Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 11:35 am
From: Chris H

In message <200905190910046752-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom>, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> writes
>Having said all of that I can do this;
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSCF0076c3.jpg
>with this, http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-Kimber-CDP-LAc.jpg
>and defend myself at home if I have to.

I like the 45acp. Had a 1911A1. Always pinned the grip safety though.

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 12:37 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-19 11:35:34 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:

> In message <200905190910046752-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom>, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> writes
>> Having said all of that I can do this;
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSCF0076c3.jpg
>> with this, http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-Kimber-CDP-LAc.jpg
>> and defend myself at home if I have to.
>
> I like the 45acp. Had a 1911A1. Always pinned the grip safety though.

Yes, the grip safety on the old 1911 was always a pain. Most 1911
shooters today will modify with a beaver-tail, this minimizes the
problem of 1911 "thumb web bite" cause by recoil when not gripped
properly.
The modern variations and custom models are altered, but retain a much
improved grip safety.
My Kimber has a reworked trigger, a complete edge meld-down job,
including sights, to minimize snags, the grip safety is comfortable &
unintrussive, and it is a real tack driver!
--
Regards,
Savageduck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Prost! Or how the germans drink beer
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2f3c7cc57e5d98cc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 11:46 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-42606-13.html#backToArticle=625517

==============================================================================
TOPIC: give it a rest kiddies
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/783a15a6284cbbda?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 11:47 am
From: SMS

ray wrote:

> Getting a little off topic there, I think. The point is that I'm sick and
> tired of all the bickering

LOL, if you don't like bickering, what are you doing on Usenet?!

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 2:49 pm
From: "Bowser"

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:77fvh6F1h13p5U12@mid.individual.net...
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 08:13:01 -0400, Bowser wrote:
>
>> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>> news:77e3ulF1h13p5U3@mid.individual.net...
>>> How about at least TRYING to act like intelligent adults for a while?
>>> Quite obviously neither a P&S or a DSLR is going to be what everyone
>>> needs - if that were so, then one or the other would die. You simply
>>> can't accept the fact that different folks have different needs and let
>>> it go at that!
>>
>> Right. Asking us to be mature. Like asking a starving dog to refuse
>> food.
>
> If you'll reread, you'll see that I was not asking folks to be mature - I
> know that's way too much to ask. I merely requested that folks try to act
> like adults for a while.

Ah, OK. Pretty much the same thing to me, though. I'll rephrase:

Right. Asking us to act like adults for a while. Like asking a starving dog
to refuse food.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 2:50 pm
From: "Bowser"

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:77gcc0F1h13p5U15@mid.individual.net...
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 10:35:14 -0700, SMS wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>
>>> If you'll reread, you'll see that I was not asking folks to be mature -
>>> I know that's way too much to ask. I merely requested that folks try to
>>> act like adults for a while.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I had assumed that our friendly anti-DSLR troll had
>> disappeared, but it's just that my Usenet filters were working too well.
>>
>> I didn't post that to bring him out of the woodwork, it was a legitimate
>> response to the thread on Sony launching a line of simple D-SLRs. The
>> reason they're doing this is because they believe that there are a lot
>> of point and shoot users out there that would like to have the
>> advantages of a D-SLR, but that feel that the current offerings are
>> overly complex to use.
>>
>> Rather than just making their new D-SLRs simpler, they actually have to
>> explain to potential customers that these products will solve the major
>> areas of dissatisfaction with point and shoot digital cameras, as no
>> doubt most of us have explained to our friends and relatives.
>>
>> The two biggest complaints of point and shoot cameras are the lag time
>> and the poor low-light performance. Neither of these problems were
>> present in point and shoot film cameras, and there is no technology to
>> fix the problems in point and shoot digital cameras. Hence, at this
>> time, going to a digital SLR is the only solution and the company that
>> can capitalize on this mass market will do well.
>
> Getting a little off topic there, I think. The point is that I'm sick and
> tired of all the bickering - all the arguments about: "16 reasons to
> choose a DSLR over a P&S" which begets "25 reasons to choose a P&S over a
> DSLR" which begets "37 reasons to choose a DSLR over a P&S" which begest
> "51 reasons to choose a P&S over a DSLR" . . . And then all the incessant
> "you're crazy - no one would want one of those damned things" . . . ad
> naseum.

So don't read the messages and don't extend the thread by replying. It's
pretty simple, no?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another source condemns 3:2 format
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/058d826c39e92f11?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 12:07 pm
From: DMac

whisky-dave wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:541d7bfd-f880-4e0f-ac6a-2091d6b3742d@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
>
> Any idea what the average human vision is as a ratio.
>
>

Depends on if you want to measure one eye or both. Both eyes the aspect
ratio we see is about 1.75:1 but your left eye sees more of the left
side than your right eye which sees more of the right side.

The aspect ratio of just one eye is about 1.17:1. I say "about" because
different nationalities (I.E. Asian compared to Anglo Saxon)see a
different aspect ratio due to the eyelid blocking off the top of a scene
in many Asians.

I always liked my old Mamiya 330. You could crop the shot after taking
it and produce an enlargement that looked like you were filling your
field of vision with it. Quite an impressive trick with poster size prints.

Hacking off a heap of pixels to do it with digital will see the image
quite noticeable small compared to its native ratio.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 1:08 pm
From: Alan Browne

tmonego@wildblue.net wrote:
> On May 19, 5:50 am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?

Irrelevant BS. They can criticize this all they like. How many of them
put up the bucks to change their equipment?

Nobody cares about how many pixels are edited away any more than they
cared how much image was cropped away in 6x6 format.

I could actually see an over-full-frame sensor that can be cropped as
required. eg: 36x36mm and you end up with a usable circular image.
Crop or mask as required.

--
-- 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 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 1:10 pm
From: Alan Browne

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <541d7bfd-f880-4e0f-ac6a-2091d6b3742d@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
>
> 4:3 is so logical that most LCD screens are now 16:9.

What applies to photography and cinema are two wildly different things.
I can do slide shows on my Plasma screen, in fact use the camera to
present them with an HDMI output. Doesn't mean I will.

>
> 4:3 is simply too high for many wide angle landscapes. In my opinion for most
> city-scape portraits (just a few buildings, a monument, etc.) 3:2 is also
> better than 4:3.

I agree on that. My camera also shoots 16:9 by cropping the top/bottom
of the frame. However, the raw captured this way is still full sized
3:2. Only the Sony image s/w on the computer will show the in camera
gen'd raw as 16:9. So I don't bother with this mode.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 1:13 pm
From: Alan Browne

Human vision is not rectangular, nor is it even a filled image. It is
much more complex for efficiency reasons.

Offhand I'd guess it as roughly 2:1 (reasonable recognition of objects
(not peripheral motion detection)). Further, the 'frame' is irregular
in shape.

But the image we see in that 'frame' is only sharp in a very narrow
area, where the eyes are pointed. Further the image appears to be in
focus everywhere, because we do not have the resolution to detect the
OOF where the eye is not actually pointed. And where it points it is in
focus (normally) almost intantly.

So comparing the two is at best a very general case.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 3:03 pm
From: Peter Chant

> I agree on that. My camera also shoots 16:9 by cropping the top/bottom
> of the frame. However, the raw captured this way is still full sized
> 3:2. Only the Sony image s/w on the computer will show the in camera
> gen'd raw as 16:9. So I don't bother with this mode.
>
Like the panoramic mode on my Pentax MZ-5n - it just masked off part of the
negative with shutters. Pointless marketingc gimmick IMHO.

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 11:45 am
From: Chris H

In message <hn9s05ltlsf56vuos48d8lsutoae9da0kk@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>
>The photographer wasn't arrested for taking photographs where it was
>illegal to do so or legal to do so and someone thought it wasn't. It
>wasn't *where* the photographs were taken that was the basis for the
>arrest. The photographer was charged with public harassment and
>causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.

Who arrested him?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 11:41 am
From: Chris H

In message <m85v05hi9id6cpbekg34452far1qi4huon@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>You won't get away with saying "There's no law against photographing
>some stranger's child without the permission of the parents" and
>expect the policeman to let you walk. He'll find an applicable law.

and that is the problem...

>We never really have a full understanding of events like this reported
>in the newspaper.

True

>I haven't had much interaction with the police, but I can't see an
>officer wasting his time making an arrest on an incident like this
>unless there was some factor not reported in the paper. The policeman
>would rather be nipping off for a doughnut than filling out the
>paperwork, but something escalated the situation.

You haven't met UK Policemen recently :-) Several UK photographers
magazines have over the last 12 months started "know your rights" and
legal sections due to harassment of photographers by police.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 11:39 am
From: Chris H

In message <1bhu05h8hkf0joes3ubicqfv95e3qbpof0@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>
>How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if you
>show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and the parent
>catches you, that there will be some law involved?

There isn't a law for that in a public place.

>The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".

The parents have no idea about the law any more than the PCSO's or
Police.

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

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 1:55 pm
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

>>How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if
>>you show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and
>>the parent catches you, that there will be some law involved?
>
> There isn't a law for that in a public place.

Oh, I wouldn't be too sure about that. In the US, I'm certain that
ordinary assault charges could be filed as could child molestation or
other nasty state or even federal offenses, including but not limited
to violating the civil rights of the parent(s) or child(ren). Once a
photographer crosses over into violating someone else's rights,
freedoms, and protections of not only the law, but the Bill of
Rights, then their right to do as they damn well please is severely
limited.

>>The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".
>
> The parents have no idea about the law any more than the PCSO's
> or Police.

--
Jerry, aka HP

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas Prices
and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 2:21 pm
From: Chris H

In message <Xns9C10AC2E4CBB1ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131>, HEMI-Powered
<none@none.gn> writes
>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>>How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if
>>>you show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and
>>>the parent catches you, that there will be some law involved?
>>
>> There isn't a law for that in a public place.
>
>Oh, I wouldn't be too sure about that.

I am for the UK

>In the US,

That is another matter. The case in question was in the UK

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

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 1:24 pm
From: Alan Browne

Neil Harrington wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message

>> A lot of this cash, BTW, will be returned to the government. Some banks
>> are already throwing it back to get the gov't off their backs.
>
> Some banks are TRYING to return the money, but the last I heard the Obama
> administration is refusing to take it back. When the banks have the gummint
> money, the gummit has its hooks in the banks.

They can't refuse to take the money back. Those that pass the 'stress
test' (the vast majority did) and that can raise the cash (by equity is
in fashion) can pay it back and it's over. The few that didn't need
some $80B in fluff ups, a bagatelle in this environment.

What you 'heard' sounds more like the anti-Obama propaganda machine.

>
>> This is separate from the new deficit spending which is a partisan
>> independent problem - either party spends like crazy and the Reps want
>> unreasonably low taxes v. the budget and earmarks.
>
> What the Republicans SHOULD want is lower taxes and smaller government, all
> around. One of the big disappointments about Bush is that he never did
> anything about the latter.

US Taxes can NOT go lower. Along with reduced spending, taxes MUST go
higher or the world will stop funding the US government. China has not
only drastically slowed its purchases of US treasuries, but is quietly
selling them off.

1. The US debt requires higher taxes (and less frivolous spending)
2. US federal entitlements are not funded. Requires more taxes.
3. The Reps are no different than the Dems when it comes to spending.
If you believe otherwise, you are programmed.
4. Bush saw his father lose his second term. Why? Because despite his
read-my-lips pledge he was in the end forced to increase taxes. That
cost him the election - Bush junior had no interest in balancing the
books, only in getting re-elected. Power corrupts the smartest of
people and it absolutely blows away dummies like Bush Jr.

You polarize everything and ignore simple truths, the most important
being the current federal debt and that the only way to pay it down is
to reduce spending AND increase taxes. And increase them a lot if
entitlements are to be paid in the future as required by law. (That 3rd
rail that politicians have too much fear of).

The US enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. But
it is also indebted beyond reason. This is because the US has been
spending like a suburban trophy wife with a platinum Amex card but not
raising the taxes to cover it.

US fed cost of borrowing: > $700M per day. You could blame Reagan,
Bush Sr., Clinton (less, he actually provided a surplus), Bush Jr and
the political parties they are part of and the lobbyists they spread
their legs for.

Better yet, stop blaming and start DOING. And as long as you believe
the Republican fantasy that this means no more taxes you are totally
programmed for failure.

> If you see any inaccuracy in what I wrote, please point it out. If
> you call the truth a "smear" because you just don't like the truth,
> that's not my problem.

I haven't got the time or inclination to post on each of them and I'm
very willing to admit I don't know it all. But your "lower taxes / cut
spending" cry coupled to myths of the great depression and the New Deal
is just plain spin from whatever spin factory turns you on. (Further, a
read of last weeks The Economist on Europe might be an eye opener to you).

Americans have become bitterly polarized to the point of party
dysfunction, esp. the Republican party. And those who can't recite the
core line are pariahs. (Again: Rush/Cheney).

Have some guts. Learn the baseline facts (STUDY the US entitlements for
the next 30-50 years and their prospects for funding) and no matter what
you think now, the truth is the US cannot fund much of it without
profound change - far less military spending (Eisenhower was absolutely
right), far less farm support and an increase in taxes.

And I mean profound way beyond the petty polarized thinking you emulate.
The United States cannot sustain the illusion of being master of the
world while it cannot master its own house. We know what that leads to,
just hope I'm dead by then and that my son has a way to cope - like
moving to Europe or Asia.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 1:58 pm
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

Alan Browne wrote:

>
> Have some guts. Learn the baseline facts (STUDY the US entitlements for
> the next 30-50 years and their prospects for funding) and no matter what
> you think now, the truth is the US cannot fund much of it without
> profound change - far less military spending (Eisenhower was absolutely
> right), far less farm support and an increase in taxes.
>

Indeed the Democrats have got us in a very big mess. Zero doubt.

Military spending is not a problem. The problem ... the ONLY
problem .. with spending is entitlements.

There are three keys to solving the problem:

1) no new entitlements, that is, zero of them. For example,
no government finding of more welfare-oriented medical care
(i.e. no medical care for people who do not pay taxes for it)

2) cutting present entitlements. That means cutting medicaid,
which is an unearned entitlement, dramatically, and even
cutting the earned entitlements (Social Security and Medicaid)
by small amounts (probably by raising the eligibility age gradually)

3) the big one ... increase prosperity and hence per capita GDP
and tax intake (that is, increase GDP faster than the amount needed to
fund entitlements). This last one is where the Democrats are very, very weak ...
they espouse policies that actually are intended to decrease prosperity and GDP.
For example ... intentionally stopping domestic energy independence
by refusing to allow additional fossil fuel extraction, refusing to solve the
problems of nuclear power by refusing to open the nuclear waste repository,
believing in the Tooth Fairy idea of wind power. They (they Democrats) also
refuse to allow shifting high-wage jobs from low value things like car manufacturing
to higher value ones like nuclear power plant construction.

Doug McDonald

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheapest way to capture golf swing impact?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e23aa73d6c7bf57e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 2:15 pm
From: John McWilliams

Prof Wonmug wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 22:20:16 -0700, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>

>>>
>>> It turns out that they do sell tape or stickers for the club face that
>>> will show where the ball made contact.
>> Yes, and you could make your own stickers if you wished.
>> I'd try the flour dry, but most likely it won't cover enough. So, wet
>> the club face, then sift a small layer on.
>
> I couldn't get the flour to work and it was very messy. It turns out
> that there are better ways. Dry erase markers work very well. They can
> be applied to the club face or the ball, but I found it worked better
> on the club. Various types of tape also work pretty well. Duct tape
> worked best for me.

Glad it got you started, away from the photo bit, which would've given
you only one axis, unless in front of the club face!

--
john mcwilliams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photos of Scripta
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/876346bf4c08d3ef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 2:30 pm
From: "Miguel"

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:4a112d39$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Miguel wrote:
>> Hello, recently I did these photos:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043780/
>
> Potentially interesting, but the motion blurring does nothing for it.
>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043786/
>
> Not as soft, but still a bit too soft, & the background's obtrusive.
>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043790/
>
> Much better for sharpness, but I still hate the fake marble background.
>
>> Your comments about photography always are interesting.
>
> Well, my comments haven't been very nice, but hopefully you'll find them
> useful anyway.
>
> Put your turtle in a pond or something & try again. ;^)

I will, thanks for your comments.

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's just wrong
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06e32c9cd78fc6f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 3:03 pm
From: "Bowser"

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:fQrQl.18706$D32.9669@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>
>>> Did you take the shot? Woulda thought you'd avoid getting your
>>> reflection in the window/mirror.
>>
>> Yes, and avoided the window frame's strong horizontal passing through the
>> woman's head, the person and car in the reflection, and her eyes aren't
>> in focus. [ :-)].

Man, tough audience!

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 3:05 pm
From: "Bowser"

"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:guubkn$tta$1@qmul...
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:2o-dnbwBWNcJTIzXnZ2dnUVZ_oVi4p2d@giganews.com...
>> Bowser wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>>>> Bowser wrote:
>>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>>>>> pedophiles in the town.
>>>>> Bob Williams
>>>> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
>>>> in this sculpture....
>>>
>>> I made no references to homosexuality in my original post. You were the
>>> one who injected homosexuality. If you see a problem, look in the
>>> mirror.
>> I guess you didn't look at the image. There are two people in the
>> picture, and both of them are male, so if there is a pedophile in the
>> photo, it is homosexual one, is it not?
>
> I saw incest too. ;-)
>
> I find it strange that two kids of quite different apparent ages would
> wear the same
> type/style of clothes unless they were related.
> And that bloke with the sandals and knee length shorts adjusting his
> spectacles
> looks a bit of a shady character, and as for the pervert taking the
> picture well
> what can one say except lock'em all up ;-)

Totally agree. The shooter is a total loser.

BTW, don't forget to shoot a filter shot for the Shoot-In!

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 3:07 pm
From: "Bowser"

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C63823AC.2AA42%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 5/19/09 7:06 AM, in article
> 4a12a1cd$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>> news:NtmdnXQLQM3NRYzXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Bowser wrote:
>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-05-18 06:45:07 -0700, Bowser <over@the.rainbow> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>>>>>>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser"
>>>>>>> <up@gone.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this
>>>>>>>> statue in front of
>>>>>>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another
>>>>>>> connotation for you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
>>>>>> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a
>>>>>> number of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed
>>>>>> that I offered some meaning in my original post. I did not. I
>>>>>> posted merely to provoke and see what happened. And look what
>>>>>> happened!
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaaah! The very definition of a successful and worthy troll :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, you are not supposed to admit that sort of thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Geez, I wouldn't classify this as a troll. It's not like I said all
>>>> Nikon users are elitist snobs or anything, is it? Just having a
>>>> little fun with the locals, that's all.
>>>
>>> Geez, you really need a vacation.
>>
>> Hell, I took the pic while I was on vacation. Can't afford another one
>> right
>> now, unless you'd care to take up a collection from the newsgroup regs.
>> I'm
>> betting it'd be a total waste of time.
>>
>> Besides, I bet I can find something else absurd on my next vacation on
>> Martha's Vineyard. Not to worry, I'll post that one, if it happens, as
>> well.
>>
> I got one right here...
>
> [IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/jfj1h1.jpg[/IMG]

A few years back when Clinton was visiting Martha's Vineyard, the running
gag was this:

Bad news: The Clintons are coming to the Vineyard.
Good news: Ted's driving.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 3:10 pm
From: "Bowser"

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C6381D93.2AA3D%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 5/18/09 8:45 AM, in article EDdQl.283$X6.35@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com,
> "Bowser" <over@the.rainbow> wrote:
>
>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>> front of
>>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>
>>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for
>>> you?
>>>
>>
>> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
>> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
>> of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
>> some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
>> and see what happened. And look what happened!
> I was playing "P.C." with the North vs. South thing, but DO look what
> happened!
>
> "Ladies and germs, we have a WIN-NAH!"

OK, look, we all know that the northerners hate the southerners, but I bet
you don't know why. Barbeque. You simply can't get good barbeque up north,
and I don't think that's a coincidence at all. It's a GD barbeque
conspiracy, that's what it is! Once you've had the pulled pork at Charlie
and Jakes or Meemaws in Melbourne, FL, anything up north is simply sub-par.
People up here throw some chicken on the grill, slap on some sugar-sauce,
and call it barbeque. It ain't...

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 3:18 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-19 15:10:25 -0700, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> said:

>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C6381D93.2AA3D%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/18/09 8:45 AM, in article EDdQl.283$X6.35@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com,
>> "Bowser" <over@the.rainbow> wrote:
>>
>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>>>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
>>>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>>
>>>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
>>> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
>>> of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
>>> some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
>>> and see what happened. And look what happened!
>> I was playing "P.C." with the North vs. South thing, but DO look what
>> happened!
>>
>> "Ladies and germs, we have a WIN-NAH!"
>
> OK, look, we all know that the northerners hate the southerners, but I
> bet you don't know why. Barbeque. You simply can't get good barbeque up
> north, and I don't think that's a coincidence at all. It's a GD
> barbeque conspiracy, that's what it is! Once you've had the pulled pork
> at Charlie and Jakes or Meemaws in Melbourne, FL, anything up north is
> simply sub-par. People up here throw some chicken on the grill, slap on
> some sugar-sauce, and call it barbeque. It ain't...

Then go West for Santa Maria style Tri-Tip, more barbeque delights!
--
Regards,
Savageduck

==============================================================================

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic