otherwise been trouble free).

So great service from 'benz, but their implied claim to high reliability
is a bit suspect given the survey results and events like that of my
friend... and of course once the warranty expires any repair is costly
as it is for all German cars, Volvos, Range Rover, etc.

I'll stick to Honda or Toyota as the likely sweet spot for cost
efficiency. That is all cars are too me: transport. I run a car for at
least 8 yr. from new. Current Accord is in such great shape after 8
years it will likely go 12 years before I move on. May try a Toyota
next, esp. if the Camry Hybrid posts good numbers all around. Am
thinking of a Ford Escape too... but...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:04 am
From: Alan Browne

Savageduck wrote:

>
> ...but other than that, what did you think of the XK120?

Not sure: I've never seen a "brick" paint job before.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG

<runs>

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:13 am
From: Alan Browne

Savageduck wrote:

> ...but other than that, what did you think of the XK120?

Gorgeous, I like the perspective of the 507 shot the best. Too bad you
couldn't get that shot at the country club with a stunning redhead at
the wheel in a summer dress, stepping over the door with a little
glimpse of stocking and thigh...

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:14 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-16 11:04:19 -0700, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:

> Savageduck wrote:
>
>>
>> ...but other than that, what did you think of the XK120?
>
> Not sure: I've never seen a "brick" paint job before.
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG
>
>
>
> <runs>

Kinda neat, isn't it?
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:15 am
From: "Neil Harrington"

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-15 21:08:59 -0700, DMac <d-mac@d-mac.info.delete> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking
>>> like a survivor, here is a little salute.
>>>
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>>>
>>
>> Should never put radial tyres on one of these cars.
>
> You noticed, he even mixed types.
> He has Firestone cross-plies on the front and radials on the back.
> I suspect this is not all it appears to be. There appears to be some
> work to the rear end, as evidence by the appearance of the rear wheel
> wells.
> He is also using standard California plates with plain vanilla
> registration, not Historic Vehicle plates.
> I have a feeling an inspection under the hood would reveal something
> other than a restored original engine.

Those wheels look the wrong size, too. Especially noticeable in the rear.

Nice looking A-bone, though. Sure seems to have all the trimmin's. I don't
think I've seen that kind of "eyebrows" on the headlights before.

An old friend of mine used to have a Model A roadster with an Alexander
cylinder head -- OHV, I think. That was a classy little car. Never got any
pix of it, I regret to say.

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:19 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-16 11:15:13 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> said:

> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-15 21:08:59 -0700, DMac <d-mac@d-mac.info.delete> said:
>>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking
>>>> like a survivor, here is a little salute.
>>>>
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>>>>
>>>
>>> Should never put radial tyres on one of these cars.
>>
>> You noticed, he even mixed types.
>> He has Firestone cross-plies on the front and radials on the back.
>> I suspect this is not all it appears to be. There appears to be some
>> work to the rear end, as evidence by the appearance of the rear wheel
>> wells.
>> He is also using standard California plates with plain vanilla
>> registration, not Historic Vehicle plates.
>> I have a feeling an inspection under the hood would reveal something
>> other than a restored original engine.
>
> Those wheels look the wrong size, too. Especially noticeable in the rear.
>
> Nice looking A-bone, though. Sure seems to have all the trimmin's. I don't
> think I've seen that kind of "eyebrows" on the headlights before.

Those are more of a 50's HR add-on. I don't think you would find them
on any Concours car. This is no Concours car.
>
> An old friend of mine used to have a Model A roadster with an Alexander
> cylinder head -- OHV, I think. That was a classy little car. Never got any
> pix of it, I regret to say.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:24 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-16 11:13:10 -0700, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:

> Savageduck wrote:
>
>> ...but other than that, what did you think of the XK120?
>
> Gorgeous, I like the perspective of the 507 shot the best. Too bad you
> couldn't get that shot at the country club with a stunning redhead at
> the wheel in a summer dress, stepping over the door with a little
> glimpse of stocking and thigh...

I was standing with the owner when I took the shots, he and I, and I
suspect you, are not longer of an age (or visage)to attract the said
red head.
Then isn't that what the car is for?
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:40 am
From: Alan Browne

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-16 11:13:10 -0700, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>> ...but other than that, what did you think of the XK120?
>>
>> Gorgeous, I like the perspective of the 507 shot the best. Too bad
>> you couldn't get that shot at the country club with a stunning redhead
>> at the wheel in a summer dress, stepping over the door with a little
>> glimpse of stocking and thigh...
>
> I was standing with the owner when I took the shots, he and I, and I
> suspect you, are not longer of an age (or visage)to attract the said red
> head.
> Then isn't that what the car is for?

We'll see tonight. Still dawdling over shoes. Blonde, actually.
Doesn't mind my boring Honda...

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 12:30 pm
From: John McWilliams

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-16 10:13:48 -0700, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0509.JPG
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0511.JPG
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0507.JPG
>>
>> Could you at least post these reduced to about 1600 x 1000 pixels?
>>
>> You complain about Flash BW, but then you post monster JPG's that
>> don't look particularly good until reduced to less than screen size...
>
> OK! OK! Mea Culpa.
> I was lazy and was looking for a quick response for David.
>
> BTW I have no particular personal issue with Flash, but I know there are
> some here who have broadband issues, and I apologize to them for my fat
> Jag post.

Those photos, when not + plussed +, show fully in a modest Safari window
on a MacBookPro, even better on an iMac.

--
John McWilliams

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 1:04 pm
From: Alan Browne

John McWilliams wrote:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-16 10:13:48 -0700, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0509.JPG
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0511.JPG
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0507.JPG
>>>
>>> Could you at least post these reduced to about 1600 x 1000 pixels?
>>>
>>> You complain about Flash BW, but then you post monster JPG's that
>>> don't look particularly good until reduced to less than screen size...
>>
>> OK! OK! Mea Culpa.
>> I was lazy and was looking for a quick response for David.
>>
>> BTW I have no particular personal issue with Flash, but I know there
>> are some here who have broadband issues, and I apologize to them for
>> my fat Jag post.
>
> Those photos, when not + plussed +, show fully in a modest Safari window
> on a MacBookPro, even better on an iMac.

Duh. But it still took bandwidth to DL them. (and believe it or not
Windblow browsers resize too).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Ultimate Photo-Bag
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d379eb3ce3f36aff?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:05 am
From: Paul Furman

Alan Browne wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> John A. wrote:
>>>
>>> Nothing against this photographer. It's just a very awkward subject
>>
>> http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/page/3/
>> A silly web site but, oh well :-)
>
> It's good look at those "creative" efforts!
>
> I am designated photog for a friend's family event in July and I really
> want to work the grandparent/grandchildren angle to the hilt ... the
> collection above is a stern warning to me to be very thoughtful and
> careful. Thankfully the setting is pastoral, old farmhouse, barns,
> fields and so on.

There are many lessons to be learned there <g>. Sometimes it takes a
while to catch all the subtle wrongness.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:27 am
From: Alan Browne

Paul Furman wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> John A. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nothing against this photographer. It's just a very awkward subject
>>>
>>> http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/page/3/
>>> A silly web site but, oh well :-)
>>
>> It's good look at those "creative" efforts!
>>
>> I am designated photog for a friend's family event in July and I
>> really want to work the grandparent/grandchildren angle to the hilt
>> ... the collection above is a stern warning to me to be very
>> thoughtful and careful. Thankfully the setting is pastoral, old
>> farmhouse, barns, fields and so on.
>
> There are many lessons to be learned there <g>. Sometimes it takes a
> while to catch all the subtle wrongness.
>

What? There's something wrong with a blue-white-grey sweater against a
sky blue BG, a goofy grin, bad pose and lights reflected in the eyes?

And really, shouldn't you grab your pregnant wife's ass in a portrait?
After all they are half nude.

The Anglican priest in shorts with the kid choking mommy is actually
great as long as you have some sense of humour.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 12:54 pm
From: Paul Furman

Alan Browne wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> John A. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing against this photographer. It's just a very awkward subject
>>>>
>>>> http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/page/3/
>>>> A silly web site but, oh well :-)
>>>
>>> It's good look at those "creative" efforts!
>>>
>>> I am designated photog for a friend's family event in July and I
>>> really want to work the grandparent/grandchildren angle to the hilt
>>> ... the collection above is a stern warning to me to be very
>>> thoughtful and careful. Thankfully the setting is pastoral, old
>>> farmhouse, barns, fields and so on.
>>
>> There are many lessons to be learned there <g>. Sometimes it takes a
>> while to catch all the subtle wrongness.
>>
>
> What? There's something wrong with a blue-white-grey sweater against a
> sky blue BG, a goofy grin, bad pose and lights reflected in the eyes?

That's fine but the shadows from the eyeglasses on his crossed eyes look
like some sort of cruel makeup malfunction. Hard to notice through the
reflections though.

> And really, shouldn't you grab your pregnant wife's ass in a portrait?
> After all they are half nude.

Sure, her jeans are unbuttoned. Go for it!

> The Anglican priest in shorts with the kid choking mommy is actually
> great as long as you have some sense of humour.

:-)

That would be a fun memorable family photo indeed. I'm assuming one of
the shots came out 'straight' <g>.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:45 am
From: Chris H

In message <5e5t05dde77ogs1ajb7bjtmujnkpnsvvbm@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>It is not the guns but the Bozos that want them.
>
>Up to a point. In UK we have stopped categories of gun being available
>as a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a single case,

Twice, both times on a single case.

> it might have been
>better to make sure credentials were better or better enforced

They were. The firearms team recommended that Hamilton did not have his
FAC renewed. Some one over road that desistion.

> rather
>than change the categories available to bone fide shooters.

I agree.

>My main objection is to the falsified logic rather than to guns per
>se. Two lobbies, quite disparate, start from the answer they want and
>reverse engineer their logic to get the question they want. Both have
>to rely on a false definition of "dangerous".
>They are road safety and pro gun.

>They use the gun lobby equivalent of "no gun jumped out a box and shot
>somebody" of "no bend ever jumped out in front of a car".

Both are true.

>They choose to try and blur "danger" into "harm", when in fact
>"danger" is the "potential for harm".

Fair enough.

> The risk in this is that it
>ignores both the safety gain available by crash barriers, anti skid
>surfaces, locked away guns etc. If you try to tell them a howitzer is
>more dangerous than a popgun you get the usual rehearsed nonsense that
>makes them sound like Homer Simpson.

Actually a pistol is far more dangerous than a howitzer in most
situations.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:47 am
From: Chris H

In message <BcCPl.22298$9S1.21287@newsfe30.ams2>, Keith Willshaw
<keith@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>"Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote in message
>news:0n8t059iscobsjpadmbabd9sikqc6o172i@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>It is not the guns but the Bozos that want them.
>>
>> Up to a point. In UK we have stopped categories of gun being available
>> as a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a single case, it might have been
>> better to make sure credentials were better or better enforced rather
>> than change the categories available to bone fide shooters.
>>
>
>Unfortunately it wasnt a single case or had you forgotten Hungerford ?
>They assured everyone they had strenghtened the rules on gun licensing
>after that incident. Then came Dunblane.

They had strengthened the rules on gun ownership and banned many guns
(and lost track of over 100,000 pump and semi auto shotguns*)

The rules had already stopped Hamilton... the gun clubs had already
alerted the Police to Hamilton several times in the preceding years and
the local Police did not want to renew his FAC. This would have avoided
the tragedy

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:36 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Mike wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
> wrote:
>
>> It is not the guns but the Bozos that want them.
>
> Up to a point. In UK we have stopped categories of gun being available
> as a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a single case, it might have been
> better to make sure credentials were better or better enforced rather
> than change the categories available to bone fide shooters.
>
> My main objection is to the falsified logic rather than to guns per
> se. Two lobbies, quite disparate, start from the answer they want and
> reverse engineer their logic to get the question they want. Both have
> to rely on a false definition of "dangerous".
> They are road safety and pro gun.
> One wants drivers to be the focus of blame for accidents (they also
> try to redefine "accident" as "avoidable incident" rather than
> "unintentional incident") so they discount the inherent danger in an
> unguarded cliff or icy bend and insist "all danger lies with drivers",
> instead of the logical "(nearly) all *blame* lies with drivers"
> They use the gun lobby equivalent of "no gun jumped out a box and shot
> somebody" of "no bend ever jumped out in front of a car".
> They choose to try and blur "danger" into "harm", when in fact
> "danger" is the "potential for harm". The risk in this is that it
> ignores both the safety gain available by crash barriers, anti skid
> surfaces, locked away guns etc. If you try to tell them a howitzer is
> more dangerous than a popgun you get the usual rehearsed nonsense that
> makes them sound like Homer Simpson. I don't know if they actually
> know its rubbish or not. But I once spend days pinning down a road
> safety advocate, who eventually pleaded "but don't you want safer
> roads?" so I assume these lies are known to be lies deep down.
>
> Both court unforeseeable problems when these wooly lies get taken over
> by groups with objectives they do not approve of. The road safety
> people should just say instead "99% of accidents are the
> responsibility(blame) of drivers"

The trouble with your knee-jerk rehearsed automotive analogy is that most
deaths and serious injuries involving automobiles are unintentional. Few
people deliberately drive their car over a cliff. On the other hand most
deaths and serious injuries involving firearms are the result of
intent--someone _wants_ to hurt someone else.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 12:52 pm
From: Chris H

In message <fq8t05917pf23f5no3si0m8ehitdhi82hk@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On 16 May 2009 10:06:16 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>If it gets to the stage where only fear of being shot will stop
>>widespread theft and assault of shop owners and the general public it
>>sounds like something has gone badly wrong with the society.
>
>Exactly, controlling crime by guns is a wild west aberration of
>American thinking.

This is true. It is also part of their culture of gun ownership which
was not the same as in the UK. Gun owners in the UK did not own guns
for self defence or even think in those terms.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 12:59 pm
From: "Keith Willshaw"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:LiGk+MCDpwDKFAZf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <BcCPl.22298$9S1.21287@newsfe30.ams2>, Keith Willshaw
> <keith@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote in message
>>news:0n8t059iscobsjpadmbabd9sikqc6o172i@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is not the guns but the Bozos that want them.
>>>
>>> Up to a point. In UK we have stopped categories of gun being available
>>> as a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a single case, it might have been
>>> better to make sure credentials were better or better enforced rather
>>> than change the categories available to bone fide shooters.
>>>
>>
>>Unfortunately it wasnt a single case or had you forgotten Hungerford ?
>>They assured everyone they had strenghtened the rules on gun licensing
>>after that incident. Then came Dunblane.
>
> They had strengthened the rules on gun ownership and banned many guns
> (and lost track of over 100,000 pump and semi auto shotguns*)
>
> The rules had already stopped Hamilton... the gun clubs had already
> alerted the Police to Hamilton several times in the preceding years and
> the local Police did not want to renew his FAC. This would have avoided
> the tragedy
>

But they did, the police did NOT oppose the revocation, some junior
officers thought it was a bad idea and even submitted memoranda stating
it but in the end his firearms certificate was renewed as senior officers
felt there was insufficient evidence to oppose the renewal.

The critical factor was that the system supposed to protect the public
had tragically failed for a second time. In a country where shooting
was very much a minority interest it was politically impossible
for an elected government to ignore the public outcry that ensued.

Personally I dont think it was justified but I know dammed well that
all the people I worked with as well as family and friends did.

Keith

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What kind of caterpillar is this (and will it turn into a butterfly or
a moth)?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5dca641871b211f3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 11:55 am
From: JoelH

Hi all,

Does anyone know what kind of caterpillar this is?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelmhoffman/3536766346/in/set-72157618186144669/

(Unlike my fish a while back, there's enough information to tell this
time.)

Thanks!

-Joel
http://www.flickr.com/joelmhoffman

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 1:29 pm
From: Pat

On May 16, 2:55 pm, JoelH <JoelAtExc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Does anyone know what kind of caterpillar this is?
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelmhoffman/3536766346/in/set-721576181...
>
> (Unlike my fish a while back, there's enough information to tell this
> time.)
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Joel
> http://www.flickr.com/joelmhoffman

Kind of looks like a gypsy moth caterpillar. Look for a nearby tent.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 2:28 pm
From: JoelH

On May 16, 4:29 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> On May 16, 2:55 pm, JoelH <JoelAtExc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > Does anyone know what kind of caterpillar this is?
>
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelmhoffman/3536766346/in/set-721576181...
>
> > (Unlike my fish a while back, there's enough information to tell this
> > time.)
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > -Joel
> > http://www.flickr.com/joelmhoffman
>
> Kind of looks like a gypsy moth caterpillar. Look for a nearby tent.

Sigh. So it does. The beautiful little crawler turns out to be quite
destructive....

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Polarizing Filters and Olympus E500
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/00b4d33651a56602?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 12:59 pm
From: Ofnuts

Ron Wood wrote:
> Hi Group
>
> Have just bought/tried a Polarizing Filter from that well known auction
> site:
>
> http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=52+52MM+CPL+Circular+Polarizing+filter+for+Hoya+Kenko&_sacat=See-All-Categories

> But not much effect, should I have bought a special filter suitable forDSLR?
> I have a Cokin Filter Holder (A) but was reluctant to spend £30+ until alittle
> more knowledgable.Any suggestions?TIA, Ron

Modern SLRs and DSLRs require a "circular" polarizing filter since the
old "plain" variety make the autofocus malfunction. Other that that
there are no other "special" requirements for DSLRs. Good filters are
multi-coated to avoid reflections which produce haze (Hoya calls it
"HMC"). 30 pounds is a decent price for a multi-coated polarizer. For 6
pounds you'll likely get a piece of junk. Unlike other filters, the
polarizing ones are manually controlled, so have human factors
requirements (no too tight to turn but not to loose either) which also
have a price.

--
Bertrand

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 1:50 pm
From: "Ron Wood"

"Ofnuts" <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net> wrote in message
news:4a0f1b16$0$21842$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Ron Wood wrote:
>> Hi Group
>>
>> Have just bought/tried a Polarizing Filter from that well known auction
>> site:
>>
>>
>> http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=52+52MM+CPL+Circular+Polarizing+filter+for+Hoya+Kenko&_sacat=See-All-Categories
>
>
>> But not much effect, should I have bought a special filter suitable
>> forDSLR?
>> I have a Cokin Filter Holder (A) but was reluctant to spend £30+ until
>> alittle more knowledgable.Any suggestions?TIA, Ron
>
> Modern SLRs and DSLRs require a "circular" polarizing filter since the old
> "plain" variety make the autofocus malfunction. Other that that there are
> no other "special" requirements for DSLRs. Good filters are multi-coated
> to avoid reflections which produce haze (Hoya calls it "HMC"). 30 pounds
> is a decent price for a multi-coated polarizer. For 6 pounds you'll likely
> get a piece of junk. Unlike other filters, the polarizing ones are
> manually controlled, so have human factors requirements (no too tight to
> turn but not to loose either) which also have a price.
>
> --
> Bertrand

Thanks Bertrand

Have committed to a £30 one - will keep you posted.

Ron

==============================================================================
TOPIC: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 2:18 pm
From: "pawihte"

eNo wrote:
> On May 15, 1:50 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:29 +0100, "nigel"
>> <ni...@NOThereoday.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>>
>>> As far as this article and the international press goes it
>>> does'nt
>>> seem to appear that he did anything wrong.
>>
>> The father of the child thought so and lodged a complaint. The
>> police
>> would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's
>> not the
>> policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to
>> be
>> concerned.
>>
>> As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from
>> the
>> camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the
>> images were
>> actually erased.
>
> And a technically savvy person knows the images, though erased,
> can be
> recovered fairly easily.
>
>> I don't see that the photographer did anything wrong, but he
>> was
>> intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be alarmed.
>
> I must say that if I were that father's girl, I would have
> reacted
> equally... know your boundaries and the laws of the countries
> you're
> visiting.
>
That's easy for you to say. But how does a visitor to an
unfamiliar place make sure he knows every quirk of local law (or
custom) that may affect him? Saying "ask first" is not the answer
because one wouldn't always know what needs to be asked.