rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Suggestions for photo sharing sites? - 9 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7fa3ddce0143b848?hl=en
* Scenic areas in England - 10 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* Trying again - photo sharing sites - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/42fce533cd816c20?hl=en
* photo organiser for Linux - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/340c0b163aedf38d?hl=en
* Nikon- CL-L2 Ballistic Nylon Lens Case Service Advisory - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0dbd4b5f208f274d?hl=en
* What's the fuss over 3:2 aspect ratio? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ecd50976e6eb9d55?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Suggestions for photo sharing sites?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7fa3ddce0143b848?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 7:39 am
From: ray
On Wed, 27 May 2009 23:46:32 -0500, MaryL wrote:
> I just returned from a trip to Greece. I took a large number of digital
> photos (excessive, really). I cropped a lot of them in ThumbsPlus and
> would like to be able to *easily* post a lot of them so friends who
> travelled with me--and a few others--can view them. However, I have
> checked out several photo sharing sites (Shutterfly, Snapfish, etc.),
> and most of them will arbitrarily crop to fit the standard 4" x 6"
> dimensions. That seems to be done so people can order online, but I can
> print these same photos myself and they look just fine. Those same
> sites offer an opportunity to individually set cropping sizes, but that
> would take a great deal of time because there are so many of them.
>
> Can anyone suggest a (free) site? Picasa Web Pages has been suggested,
> and I am going to look into that.
>
> Thanks,
> MaryL
One possibility would be to set up a personal web site - then you can post
what you like, how you like. I beleive netfirms.com has some free hosting
available - commercial ones start at $60/year and offer greater resources.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 7:46 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
In article <2b6t15hmvaukl2qt1p670op7l3o416m27a@4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:54:33 GMT, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4a1e1729$0$23775$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>, "MaryL"
> <stancole1@yahoo.comTAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:
>>>I just returned from a trip to Greece. I took a large number of digital
>>>photos (excessive, really). I cropped a lot of them in ThumbsPlus and would
>>>like to be able to *easily* post a lot of them so friends who travelled with
>>>me--and a few others--can view them. However, I have checked out several
>>>photo sharing sites (Shutterfly, Snapfish, etc.), and most of them will
>>>arbitrarily crop to fit the standard 4" x 6" dimensions. That seems to be
>>>done so people can order online, but I can print these same photos myself
>>>and they look just fine. Those same sites offer an opportunity to
>>>individually set cropping sizes, but that would take a great deal of time
>>>because there are so many of them.
>>>
>>>Can anyone suggest a (free) site? Picasa Web Pages has been suggested, and
>>>I am going to look into that.
>>
>>When I put up pictures I FTP them to my FREE web space as such provided by my
>>internet provider COMCAST. Like this.....
>>http://home.comcast.net/~zekor/index.htm
>
>I do the same for certain projects, but doing so requires at least a
>minimum knowledge of html. The OP hasn't indicated that she has that
>knowledge or want to learn html.
Very minimal with an editor like ACDSee. It makes the pages. You can make the
pictures any size, the thumnails any size, any # of pages, any colored pages.
If you can't do FTP, your an internet dumbo.
greg
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 7:58 am
From: tony cooper
On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:46:45 GMT, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
wrote:
>In article <2b6t15hmvaukl2qt1p670op7l3o416m27a@4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:54:33 GMT, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4a1e1729$0$23775$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>, "MaryL"
>> <stancole1@yahoo.comTAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:
>>>>I just returned from a trip to Greece. I took a large number of digital
>>>>photos (excessive, really). I cropped a lot of them in ThumbsPlus and would
>>>>like to be able to *easily* post a lot of them so friends who travelled with
>>>>me--and a few others--can view them. However, I have checked out several
>>>>photo sharing sites (Shutterfly, Snapfish, etc.), and most of them will
>>>>arbitrarily crop to fit the standard 4" x 6" dimensions. That seems to be
>>>>done so people can order online, but I can print these same photos myself
>>>>and they look just fine. Those same sites offer an opportunity to
>>>>individually set cropping sizes, but that would take a great deal of time
>>>>because there are so many of them.
>>>>
>>>>Can anyone suggest a (free) site? Picasa Web Pages has been suggested, and
>>>>I am going to look into that.
>>>
>>>When I put up pictures I FTP them to my FREE web space as such provided by my
>>>internet provider COMCAST. Like this.....
>>>http://home.comcast.net/~zekor/index.htm
>>
>>I do the same for certain projects, but doing so requires at least a
>>minimum knowledge of html. The OP hasn't indicated that she has that
>>knowledge or want to learn html.
>
>Very minimal with an editor like ACDSee. It makes the pages. You can make the
>pictures any size, the thumnails any size, any # of pages, any colored pages.
>If you can't do FTP, your an internet dumbo.
>
Why should she bother? I learned html for a specific purpose, but why
should someone who wants to put up some vacation photos bother when
there are sites around like JAlbum or Photobucket that allow her to
just do what she wants to do without extra steps?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 8:14 am
From: me@mine.net
On Thu, 28 May 2009 10:04:17 -0400, in rec.photo.digital tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>When I put up pictures I FTP them to my FREE web space as such provided by my
>>internet provider COMCAST. Like this.....
>>http://home.comcast.net/~zekor/index.htm
>
>I do the same for certain projects, but doing so requires at least a
>minimum knowledge of html. The OP hasn't indicated that she has that
>knowledge or want to learn html.
No need to learn html at all with free packages such as JAlbum around.
at http://www.jalbulm.net . I do prefer my own web space though.
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 8:42 am
From: "Kristian Kjerstad"
tony cooper wrote:
>
> It takes over your images and creates a directory on your HD. I like
> to manage my own files.
When did Picasa do this? I download from camera with Canon Utility to
year/month folders, and use Picasa to browse the pictures and upload to
Picasaweb (1024 MB for free). The only time I've seen Picasa make a new
folder is when you edit pictures - then a new hidden folder named
"Originals" are made containing the original picture.
--
Kristian Kjerstad
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 10:00 am
From: Chris Malcolm
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:07:10 +0100, "Dave P."
> <dave_dot_petty@removebaesystems_dot_com> wrote:
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:468s159qqpals2b72opo5g4tvsmb46j8gm@4ax.com...
>>
>>snipped bits
>>>
>>> I don't use Shutterfly or Snapfish, and wouldn't touch Picasa with a
>>> ten-foot pole, so I can't comment on what crop ratios they require.
>>> If any.
>>>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm just starting to play with Picasa on my PC and intend to try it for web
>>albums to share pictures with friends. Why wouldn't you touch Picasa; is it
>>a anti-Google thing or is there something wrong with the product itself?
> It takes over your images and creates a directory on your HD. I like
> to manage my own files.
Only if you let it do that. Like you I like to manage my own directory
structures, so I told Picasa to stick with them, which it quite
happily does. I do let it create subdirectories within my image files
in which to automatically store the originals when I do some editing
so that I can always restore the original, which I regard as a useful
and convenient feature which saves me the bother of doing it myself.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 10:02 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
In article <3a9t15hdie5htkidniff5kjroc327gr8kj@4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:46:45 GMT, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2b6t15hmvaukl2qt1p670op7l3o416m27a@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:54:33 GMT, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <4a1e1729$0$23775$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>, "MaryL"
>>> <stancole1@yahoo.comTAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:
>>>>>I just returned from a trip to Greece. I took a large number of digital
>>>>>photos (excessive, really). I cropped a lot of them in ThumbsPlus and
> would
>>>>>like to be able to *easily* post a lot of them so friends who travelled
> with
>>>>>me--and a few others--can view them. However, I have checked out several
>>>>>photo sharing sites (Shutterfly, Snapfish, etc.), and most of them will
>>>>>arbitrarily crop to fit the standard 4" x 6" dimensions. That seems to be
>>>>>done so people can order online, but I can print these same photos myself
>>>>>and they look just fine. Those same sites offer an opportunity to
>>>>>individually set cropping sizes, but that would take a great deal of time
>>>>>because there are so many of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can anyone suggest a (free) site? Picasa Web Pages has been suggested, and
>
>>>>>I am going to look into that.
>>>>
>>>>When I put up pictures I FTP them to my FREE web space as such provided by
> my
>>>>internet provider COMCAST. Like this.....
>>>>http://home.comcast.net/~zekor/index.htm
>>>
>>>I do the same for certain projects, but doing so requires at least a
>>>minimum knowledge of html. The OP hasn't indicated that she has that
>>>knowledge or want to learn html.
>>
>>Very minimal with an editor like ACDSee. It makes the pages. You can make the
>>pictures any size, the thumnails any size, any # of pages, any colored pages.
>>If you can't do FTP, your an internet dumbo.
>>
>
>Why should she bother? I learned html for a specific purpose, but why
>should someone who wants to put up some vacation photos bother when
>there are sites around like JAlbum or Photobucket that allow her to
>just do what she wants to do without extra steps?
>
I think most suck thats why. I hate viewing on those sites. Its so much easier
to view on a page without all the advertisements and having limited power
to size as you please. For viewing by specific individuals a specified site
is the ultimate. For viewing by the public in general, a site like photobucket
is likely going to be easier to search for titles and view. A specific site also
offers some security from all kinds of people looking at pictures that
you don't want everybody looking at.
greg
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 10:13 am
From: tony cooper
On 28 May 2009 17:00:36 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:07:10 +0100, "Dave P."
>> <dave_dot_petty@removebaesystems_dot_com> wrote:
>
>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:468s159qqpals2b72opo5g4tvsmb46j8gm@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>snipped bits
>>>>
>>>> I don't use Shutterfly or Snapfish, and wouldn't touch Picasa with a
>>>> ten-foot pole, so I can't comment on what crop ratios they require.
>>>> If any.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I'm just starting to play with Picasa on my PC and intend to try it for web
>>>albums to share pictures with friends. Why wouldn't you touch Picasa; is it
>>>a anti-Google thing or is there something wrong with the product itself?
>
>> It takes over your images and creates a directory on your HD. I like
>> to manage my own files.
>
>Only if you let it do that. Like you I like to manage my own directory
>structures, so I told Picasa to stick with them, which it quite
>happily does. I do let it create subdirectories within my image files
>in which to automatically store the originals when I do some editing
>so that I can always restore the original, which I regard as a useful
>and convenient feature which saves me the bother of doing it myself.
If you and Kristian (the other reply) are happy with Picasa, then use
it. I don't like it, I don't like it creating subdirectories, and I
don't like it storing my originals and making a copy of my edit, and I
don't like the web interface.
I shoot RAW, keep my .DNG files for future edits, make my edits in CS4
as .psds, put saved-as .jpgs up, and organize with Lightroom. Those
are my preferences.
I use Photobucket for certain projects, I use JAlbum for certain
projects, and I have a SmugMug gallery. I recommend these
applications because I think they work well. I don't recommend what I
don't like. I'm not on a campaign to eliminate Picasa or discourage
others from using it. I'm saying I don't like it myself. There's
no need for argument.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 12:35 pm
From: tony cooper
On Thu, 28 May 2009 17:02:35 GMT, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
wrote:
>In article <3a9t15hdie5htkidniff5kjroc327gr8kj@4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:46:45 GMT, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2b6t15hmvaukl2qt1p670op7l3o416m27a@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:54:33 GMT, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <4a1e1729$0$23775$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net>, "MaryL"
>>>> <stancole1@yahoo.comTAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:
>>>>>>I just returned from a trip to Greece. I took a large number of digital
>>>>>>photos (excessive, really). I cropped a lot of them in ThumbsPlus and
>> would
>>>>>>like to be able to *easily* post a lot of them so friends who travelled
>> with
>>>>>>me--and a few others--can view them. However, I have checked out several
>>>>>>photo sharing sites (Shutterfly, Snapfish, etc.), and most of them will
>>>>>>arbitrarily crop to fit the standard 4" x 6" dimensions. That seems to be
>>>>>>done so people can order online, but I can print these same photos myself
>>>>>>and they look just fine. Those same sites offer an opportunity to
>>>>>>individually set cropping sizes, but that would take a great deal of time
>>>>>>because there are so many of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can anyone suggest a (free) site? Picasa Web Pages has been suggested, and
>>
>>>>>>I am going to look into that.
>>>>>
>>>>>When I put up pictures I FTP them to my FREE web space as such provided by
>> my
>>>>>internet provider COMCAST. Like this.....
>>>>>http://home.comcast.net/~zekor/index.htm
>>>>
>>>>I do the same for certain projects, but doing so requires at least a
>>>>minimum knowledge of html. The OP hasn't indicated that she has that
>>>>knowledge or want to learn html.
>>>
>>>Very minimal with an editor like ACDSee. It makes the pages. You can make the
>>>pictures any size, the thumnails any size, any # of pages, any colored pages.
>>>If you can't do FTP, your an internet dumbo.
>>>
>>
>>Why should she bother? I learned html for a specific purpose, but why
>>should someone who wants to put up some vacation photos bother when
>>there are sites around like JAlbum or Photobucket that allow her to
>>just do what she wants to do without extra steps?
>>
>
>I think most suck thats why. I hate viewing on those sites. Its so much easier
>to view on a page without all the advertisements and having limited power
>to size as you please. For viewing by specific individuals a specified site
>is the ultimate. For viewing by the public in general, a site like photobucket
>is likely going to be easier to search for titles and view. A specific site also
>offers some security from all kinds of people looking at pictures that
>you don't want everybody looking at.
>
You have no idea what you are talking about. Photobucket images can
be private and set to requiring a password to view. My SmugMug site
has public galleries and private galleries. Passwords are required to
view the private galleries.
My SmugMug images will view at the size submitted if that is clicked
or at any one of 7 different sizes. My SmugMug pages have no
advertisements.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 7:52 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:WsydnVw1zL3YKYDXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:IaqdnaT4tKIANYvXnZ2dnUVZ_gRi4p2d@giganews.com...
>>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>>>> I assume someone trained at a gun club could well be a better shot than
>>>> someone
>>>> off the street with a black market weapon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I wouldn't.
>>
>>> Sometimes training isn't as useful as experience.
>> Depends where you get experience from I'm guessing by experience you mean
>> firing a gun rather than studying it's specs in Gun monthly or whatever.
>>
> Training, such as that offered by the military of the time. Given that
> both powder and shot were hard to get, such practice wasn't common. Even
> today, non-combatants (that is clerks, etc.,) only go to the rifle range
> once yearly.
So guns in the hands of such people might not be the best method for self
defence.
I was talking to a friend yesterday who has an american family staying with
him at the
moment, the 9 yearold child has already asked him where his gun is
When he said he didn;t have one my friend replied we don;t get many bears in
our garden (south London catford).
The boys father doesnt; have one but it seems teh 9- yearold goes to a
friends house
to 'play' with theirs..... I'm assuming the gun isn't loaded but the idea
would still
frighten me. Sure let them play with toy guns, I did, but a real one
.......I'm not
so sure about.
Although I know of some people that don;t like the idea of toy guns and kids
but I don;t have any great concern about how this affects a childs mind.
>>> Ever wonder why the well-trained and equipped British Army was driven
>>> out of the Colonies?
>> Thought it was either a political move, as we moved out of most colonies.
>> But maybe it was down to numbers.
>>
>
> Don't believe everything you read in history books, yours, or ours.
> Most of it is lies, half-truths, and political expediency. You want
> truth, read journals of those who were there.
All true, I assume you've heard of our polititions and their 'claims'
for expenses.
>>> One reason was they the colonists used their guns to get FOOD, and they
>>> didn't have money for wasting power and shot, so they learned the first
>>> rule of gun control. Hit what you aim at!
>>
>> I'm assuming these guns were 'legal' then.
>>
>
> Yes, the guns were an essential part of food-gathering for many people
> then, and still are for some rural residents.
Well that makes sense, but here in the UK less so.
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 7:53 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gvjtkh$sai$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>I suspect there are plenty of guns still in England. Unless
> your population is very, very docile, there would be at
> least a few which are quietly held.
provided they are held quietly and no one knows about them
and they aren't used then they won't be a problem.
I feel the same way about lions & tigers, I only worry when I see them
roaming around supermarkets or walking down the street.
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 9:03 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:ESwnSNHL2BHKFAKK@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <gvh3qq$1sn$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>
>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:5NhYFhLEAtFKFAcV@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <gv6h32$keu$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>> It was not suddenly made illegal. NOTHING changed with the new gun
>>>>> laws.
>>>>The why do you refer to them as NEW laws if nothing changed.
>>>
>>>
>>> The new laws only affected the legally registered guns. These were not
>>> used in crimes.
>>
>>So what were these laws and how have they changed things.
>
> The law changed with respect to the types of guns that could be legally
> owned. As ALL legal guns in the UK are registered by serial number to
> the owner, their address and the storage place are on record when the
> law changed the police simply asked for the owners to hand them in at
> police stations.
>
> AFAIK everyone complied. So here were no more illegal guns in
> circulation the day after the ban than before. Certainly none of the
> legally held guns became illegally held.
I do feel sorry for those that truly like guns for what they are rather than
as a useful weapon, and I really don;t understand why the police asked for
them to be handed in unless they had reason to believe they would be used
for criminal activity or were unsafe.
>>>> before midnight on
>>>>the day the NEW law was brought in thjen that gun at 1 second after
>>>>midnight was illegal, or are you saying nothing happened with the change
>>>>in
>>>>law.
>>>>Makes me wonder why they changed it.
>>>
>>> It removed the legally held guns. That is all.
>>
>>That's all, so it did do something.
>>Whether right or wrong something changed.
>
> Yes as did changing a speed limit for cars. Neither had any effect on
> gun crime or the number of guns carried in public.
Well speed cameras have reduced the number of speeding cars.
I know, I don;t drive, but I do travel in cars and friends they do tend to
keep below
the limit when they know cameras are about. But this isnl;t because of the
cameras,
but the fine should they be caught speeding. So the cameras don;t stop
speeding
motorists, it's the threat of a fine that does that.
> Not strictly true. The number of armed police did rise dramatically in
> the years following the ban. This can not be put down to terrorism as
> the terrorism threat was constant and if anything started to fall off
> until the early 200's about 2003.
It'd be nice to see a graph, I don;t remmebr the details, I do remmeber
there
being more armed police but can;t be sure whether the %age of armed
police change that much.
>>>>> Therefore as all the legal ones were individually registered by serial
>>>>> number to their owners they were simply collected.
>>>>And what was the aim of that ?
>>> Good question.
>>
>>That's why I asked it :-)
>
> There are many political answers about reducing gun crime, which it did
> not. As predicted by non- politicians it had no effect on gun crime so
> there mush be another reason fro wanting to diss-arm the gund owners who
> were on the whole white middle class.
I wonder if we'll ever know.
>>>>> So removing the legally held guns in the UK has had absolutely ZERO
>>>>> effect on gun crime.
>>>>
>>>>well of course not if you choose only to remove legal guns.
>>>>It's be like raiding my kitchen would stop knife crime.
>>>
>>> Exactly. It was pointless from a crime prevention stand point but the
>>> public had been whipped up into an anti gun frenzy.
>>
>>Well I'm not sure how much of a frenzy it set up but I know
>>a few that were worried when the police storm a train and start
>>shooting terrorists. I just hope friends and family feel better
>>when it's a legal gun that's all.
>
> I am not sure what this has to do with the discussion.
Legal guns can kill too, even in the hands of the well trained and well
meaning.
Also a legal gun held by a really nice harmless person can be stolen.
This very thing happened at a gun club. A gun was stolen from the club
and used to kill someone. So I would be concerned if there were a lot of
legal guns held.
> BTW in the Mendes case he should not have even been on the train in the
> first place. Had he been law abiding he would not have been there to be
> shot.
How do you work that one out.
Sitting on a triain to go someone is not illegal yet, I do it everyday.
>>Well they are a number of places that don;t allow photography for that
>>reason,
>>or rather that's the reason given.
>
> I know.. The usual paranoia. Though there are a few places that do have
> a good reason for not permitting photography (military bases and
> vulnerable points) most are for commercial reasons.
I agree my camera club walked out of a national trust house when we were
told we couldn't take photos for security reasons but could buy them
'off the shelf as postcards'
>>>>Gangs have been importing them from eastern Europe.
>>> Mainly for their own use
>>>>Gun culture has come top teh UK partly via ganstar rap.
>>> BAN RAP!!!!
>>> :-)
>>
>>I'd ban rap that incited violence or glorified criminal activity, or
>>perhaps
>>a
>>not to be shown to the under 18.
>
> Hmmm..... censorship another difficult topic.
yep, maybe leave that for another day/week.
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 9:05 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Yvadnc7mfoPR-YHXnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:N7-dnQq7ju5xh4rXnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> whisky-dave wrote:
>> Well if robbery is their aim, why worry about causing injury.
>>
>>
>
> Because robbing someone isn't as simple as shooting them, and then trying
> to find what they have on them that is valuable. If you can scare them
> half to death with lots of pain, and blood, they will volunteer anything
> they have of value.
I guess so, but a gun in the back or held against the head can be
frightening
enough I'd have thought. As would a banana.
>> So why do the USA and UK government not want certain countries like Iran,
>> Iraq and many other not to have nuclear weapons if they say they're only
>> used
>> for self defence.
>>
>
> There is no way in which a nuke is a defensive weapon. It can act as a
> mutual deterrence, but NOT a defense. The more countries that get nukes,
> the greater the chance someone will actually USE one.
I feel the same way about people with guns whether it be police
my friends brother firing in to the air or anyone else.
> Press someone hard enough, and they will respond with the strongest weapon
> they have.
Yep, and hopefully with a 'weaker' weapon less harm.
>> you have lower speed limits, although there's talk of lowering ours.
>> Do you think lower speed limits save lives.
>>
>>
>>
>
> There are laws in all states about seatbelt use, as well as infant, and
> child booster seats. Texas recently increased the age/weight requirements
> for children to be secured in approved booster seats.
> As for US drivers, they are among the craziest in any part of the world I
> have visited.
Have you visited greece, italy or india.
> If speed limits were religiously adhered to, slower ones would save lives,
> but in reality, they just get ignored if people think they are too low.
true but surly they are less likely to be ignored if the law on speeding is
more
rigorously upheld and heavier fines imposed.
I've certainly noictice less cars in bus lanes over the years as fines have
risen.
Now 120 UKP..
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 9:39 am
From: Chris H
In message <gvm79t$mnu$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> the UK bans only worked because the Police knew EXACTLY where ALL of the
>> guns were.
>
>No, they didn;t know where they all were,
Yes they did as ALL *legal* guns were registered by serial number to an
owner with an address and where they kept the guns. You move house you
have to tell the police and get the new storage inspected.
The only guns they did not know about were illegal guns.
>>>Are you suggesting that overall there's some link between the number of
>>>guns
>>>in a society
>>>and the number of people killed by guns ???????
>>
>> No. I am not. There is a lot more to it than that.
>
>Yes, but not that many people got killed by guns until they became the
>weapon of choice.
I agree. It is not the number of guns... some countries have far more
guns as a percentage of population but a much lower gun crime rate. It
is not so much the guns as the culture of the people.
Though in the culture where guns are used in crime more people tend to
want/get them and use them.
>>> >It is still true that most police officers will never fire
>>>> their gun except at the pistol range during a normal career.
>>>Seems a waste of time having them then doesn't it.
>>>Why not carry a knife.
>>
>> For the same reason careful drivers have issuance.
>No they have insurance because it is the law. Well in the UK anyway.
True. House insurance then... that is not mandatory.
>>You never know what
>> lunatic is just around the corner.
>True and I'd prefer suchb a luntic wouldn't have access to a gun.
They do now in the UK
The legal gun owners were not lunatics.
> >Besides when armed police turn up you
>> either fight (and usually loose) or talk to them and for most minor
>> crimes it is stupid to start shooting.
>well we tend to only arm our police when a crime involving a firearm might
>occur,
That is complete bullocks. There are far more armed police in the UK
than ever before and these guns are now normally carried around the
streets. Not held in Police stations
>but nowadays you might not know as the numbers of guns increase the
>likeyhood
>of coming across one increases.
True.
>> Ie if I get pulled over for speeding shooting my way out is just landing
>> myself in more trouble.
>
>Speeding off isn't a good idea either,
That is not an absolute.
> but it happens.
Most people speed to a greater or lesser extent.
>I'd have thought shooting a gun off isn't a good idea in general but it
>happens.
Quite often in some cities.
>But how does that help the person that gets shot, ah yes, it's a bad idea
>to
>be anywhere near a person with a gun, well at least that makes some sense.
It depends who has the gun. Though the police have shot a fair few wrong
targets.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 10:13 am
From: Chris H
In message <gvmcor$ofk$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>>>So what were these laws and how have they changed things.
>>
>> The law changed with respect to the types of guns that could be legally
>> owned. As ALL legal guns in the UK are registered by serial number to
>> the owner, their address and the storage place are on record when the
>> law changed the police simply asked for the owners to hand them in at
>> police stations.
>>
>> AFAIK everyone complied. So here were no more illegal guns in
>> circulation the day after the ban than before. Certainly none of the
>> legally held guns became illegally held.
>
>I do feel sorry for those that truly like guns for what they are rather than
>as a useful weapon
Well most are also, in the right hands, pretty devastating as a weapon.
>, and I really don;t understand why the police asked for
>them to be handed in unless they had reason to believe they would be used
>for criminal activity or were unsafe.
Political reasons? In most dictatorships they start by removing
privately held firearms.
>>>That's all, so it did do something.
>>>Whether right or wrong something changed.
>>
>> Yes as did changing a speed limit for cars. Neither had any effect on
>> gun crime or the number of guns carried in public.
>
>Well speed cameras have reduced the number of speeding cars.
Not at all... only where the cameras are.
>I know, I don;t drive, but I do travel in cars and friends they do tend to
>keep below
>the limit when they know cameras are about. But this isnl;t because of the
>cameras,
>but the fine should they be caught speeding. So the cameras don;t stop
>speeding
>motorists, it's the threat of a fine that does that.
They are usually placed to generate money
>> Not strictly true. The number of armed police did rise dramatically in
>> the years following the ban. This can not be put down to terrorism as
>> the terrorism threat was constant and if anything started to fall off
>> until the early 200's about 2003.
>
>It'd be nice to see a graph, I don;t remmebr the details, I do remmeber
>there
>being more armed police but can;t be sure whether the %age of armed
>police change that much.
I did have the figures (as I was a shooter at the time) but I have lost
faith in any statistics on this sort of thing.
>>>That's why I asked it :-)
>>
>> There are many political answers about reducing gun crime, which it did
>> not. As predicted by non- politicians it had no effect on gun crime so
>> there mush be another reason fro wanting to diss-arm the gund owners who
>> were on the whole white middle class.
>
>I wonder if we'll ever know.
We do. MI5 recently did a report saying that the biggest threat to law
and order at the moment is not terrorism but unrest in "middle England"
which is broadly speaking the educated affluent white middle class CofE
(not the white supremacists who tend to working class and not so
educated.
>> I am not sure what this has to do with the discussion.
>
>Legal guns can kill too, even in the hands of the well trained and well
>meaning.
But you are more likely to be struck by lighting or killed by a family
member with a kitchen knife
>Also a legal gun held by a really nice harmless person can be stolen.
VERY Rarely and insignificant rise compared to the numbers killed by
stolen cars.
>This very thing happened at a gun club. A gun was stolen from the club
>and used to kill someone.
That is HIGHLY unusual as guns are not normally kept at gun clubs and if
they are the security is very tight. Not something an ameture can get
into .
>So I would be concerned if there were a lot of
>legal guns held.
Why? There were many thousands held and it was so rare guns were ever
stolen (other than shotguns which is still the case)
You are far more likely to be run over by some one stealing your own car
as has happened more often than people have been killed by stolen legal
firearms.
>> BTW in the Mendes case he should not have even been on the train in the
>> first place. Had he been law abiding he would not have been there to be
>> shot.
>How do you work that one out.
>Sitting on a triain to go someone is not illegal yet, I do it everyday.
He should not have been there.
>>>Well they are a number of places that don;t allow photography for that
>>>reason,
>>>or rather that's the reason given.
>>
>> I know.. The usual paranoia. Though there are a few places that do have
>> a good reason for not permitting photography (military bases and
>> vulnerable points) most are for commercial reasons.
>
>I agree my camera club walked out of a national trust house when we were
>told we couldn't take photos for security reasons but could buy them
>'off the shelf as postcards'
Photography... Why bring that up here :-)))))
The National Trust are getting very silly over photography by all
accounts. I read somewhere that they are chasing stock libraries that
have any photos of any NT properties no matter where or when they were
taken...
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 10:18 am
From: Chris H
In message <gvmcsc$og1$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>> Because robbing someone isn't as simple as shooting them, and then trying
>> to find what they have on them that is valuable. If you can scare them
>> half to death with lots of pain, and blood, they will volunteer anything
>> they have of value.
>
>I guess so, but a gun in the back or held against the head can be
>frightening
>enough I'd have thought.
It is.
> As would a banana.
It depends on circumstance.
>> There is no way in which a nuke is a defensive weapon. It can act as a
>> mutual deterrence, but NOT a defense. The more countries that get nukes,
>> the greater the chance someone will actually USE one.
>
>I feel the same way about people with guns whether it be police
>my friends brother firing in to the air or anyone else.
That is your personal insecurity. I don't want a nanny state where
anyone who is scared of their own shadow makes the rules fro normal
people (and yes I have been shot at and held at gunpoint)
>> Press someone hard enough, and they will respond with the strongest weapon
>> they have.
>Yep, and hopefully with a 'weaker' weapon less harm.
Not at all. Weaker weapons often cause more harm I would rather be shot
than attacked with a knife.
>> If speed limits were religiously adhered to, slower ones would save lives,
>> but in reality, they just get ignored if people think they are too low.
>
>true but surly they are less likely to be ignored if the law on speeding is
>more
>rigorously upheld and heavier fines imposed.
Not so. They would be less likely to be ignored if the limits were more
sensibly placed and taxation camera more sensibly used.
Now no one has any respect for speed limits or the people who enforce
them
>I've certainly noictice less cars in bus lanes over the years as fines have
>risen.
>Now 120 UKP..
Can't argue there.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 10:28 am
From: Chris H
In message <gvmcor$ofk$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>> BTW in the Mendes case he should not have even been on the train in the
>> first place. Had he been law abiding he would not have been there to be
>> shot.
>
>How do you work that one out.
>Sitting on a triain to go someone is not illegal yet, I do it everyday.
As he should have left the country several years before having had his
visa revoked.
He was a criminal.
He was working as an Electrician but clearly not certified unless he
gave forged details. I which case that is a crime one way or the other.
In any event he should not even have been in the UK let alone illegally
working as an Electrician.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 1:36 pm
From: Ron Hunter
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-28 00:40:28 -0700, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-05-27 16:45:52 -0700, Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On May 27, 3:17 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESP...@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Still, people try it several hundred times in a year. Running from t
>>>> he
>>>>>> police is usually a way to just make the bill higher, but people seem
>>>>>> to get a thrill out of it, so away they go.
>>>>> Yup!
>>>>> Many of them aren't even capable of handling their vehicle as
>>>>> illustrated by this morning's news from San Jose, but they run anyway.
>>>> Can go either way, though. A now-retired policeman friend of mine
>>>> wiped out four patrol cars over the course of his career in our town.
>>>> (Note the nice double-entendre there.) Totaled two in non-emegency
>>>> traffic collisions and two more in high speed pursuits.
>>>>
>>>> The moral to this story is that you should *never* try to stay up with
>>>> a Stingray through a 90 MPH sweeper in your Ford four-door sedan, no
>>>> matter *how* good you think you are.
>>> I know of a Sgt. in our department who launched an unmarked Chev
>>> Caprice Pursuit conversion in a "Dukes of Hazzard" scenario, flew about
>>> 60 feet, and when he landed snapped the chassis in the middle. That car
>>> just folded up! He never lived it down. He ended up as of all things an
>>> Academy instructor.
>> Easily the best way of outrunning a 'Vette' is to use that radio to
>> call in help up the road. A nice spike-strip across the road does
>> wonders, and if you are lucky, you get to see Chevy's famous exploding
>> plastic car when the driver loses it.
>
> One of the strange things with spike strips, is the amazing ability of
> a great variety of vehicles to run considerable distances on rims. The
> good thing about the 'vette in this regard, is those rims are not
> steel, and they wear down to the disc rotors pretty quickly. Also very
> few of those hit with spike strips actually "lose" it, they sort of
> grind to a halt, unless they are truly crazy.
>
> The other thing to consider is, gas in a hot running 8 lunger is a
> finite commodity.
True, but you need to keep him in sight...
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 1:41 pm
From: Twibil
On May 28, 12:40 am, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> Easily the best way of outrunning a 'Vette' is to use that radio to call
> in help up the road.
Sorry, a radio isn't a magic wand.
First, there has to be somebody up ahead on that road to intercept the
oncoming scofflaw. On little two-laned roads in rural areas that's
unlikely. Too many variables in terms of possible escape routes the
speeder could take, and far too few cops to cover them all.
Secondly, that guy up ahead must have a radio with frequencies
compatible with yours, and if he's with a different law-enforcement
branch that's doubtful. (Our local law-enforcement guys: local cops,
county sheriffs, the CHP, and emergency services only got their
communications coodinated properly a few years ago, and things still
don't always work as advertised.)
> A nice spike-strip across the road does wonders,
Only if you know what road your perp is going to be on and you
havethe time -and a reasonably safe opportunity- to deploy one. (And
if your baddie doesn't simply drive around it.)
> and if you are lucky, you get to see Chevy's famous exploding plastic
> car when the driver loses it.
That isn't "lucky". I've seen cops kneeling down and being sick by the
side of the road from the emotional impact of dealing with the
aftermath of a particularly gory crash scene, and I've felt that way
myself as a result of racetrack crashes on a few occasions.
The car chases we all think about these days are the ones constantly
popping up on TV news shows, but we tend to forget that *those are
only the ones that go on long enough for a news helicopter to get on-
scene*, and those only happen in metropolitan areas! But there are
hundreds of very short chases that take place every day all across
America, and in a certain percentage of those the chasee gets away
scott-free; having ditched the pursuit long before they can get close
enough to get a positive I.D. or any idea of where he's gone. And
those successful evasions happen regularly despite radios, spike
strips, et all.
Now: Is it a stupid idea to try outrunning the cops? Sure.
Is it dangeous? Very. (And not just to the perp, either.)
Do I recommend it? *Absolutely not*!
How do I know these things, and did I ever ditch a cop myself (back in
the days when we all rode dinosaurs?) I'll take the 5th.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Trying again - photo sharing sites
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/42fce533cd816c20?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 8:42 am
From: "MaryL"
For some reason, my original question (requesting suggestions for photo
sharing sites) and the responses do not show up on my system. I have had
this happen before, and it seems to occur if I inadvertently use the same
name as was used previously. In such cases, I have found the question
attached to a very old thread. So, I had to go through google
(unfortunate!) to find the question and your answers. Once I found it, the
feedback was very helpful. Thank you! I really like the looks of SmugMug
and am going to try it. My only purpose is to show pictures for friends to
see. It's possible that friends may want to print a few of them that show
some of them in some locations, but I don't expect many to want to do that.
Most of the photo sharing sites I looked at clearly are intended so that
people can buy prints, and they arbitrarily crop photos to fit their format.
I have had several people who want to "see my pictures." Well, there are so
many of them that that just isn't practical. I thought online albums would
solve the problem and allow people to browse as many or as few as they want.
Incidentally, I did not even take what I consider my "good" camera (Nikon
D80) because I realized that I just could not handle that extra bulk and
weight with our limited space and incredible number of steps and rocks to
navigate. I'm not that agile any more! Instead, I took my Nikon P80. The
images are not what I could have achieved with the D80, but it allowed me to
enjoy my vacation instead of struggling.
Tony, I looked up your photos. I'm glad you made that "error" because your
galleries are just what I was hoping for. I also enjoyed simply looking at
your pictures. They are beautiful--mine will be nowhere near that good.
The problem you mentioned with Picasa is exactly what has caused my delay in
getting started. I do not like the idea of giving any service the type of
control Picasa seems to require.
I already have other photos on PictureTrail, but I have been very
dissatisfied with them. They have grown very "junky" over the past few
years with all their ads, and they also have a limit on size--so much so
that I don't have any space left. For an extra $10.00 per year, I can
eliminate that account and put everything in SmugMug.
I have only minimal knowledge of html. I did create a page several years
ago for classes I teach, but I haven't done anything with it for some time.
I didn't want to have to go through the learning process all over again, so
I wanted something where I could simply upload and let "someone else" do
most of the other work. It looks like SmugMug will do that, will permit
attractive results, and it has a 14-day free trial period.
So, Tony and GregS, thanks very much for your help. I think you have sent
me to just the right location.
MaryL
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 10:31 am
From: tony cooper
On Thu, 28 May 2009 10:42:38 -0500, "MaryL"
<stancole1@yahoo.comTAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote:
>For some reason, my original question (requesting suggestions for photo
>sharing sites) and the responses do not show up on my system. I have had
>this happen before, and it seems to occur if I inadvertently use the same
>name as was used previously. In such cases, I have found the question
>attached to a very old thread. So, I had to go through google
>(unfortunate!) to find the question and your answers. Once I found it, the
>feedback was very helpful. Thank you! I really like the looks of SmugMug
>and am going to try it. My only purpose is to show pictures for friends to
>see. It's possible that friends may want to print a few of them that show
>some of them in some locations, but I don't expect many to want to do that.
>Most of the photo sharing sites I looked at clearly are intended so that
>people can buy prints, and they arbitrarily crop photos to fit their format.
>
>I have had several people who want to "see my pictures." Well, there are so
>many of them that that just isn't practical. I thought online albums would
>solve the problem and allow people to browse as many or as few as they want.
>Incidentally, I did not even take what I consider my "good" camera (Nikon
>D80) because I realized that I just could not handle that extra bulk and
>weight with our limited space and incredible number of steps and rocks to
>navigate. I'm not that agile any more! Instead, I took my Nikon P80. The
>images are not what I could have achieved with the D80, but it allowed me to
>enjoy my vacation instead of struggling.
>
>Tony, I looked up your photos. I'm glad you made that "error" because your
>galleries are just what I was hoping for. I also enjoyed simply looking at
>your pictures. They are beautiful--mine will be nowhere near that good.
>The problem you mentioned with Picasa is exactly what has caused my delay in
>getting started. I do not like the idea of giving any service the type of
>control Picasa seems to require.
Thank you. If you do a SmugMug gallery, when you set the specs you
have a choice to set Printing>No and this disables the Shopping Cart.
If it's Yes, viewers can order prints from SmugMug. I don't like this
because I feel viewers think I'm trying to sell my pictures. I'm an
amateur who likes to take photographs and not someone trying to make
money on my hobby. (You don't get a piece of the action unless you
have a Professional account, though)
With the Shopping Cart disabled, the viewer can still right click on
an image, download it, and print it for their own use. I don't
watermark because I really don't care if someone uses one of my
images. I'd be flattered.
You might also check into the Digital Grin website:
http://www.dgrin.com/ That's a photography forum sponsored by
SmugMug, but you don't have to have a SmugMug site to register or use
it. Moderated discussions on various photographic interests, and
completely without the noise you see in newsgroups.
The only problem with Digital Grin is that it is very humbling. You
think you've done some good shots, and then you see what others have
done that is far better.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: photo organiser for Linux
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/340c0b163aedf38d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 8:58 am
From: Clair Johnston
bugbear wrote:
> Does anyone know of an application for Linux
> that will allow me to group photos by keyword tags,
> but LEAVE the photos where they already exist on my drive;
>
> If you like, a "passive" indexer, (like the old Aldus fetch)
> as opposed to a picture database.
>
> BugBear
Take a look at Kphotoalbum http://www.kphotoalbum.org/
I've been using it about a year and am pleased with it. I have 35000
cataloged and it is still fast. I do wish it were available on Windows
Clair
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 12:01 pm
From: Stefan Patric
On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:41:33 +0100, bugbear wrote:
> Does anyone know of an application for Linux that will allow me to group
> photos by keyword tags, but LEAVE the photos where they already exist on
> my drive;
>
> If you like, a "passive" indexer, (like the old Aldus fetch) as opposed
> to a picture database.
Take a look a F-Spot (http://f-spot.org/Main_Page). It's a fairly full-
featured photo manager for the GNOME desktop, but you can use it with any
desktop environment or window manager, if the appropriate libraries are
installed. It has the option to leave photos where they are on the hard
drive instead of moving or copying them to the ~/Photos folder which is
what you wanted.
Stef
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon- CL-L2 Ballistic Nylon Lens Case Service Advisory
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0dbd4b5f208f274d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 12:52 pm
From: Alan Browne
On 27-05-09 23:28, Paul Furman wrote:
>
> There are now two of these old 'bargain' 600mm f/4 AIS Nikkors listed at
> KEH. It's hard to even find a price point for them but I guess if anyone
> knows, they do.
They sell somewhat dear so a direct owner sale should be somewhat less
(30% or so).
--
-- 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.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's the fuss over 3:2 aspect ratio?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ecd50976e6eb9d55?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, May 28 2009 1:02 pm
From: Alan Browne
On 28-05-09 07:40, jeffc wrote:
> Most cameras do not have 100% viewfinders so the resulting 'negative'
> has more to it than was seen at
> the time of shooting. When cropped to remove the unforeseen parts of
> the image, the 2:3 ratio often
> is well suited to a 3.5 x 5 or a 5x7 (as opposed to a 4x6 or 5 x 7.5)
> but aspect ratio in the 'print' should be determined
> by the desired composition -- not some arbitrary numerical
> relationship. Unlike painters, we do not have the convenience
> of altering perspective and content to suit a predetermined
> 'frame' (with the exception of view cameras and Photoshop warp and
> transform with their inherent distortions).
>
> Those who argue for a specific format fail to recognize the value of
> having the entire projected image of the lens
> available after the exposure is made.
> Those who argue for a round or square format fail to recognize the
> need of some people to fit 3D reality into a 2D
> window determined by a camera manufacturer or paper supplier. The
> often taught concepts of the image being seen
> either as a mirror or a window reinforces the need of some for a
> 'frame to fill' which more often than not is an arbitrary decision
> e.g. 3:4, 2:3, 4:5, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 (Fuji680), 6x9, 6x12, 6x17
> and the Cirkut Camera variable length... not to mention all those old
> Kodak roll film formats. The solution for me was the Sinar Roll film
> back which allowed mid-roll
> changes ranging from 6x4.5 to 6x12 -- but ultimately what I was doing
> was deciding (in the field) what portion of the
> projected image I would be using in the final print. With due respect
> to Weston's previsualization, there were times when
> having just a little more of what fell outside the frame would have
> been helpful.
>
> As has been said, the final crop and presentation format should be
> part of the aesthetic decisions made by
> the 'artist' in best revealing whatever it was that compelled him/her
> to release the shutter at the specific time and
> with the lens pointed in a specific direction.
You funny.
==============================================================================
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