Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / November 2005
A sign of the fall of 35mm
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Scott W - 14 Nov 2005 17:35 GMT I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off of activity on this news group. The activity has dropped way down in the last few years on this group.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/about
This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty rapid rate.
Scott
Matt Clara - 14 Nov 2005 17:41 GMT > I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off > of activity on this news group. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty > rapid rate. Really? You don't think other factors could be at play there as well? Such as a huge jump in web based forums available to photographic discussion, for instance?
 Signature Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com
no_name - 15 Nov 2005 00:09 GMT >>I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off >>of activity on this news group. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > as a huge jump in web based forums available to photographic discussion, for > instance? Or perhaps a general drop-off in usenet.
Frank Pittel - 17 Nov 2005 04:54 GMT : >>I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off : >>of activity on this news group. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : > as a huge jump in web based forums available to photographic discussion, for : > instance?
: Or perhaps a general drop-off in usenet. I haven't noticed any drop-off in usenet postings. I think the run in with the troll a while back chased a lot of people out.
 Signature
------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 14 Nov 2005 17:52 GMT > I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off > of activity on this news group. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Scott This is about the same as a fall for almost any group I subscribe to including political, music, art, etc. If fact in the last few months this group has been the most active of all. The fall may have more to do with trolls, nitwits, and jerks dominating discussions and tons of spam. Also, it matters very little in the real world what a few hundred on any group have opinions on and will do little to effect sales of film or digital cameras.
Scott W - 14 Nov 2005 17:55 GMT <PunishSpamm...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off > > of activity on this news group. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have opinions on and will do little to effect sales of film or digital > cameras. True, this group is far to small to have an effect, but its dropping activity does say something. In checking other groups I don't see the same level of drop off.
Scott
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 14 Nov 2005 17:59 GMT > <PunishSpamm...@NOSPAM.com> wrote: > > > I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Scott I would say that a lot of film camera discussions may have moved to groups on yahoo and similar. I belong to a Pentax Spotmatic group that is growing very fast. These groups seem to be a bit more tame and much less spam and less of the "film is dead" garbage leaving it open more to intelligent debate.
ian lincoln - 15 Nov 2005 22:41 GMT Goerge preddy has gone so has leica addict. There was also a guy who went through the whole group impersonating everybody, being offensive in their name and moving on. I think its just a matter of the crap and the angry responses being reduced. the level of relevant conversation has remained constant.
 Signature I am dislexia of borg your a.s will be laminated http://www.ian-lincoln.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 15 Nov 2005 23:04 GMT > Goerge preddy has gone so has leica addict. There was also a guy who went > through the whole group impersonating everybody, being offensive in their > name and moving on. I think its just a matter of the crap and the angry > responses being reduced. the level of relevant conversation has remained > constant. Like one said. Maybe they are out taking photos.
Frank Pittel - 17 Nov 2005 04:50 GMT PunishSpammers@nospam.com wrote:
: > <PunishSpamm...@NOSPAM.com> wrote: : > > > I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] : spam and less of the "film is dead" garbage leaving it open more to : intelligent debate. What is the name of the spotmatic group and how would one go about joining?
 Signature
------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 17 Nov 2005 06:06 GMT > What is the name of the spotmatic group and how would one go about joining? http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/spotmatic/
Spotmatic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Great bunch, lots of good shooters, a few top pros and some great folks from "down under" in the bunch that offer some interesting insight into their world of photography. Very well balanced between digital talk and film talk as well without all the "film is dead" and "digital sucks" trolls. Also some interesting links to repairs and parts and lens tests. Hope you like it.
Matt Clara - 14 Nov 2005 18:05 GMT > <PunishSpamm...@NOSPAM.com> wrote: > > > I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Scott But you can't know what it's indicative of without running careful tests with controls. You're just assuming, and you know what that's good for.
 Signature Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com
no_name - 15 Nov 2005 00:15 GMT >>I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off >>of activity on this news group. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have opinions on and will do little to effect sales of film or digital > cameras. That's a good possibility. Some groups after you filter out the noise and nonsense, there's no traffic left.
googlegroups2sucks - 15 Nov 2005 02:12 GMT > This is about the same as a fall for almost any group I subscribe to > including political, music, art, etc. If fact in the last few months this > group has been the most active of all. The fall may have more to do with > trolls, nitwits, and jerks dominating discussions and tons of spam. Also, > it matters very little in the real world what a few hundred on any group > have opinions on ain't it the truth. you know, that's exactly what i believed before i began my little odyssey...
Jeroen Wenting - 14 Nov 2005 20:32 GMT >I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off > of activity on this news group. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty > rapid rate. Nope. They've just come to realise that there's more fun in using those cameras than in just talking/bragging about them. I suggest you do the same instead of comparing meaningless statistics to see if you're still using the most popular equipment or it's time to get another penis extender.
Al Denelsbeck - 15 Nov 2005 05:53 GMT > I stumbled upon this and was a bit surprised, you can see the fall off > of activity on this news group. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty > rapid rate. Naaahhh, apparently they're just losing interest in posting about how film is dying.
I'm surprised nobody thought to check the stats on rec.photo.digital...
Brilliant full moon tonight (well, close enough to count), so I'm leaving all these exciting posts about the delights of digital to go out and do some time exposures. I'll let you guess what I'm using...
Have fun!
- Al.
 Signature To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Barry Pearson - 16 Nov 2005 17:55 GMT [snip]
> This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty > rapid rate. I belong to a camera club with members who, on average, have been using film, especially 35mm, for decades. (I've been using 35mm for over 40 years, and still have several 35mm SLRs and lots of suitable lenses).
There is a massive change over to digital cameras. Few people only have 35mm cameras, and they often scan and use a "digital darkroom". Many have both types of cameras. Some now only have digital cameras. 35mm slide projection is gradually reducing, and an increasing number of 35mm slides are actually taken from digital prints, and so were the results of lots of Photoshop work! Digital projection is now so good that it can rival 35mm projection for many (not all) purposes. (AV from 35mm is just too much work compared with AV from digital).
I bought a dSLR body that could use my lenses about a year and a half ago. Since then, I haven't taken a single 35mm frame. I shoot raw all the time. I still use 35mm - but only to scan from the vast numbers of 35mm frames (especially slides) that I have accumulated.
-- Barry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
Scott W - 16 Nov 2005 18:13 GMT > [snip] > > This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the time. I still use 35mm - but only to scan from the vast numbers of > 35mm frames (especially slides) that I have accumulated. It sounds like you are pretty much in the same position I am. I switched to all digital about two years, I have a 20D that uses the lenses that I had from my film days.
I also have been scanning in both slides and negatives, I now have all the slides scanned but still have a lot of negatives yet to be scanned.
Scott
Father Kodak - 16 Nov 2005 19:31 GMT >[snip] >> This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty >> rapid rate. The rapid decline in film sales would bear out this statement.
>I belong to a camera club with members who, on average, have been using >film, especially 35mm, for decades. (I've been using 35mm for over 40 >years, and still have several 35mm SLRs and lots of suitable lenses). Yeah, me too. I don't belong to a club, but I have 35 mm b&w negs that I shot (and home developed) in 1961. I'm glad I was careful about washing and drying back then !
>There is a massive change over to digital cameras. Few people only have >35mm cameras, and they often scan and use a "digital darkroom". Many I'm one of those "few people" I guess. (waiting for that rumored FF Nikon digital body ...)
>have both types of cameras. Some now only have digital cameras. 35mm >slide projection is gradually reducing, and an increasing number of >35mm slides are actually taken from digital prints, and so were the How are the slides made? As photos of the prints, or using a film recorder?
>results of lots of Photoshop work! Digital projection is now so good >that it can rival 35mm projection for many (not all) purposes. (AV from >35mm is just too much work compared with AV from digital). Which digital projectors are you talking about? The ones that clubs have?
>I bought a dSLR body that could use my lenses about a year and a half >ago. Since then, I haven't taken a single 35mm frame. I shoot raw all >the time. I still use 35mm - but only to scan from the vast numbers of >35mm frames (especially slides) that I have accumulated. You don't use a film/slide scanner device?
Father Kodak
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 16 Nov 2005 20:24 GMT > >[snip] > >> This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty > >> rapid rate. > > The rapid decline in film sales would bear out this statement. Maybe in the states but you know how America is, jump in without looking. In Italy and Germany, in just this last month, the shops I visited had large ads for new types of film from Fugi and others and were well stocked. Clerks said sales of Digital was slow. Italian and German labs do very fast work with E-6 and C-41 and are easy to get to by foot or bike.
Disclaimer: Please do not think I am anti Digital, I am not. I like to shoot digital for what it does best and film for what it does best but have yet to purchase a top of the line body for my lenses but I will when I see the advantages that I have not yet seen for what I do which is more artistic than photojournalism.
Father Kodak - 17 Nov 2005 09:24 GMT >> >[snip] >> >> This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > >Maybe in the states but you know how America is, jump in without looking. It is quite possible that film sales are holding up better in some European countries than in the US. However, it is a very bogus argument to say, "You know how America is ..." I could equally well say, "You know how those Europeans are, clinging to outmoded ways until they are forced to change ..."
This kind of reminds me of the joke about the European heaven and the European hell, involving an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German, and a Swiss. And about as useful for addressing this issue.
>In Italy and Germany, in just this last month, the shops I visited had >large ads for new types of film from Fugi and others and were well >stocked. Clerks said sales of Digital was slow. Italian and German labs >do very fast work with E-6 and C-41 and are easy to get to by foot or >bike. But what about K-14???
>Disclaimer: >Please do not think I am anti Digital, I am not. I like to shoot digital >for what it does best and film for what it does best but have yet to >purchase a top of the line body for my lenses but I will when I see the >advantages that I have not yet seen for what I do which is more artistic >than photojournalism. Of course not.. Chacun(e) à son goût.
Pere Kodak
ian lincoln - 17 Nov 2005 10:13 GMT "Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
> This kind of reminds me of the joke about the European heaven and the > European hell, involving an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German, and a > Swiss. And about as useful for addressing this issue. I'd like to hear that one
>>In Italy and Germany, in just this last month, the shops I visited had >>large ads for new types of film from Fugi and others and were well [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But what about K-14??? That's a submarine isn't it? ;)
Father Kodak - 17 Nov 2005 21:33 GMT >"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message >> This kind of reminds me of the joke about the European heaven and the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >That's a submarine isn't it? ;) No, it's Kodachrome processing. :( which is now down to all of one location in the ENTIRE US of A and two others in the rest of the world: Switzerland and Japan.
To me there are Kodachromes and "all those other slide films that will fade pretty soon." I have Kchromes from over 30 years ago that still look perfect. Can't say that for my old Echromes, even though they have been stored under optimal conditions.
If Kodachrome were not on its way out, I would be much less interested in digital photography. Since that is not an option, and since digital images can match Kodachrome quality. then the remaining issue is projection.
The Nikon D2x yields 4,288 x 2,848-pixel images. Are there any projectors that can handle even half that resolution?
Vater Kodak
Scott W - 17 Nov 2005 21:51 GMT > >"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message > >> This kind of reminds me of the joke about the European heaven and the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > look perfect. Can't say that for my old Echromes, even though they > have been stored under optimal conditions. I hear you regarding Kodachrome, I just was doing more slide scanning this morning, much of which is Kodachrome but sadly not all. I now regret that I shot anything but. Some of my best photos of hot air balloons are from over 20 years ago, shot on Kodachrome. Of course I have not shot any balloons with the 20D yet :)
When I was still shooting film a couple of years ago I would try to scan pretty much right away, figuring the film would not last very long. The problem was that we were shooting so much film we got way behind and are still not caught up on our scanning.
Scott
William Graham - 17 Nov 2005 22:21 GMT >>"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message >>> This kind of reminds me of the joke about the European heaven and the >>> European hell, involving an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German, and a >>> Swiss. And about as useful for addressing this issue. >> >>I'd like to hear that one In heaven, all the cooks are French, all the policemen are English, all the mechanics are German, all the lovers are Italian, and it's all run by the Swiss. In hell, all the policemen are German, all the mechanics are French, all the cooks are English, all the lovers are Swiss, and it's all run by the Italians.......
Father Kodak - 17 Nov 2005 23:43 GMT >>>"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message >>>> This kind of reminds me of the joke about the European heaven and the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the cooks are English, all the lovers are Swiss, and it's all run by the >Italians....... Yes, and there are minor variants of course. However, as a group, none of these jokes have anything useful to sell us about the choice of film vs. digital.
Actually, I really liked Italy, both for the food and the general "public institutions." When I've been there, the trains were always on time. Well,mostly.
In my experience, the Swiss and the French trains are always punctual.
Pere Kodak.
William Graham - 17 Nov 2005 23:54 GMT >>>>"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message >>>>> This kind of reminds me of the joke about the European heaven and the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > In my experience, the Swiss and the French trains are always > punctual. Yes. - And there are lots of excellent French mechanics, but I still thought the joke was funny, which is why I remembered it........I never let political correctness get in the way of a funny joke........:^)
DD - 18 Nov 2005 09:43 GMT > Yes. - And there are lots of excellent French mechanics, but I still thought > the joke was funny, which is why I remembered it........I never let > political correctness get in the way of a funny joke........:^) The French have been dominating Formula 1 since the late 80's (Renault), the only exception being the odd incursions from Mercedes and Ferrari (the latter of course having been run by a Frenchman since Herr Schumacher became the darling of the tifosi).
They make very good cars, the French.
 Signature DD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer
Skip M - 18 Nov 2005 13:19 GMT >> Yes. - And there are lots of excellent French mechanics, but I still >> thought [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They make very good cars, the French. Don't forget Honda (Williams). And the "odd incursion" is an odd way to describe 5 consecutive World Constructor's Championships for Ferrari. Renault won their first WC this year, since the mid 80's...
 Signature Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
ian lincoln - 18 Nov 2005 16:24 GMT I am dislexia of borg your a.s will be laminated http://www.ian-lincoln.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ "Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message .
> In my experience, the Swiss and the French trains are always > punctual. Providing there aren't buring sheep on the track.
Chris Loffredo - 18 Nov 2005 18:15 GMT > I am dislexia of borg your a.s will be laminated > http://www.ian-lincoln.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Providing there aren't buring sheep on the track. Isn't that called a barbecue?
no_name - 18 Nov 2005 02:39 GMT >>"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > location in the ENTIRE US of A and two others in the rest of the > world: Switzerland and Japan. And none of them will process Kodachrome in 110 format (of which I still have half a dozen cartridges)
Father Kodak - 18 Nov 2005 03:11 GMT >> No, it's Kodachrome processing. :( which is now down to all of one >> location in the ENTIRE US of A and two others in the rest of the >> world: Switzerland and Japan. > >And none of them will process Kodachrome in 110 format (of which I still >have half a dozen cartridges Exposed ??? how long ago?
no_name - 20 Nov 2005 04:09 GMT >>>No, it's Kodachrome processing. :( which is now down to all of one >>>location in the ENTIRE US of A and two others in the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Exposed ??? how long ago? Un-exposed. Expired, but kept refrigerated lo these many years.
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 17 Nov 2005 17:49 GMT > >> >[snip] > >> >> This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > say, "You know how those Europeans are, clinging to outmoded ways > until they are forced to change ..." True but you must admit that sitting back and watching is a bit safer.
> This kind of reminds me of the joke about the European heaven and the > European hell, involving an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German, and a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > But what about K-14??? Don't know, sorry.
> >Disclaimer: > >Please do not think I am anti Digital, I am not. I like to shoot digital [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Pere Kodak Father Kodak - 17 Nov 2005 21:34 GMT >> >> >[snip] >> >> >> This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >True but you must admit that sitting back and watching is a bit safer. which means you are the last to appreciate the benefits of the change, whatever it is.
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 17 Nov 2005 22:56 GMT > >> >> >[snip] > >> >> >> This would seem to say people are loosing interest in 35mm at a pretty [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > which means you are the last to appreciate the benefits of the change, > whatever it is. Nonsense? Good debate class wording, I'll give you that.
Father Kodak - 17 Nov 2005 23:39 GMT >> >True but you must admit that sitting back and watching is a bit safer. >> >> which means you are the last to appreciate the benefits of the change, >> whatever it is. > >Nonsense? Good debate class wording, I'll give you that. Debate class? I was an engineering student in university, and I was terrible trying to think or speak "on my feet." I'm still not good at that. and I was in university when the Nikon F ruled supreme.
I wasn't trying to make a debating point. Just stating the obvious.
Pere Kodak
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 18 Nov 2005 00:22 GMT > >> >True but you must admit that sitting back and watching is a bit safer. > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Pere Kodak I don't think you leaned much. Not about life anyway.
Father Kodak - 18 Nov 2005 02:25 GMT >> >> >True but you must admit that sitting back and watching is a bit safer. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >I don't think you leaned much. Not about life anyway. PLONK!!!
Ad hominem attacks by people with no savoir faire have no place in civilized company, or in this (hopefully) civil group.
Kodak
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 18 Nov 2005 02:40 GMT > >> >> >True but you must admit that sitting back and watching is a bit safer. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Kodak How brave art thou.
ian lincoln - 18 Nov 2005 16:26 GMT I am dislexia of borg your a.s will be laminated http://www.ian-lincoln.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ <PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> I don't think you leaned much. Not about life anyway. Which way did he lean then?
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 18 Nov 2005 18:03 GMT > I am dislexia of borg your a.s will be laminated > http://www.ian-lincoln.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which way did he lean then? Not sure. I think perhaps toward the spell checker.
Barry Pearson - 16 Nov 2005 21:13 GMT [snip]
> >There is a massive change over to digital cameras. Few people only have > >35mm cameras, and they often scan and use a "digital darkroom". Many [snip]
> >have both types of cameras. Some now only have digital cameras. 35mm > >slide projection is gradually reducing, and an increasing number of > >35mm slides are actually taken from digital prints, and so were the > > How are the slides made? As photos of the prints, or using a film > recorder? Simply taking 35mm slide photographs of the prints!
> >results of lots of Photoshop work! Digital projection is now so good > >that it can rival 35mm projection for many (not all) purposes. (AV from > >35mm is just too much work compared with AV from digital). > > Which digital projectors are you talking about? The ones that clubs > have? Clubs and keen photographers (amateur & professional). Comparing projectors from one year ago to those available now, it is obvious that the quality is evolving at a massive rate.
> >I bought a dSLR body that could use my lenses about a year and a half > >ago. Since then, I haven't taken a single 35mm frame. I shoot raw all > >the time. I still use 35mm - but only to scan from the vast numbers of > >35mm frames (especially slides) that I have accumulated. > > You don't use a film/slide scanner device? I have a Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400. That is currently the closest I get to film. It isn't that film is bad - it is still great! But I can produce A3-quality prints much more easily from my 6MP dSLR. And, obviously, for the web, there is no issue at all.
-- Barry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
Father Kodak - 17 Nov 2005 09:18 GMT >> How are the slides made? As photos of the prints, or using a film >> recorder? > >Simply taking 35mm slide photographs of the prints! And how good is the qualify of that slide? Wouldn't you get better results with a lab that had the right film recorder equipment?
>> >results of lots of Photoshop work! Digital projection is now so good >> >that it can rival 35mm projection for many (not all) purposes. (AV from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >projectors from one year ago to those available now, it is obvious that >the quality is evolving at a massive rate. Can you be more specific about models and prices etc? Can any projectors do 2000 horizontal lines at 16-bit color depth? (and that cost less than a new car?)
Father Kodak
Scott W - 17 Nov 2005 12:00 GMT > >> How are the slides made? As photos of the prints, or using a film > >> recorder? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > projectors do 2000 horizontal lines at 16-bit color depth? (and that > cost less than a new car?) You would be amazed at how little it takes to make people very happy. I was using my laptop the other day to show people some photos I had taken, they were amazed at the quality of the photos. I kept trying to tell them that they could not tell this by looking at the crappy display the laptop had, it did not matter.
What I am finding more and more is that as long as the image looks crisp and is big people are happy. I have shown photos on the TV, which is at its best close to VGA and then shown them a very sharp 8 x 10 print, a lot like the TV image better, it is enough to drive a man to drink.
BTW 16 bits color depth is a bit much don't you think?
The cheap projectors are running 1024 x 768 now a days, just a few years ago this would have been the top end.
I don't see myself being happy with anything less then 1280 x 1024, but photos projected on a 1024 x 768 projector look surprisingly good.
The other big advance projectors have made in the last few years is brightness, 10 years ago a $5000 projector might have 300 lumens if it was lucky, not 1500 lumens is nothing and 3000 is not hard to get.
Scott
Chris Loffredo - 17 Nov 2005 18:09 GMT > You would be amazed at how little it takes to make people very happy. > I was using my laptop the other day to show people some photos I had [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 10 print, a lot like the TV image better, it is enough to drive a man > to drink. Thank you for posting one of the best explanations of the success of digital "photography" which I've yet seen.
It seems like you're one of the tasteful guys after all...
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 17 Nov 2005 18:37 GMT > > You would be amazed at how little it takes to make people very happy. > > I was using my laptop the other day to show people some photos I had [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Thank you for posting one of the best explanations of the success of > digital "photography" which I've yet seen. Digital is great for many reasons and this is one for sure and people do love seeing things on TV but there is still a difference from film that many not only can see but can get a different feel from as well. I have both digital shots and slide scans in my laptop that I show and people can tell a difference mostly in perspective and depth of field but full frame digital may help with this.
I have also noticed that people prefer my old Philips 107S monitor to a newer flat screen and when I do a slide show with a slide projector they really enjoy it.
I for one love digital photos for sports and basic news photos but something is lost in what at one time use to be a more artistic approach to portraits of famous people and travel photos for example used by news services. There seems to be no use of depth of field everything is in focus and everything appears shot with a wide angle. It is like the pros for the paper just don't care anymore and just snap off a hundred digital shots and let some intern pick one out. One paper I have worked with in Austin now just gives digital cameras to their writers and have them shoot a concert for example. It looks like it too.
Scott W - 17 Nov 2005 18:53 GMT <PunishSpamm...@NOSPAM.com> wrote: >
> Digital is great for many reasons and this is one for sure and people do > love seeing things on TV but there is still a difference from film that > many not only can see but can get a different feel from as well. I have > both digital shots and slide scans in my laptop that I show and people > can tell a difference mostly in perspective and depth of field but full > frame digital may help with this. I don't think this is the camera as much as it is the lenses that are used. Most zoom lenses in use now are pretty slow. If I shoot with the 20D and the 1.8 50mm I get a very small DOF.
I can even control the DOF with my Sony F828, which is not noted for a shallow DOF. I took this photo of my wife, who is using the 20D. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/38703029/original I think it does a pretty good job of blurring the background to the point of not being distracting. BTW the lens is not even wide open in that shot, I wanted some feel for the trees behind.
I think you may well be putting a bit too much blame on the camera and not enough of the photographer.
Scott
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 17 Nov 2005 19:00 GMT > <PunishSpamm...@NOSPAM.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I think you may well be putting a bit too much blame on the camera and > not enough of the photographer. True, I have seen some really good work especially with the 20D but I think more and more that people are just letting the camera do the work. My wife when she went from fully manual bodies with manual Zeiss lenses to EOS lost a lot and got lazy using pre programmed settings. Don't tell her but some of her work has sufferd.
Scott W - 17 Nov 2005 19:24 GMT > True, I have seen some really good work especially with the 20D but I
> think more and more that people are just letting the camera do the work. > My wife when she went from fully manual bodies with manual Zeiss lenses > to EOS lost a lot and got lazy using pre programmed settings. Don't tell > her but some of her work has sufferd. The auto modes really are a big problem. I wonder how many people even push the preview button on the 20D to see what the shot will look like when the lens stops down for the shot or even know the button is there.
I get harassed by friends and family because I am always adjusting the setting of the camera, they don't understand why I can't just push the shutter button.
Scott
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 17 Nov 2005 19:33 GMT > > True, I have seen some really good work especially with the 20D but > I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Scott I can hear my mom now yelling at my dad to hurry up and take the damn picture. LOL!
Father Kodak - 17 Nov 2005 21:36 GMT > > True, I have seen some really good work especially with the 20D but >I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >setting of the camera, they don't understand why I can't just push >the shutter button. ... and they tell you that they really like your photos, and that they are better than most others.
Pay now or pay later.
Kodak
>Scott DD - 18 Nov 2005 08:49 GMT > > I think you may well be putting a bit too much blame on the camera and > > not enough of the photographer. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to EOS lost a lot and got lazy using pre programmed settings. Don't tell > her but some of her work has sufferd. These are very astute observations. I have been thinking the same things lately.
As some of you may know I bought a Leica M6 last week and I have been sent an Epson R-D1 to test too. I find that if I am holding a digital camera in my hands I am very quick to press the button, chimp at the screen and then screw around with the image in PS.
Conversely, when I load film in my Leica I am very careful about making sure I have set the camera correctly, taken a good look at my framing and only then do I press the shutter release. I find that the work I do on film is almost always better than digital. I suppose this would be true for any film camera, not just Leica.
My only hope is that more photographers are turned off by digital and return to using 35mm, thus sustaining market demand for the medium. If we stop using it altogether we will surely lose it.
 Signature DD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 18 Nov 2005 18:09 GMT > > > I think you may well be putting a bit too much blame on the camera and > > > not enough of the photographer. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > return to using 35mm, thus sustaining market demand for the medium. If > we stop using it altogether we will surely lose it. I personally know three avid armatures who have gone back to film for many things, mostly B&W and Nature stuff, some for just snap shots. I have read of a couple of pros I admire who have done the same. One with an old Spotmatic and one with a Leica M4. I think after things settle down a bit anyone who cares about what they do will shoot booth. Hell, to carry an extra body is just loosing one lens as far a weight. I can think of a few lenses I really don't use that often but have in my bag.
Father Kodak - 20 Nov 2005 02:19 GMT >I personally know three avid armatures who have gone back to film for >many things, mostly B&W and Nature stuff, some for just snap shots. I >have read of a couple of pros I admire who have done the same. One with A strong argument for full-frame digital,. the way.
Pere Kodak
Father Kodak - 20 Nov 2005 02:19 GMT >My only hope is that more photographers are turned off by digital and An unrealistic hope, judging by the faster-than-expected drop in film sales. The only hope is that some people will continue to shoot both. Of course, at some point, prices will have to rise, perhaps a lot. How much are you willing to pay for a roll of Tri-X?
>return to using 35mm, thus sustaining market demand for the medium. If >we stop using it altogether we will surely lose it. Simple economics.
Kodak
DD - 21 Nov 2005 05:24 GMT > >My only hope is that more photographers are turned off by digital and > > An unrealistic hope, judging by the faster-than-expected drop in film > sales. The only hope is that some people will continue to shoot both. > Of course, at some point, prices will have to rise, perhaps a lot. > How much are you willing to pay for a roll of Tri-X? We can't get Tri-X here at all. If I wanted to get it I would have to import it myself and process it myself too.
> >return to using 35mm, thus sustaining market demand for the medium. If > >we stop using it altogether we will surely lose it. > > Simple economics. So...shoot a roll of film today!!!
 Signature DD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 17 Nov 2005 19:09 GMT > <PunishSpamm...@NOSPAM.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Scott Have you ever done a test with a Canon film body like A2 next to the 20D for the same shot? I bet there is quite a bit of differnce in the DOF and just overall perspective of the shot. If that is the right term. I can see a lot when I do the same. I rented a 10D and did a similar test with my old Elan. There were things I liked about both but it was just not enough to get be to purchase the 10D at the time.
Scott W - 17 Nov 2005 19:18 GMT > Have you ever done a test with a Canon film body like A2 next to the 20D > for the same shot? I bet there is quite a bit of differnce in the DOF and > just overall perspective of the shot. If that is the right term. I can > see a lot when I do the same. I rented a 10D and did a similar test with > my old Elan. There were things I liked about both but it was just not > enough to get be to purchase the 10D at the time. If you scale the focal lengths of the lenses by the crop factor of the sensor then the perspective should be the same. The DOF will not look the same but you can get close by using a lower f number on the digital.
Scott
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 17 Nov 2005 19:35 GMT > > Have you ever done a test with a Canon film body like A2 next to the 20D > > for the same shot? I bet there is quite a bit of differnce in the DOF and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you scale the focal lengths of the lenses by the crop factor of the > sensor then the perspective should be the same. This must be what a lot of people are not bothering to do. Do you think FF will be give users an advantage?
Scott W - 17 Nov 2005 19:58 GMT > > > Have you ever done a test with a Canon film body like A2 next to the 20D > > > for the same shot? I bet there is quite a bit of differnce in the DOF and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This must be what a lot of people are not bothering to do. Do you think > FF will be give users an advantage? Not that much, you can still take a bad photo with a FF camera.
There was a time that I said I would not buy a DSLR until it was FF, then came the 1Ds and I changed it to I would not buy a DSLR until there was an affordable FF DLSR. The issue was wide-angle lenses and the really high cost at the time to get something to work with a camera like the 10D. The 20D can use the S lenses and this is a large help. The problem with the S lenses is they get soft at the corners, but this is true of FF camera lenses as well, at least when used on a FF camera. When you look at the MTF curves for a lens you really don't want any detail in the extreme corners.
If I had my choice I would use a FF camera, but even the 5D is a high in price for my taste. Maybe in a couple of years there will be something on the market.
Oh and I want a better focusing screen, the one on the 20D is pretty hard to use.
Scott
googlegroups2sucks - 18 Nov 2005 07:43 GMT > I for one love digital photos for sports and basic news photos but > something is lost in what at one time use to be a more artistic approach [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Austin now just gives digital cameras to their writers and have them > shoot a concert for example. It looks like it too. i'm convinced that if we passed a law which required the media to hire photographers who can write, as opposed to writers who can photograph, we'd have a 50% increase in newscoverage quality.
googlegroups2sucks - 19 Nov 2005 23:59 GMT point is, it matters as much or more what you say, than how you say it. james moore knows how to do both. i love these words of his...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/when-i-was-a-boy_b_10885.html
James Moore 11.18.2005 When I Was a Boy
As congress busied itself last night with cutting programs to the poor to pay for more war and Bush tax benefits for the wealthy, I found myself thinking yet again about the America where I grew up. In spite of our differences in years, our current president and I were coming of age in a nation thriving with prosperity and optimism.
Mr. Bush's father went out to West Texas with a $500,000 grubstake in his pocket from his father the US senator and built and oil company. My dad, home from the same war, had failed miserably trying to grow cotton on someone else's farm in the Mississippi River bottomland in Arkansas. He gave up and went north to the car factories of Michigan. My mother, who was an immigrant, thought that marrying the handsome American in the uniform meant she was bound for Dixie and a life of sipping mint tea on a veranda. Most of what she knew about America had come from the movie "Gone With the Wind." Instead, she found herself crowded into a shack with her in-laws and she spent nights staring at the southern moon passing between the wall and ceiling slats.
A big man, daddy quickly got a job on an assembly line in Flint, Michigan lifting bumpers out of a metal press and stacking them on wooden pallets. Although she already had three children, Ma went to work as a waitress at one of the short order restaurants surrounding the automobile manufacturing complexes. Their tenth and eighth grade educations did not provide them with much more potential. They worked until they could not stand. Eventually, the needs of their six children for food, health care, clothes, and an education far outstripped their ability to provide. Things got worse when daddy endured several years of hospitalization. Ma, though, never gave up in those years and continued carrying hamburgers and open-faced sandwiches to the tables of laborers who left her nickel tips to supplement her $60 a week paycheck.
Fortunately, I was living in an America that realized there might be as much potential in my future as there existed in the son of the oilman out in the desert of West Texas. My country, my government, filled in the spaces that were left empty when my parents' efforts fell short. While George W. was honing his irresponsibility in West Texas in advance of leaving for prep school in the east, my brother and sisters and I were turning to the government to get us food, education, and health care. It's not what my parents wanted; nor did we. We were ashamed. But had no choice. Eventually, though, I got to attend a university because my country offered Basic Educational Opportunity Grants and National Defense Student Loans to those who qualified. And not a minute of any day passes where I am not thankful for where I was born and the fellow citizens of my country who gave me such an opportunity. The fact that I ended up being the author of books and journalism critical of a president trying to take away similar programs from a new generation also seems to me somehow distinctly American.
Last night, 220,000 people were cut from the Food Stamp program. And Democrats considered that an accomplishment. States will now be asked to seek co-payments from Medicaid beneficiaries to supplement a shortfall of federal funding, and congress wants to cut funding for state programs aimed at child support enforcement. No one even seemed particularly disturbed when they debated taking 40,000 children off of the student lunch program at the same time their parents were being dropped from Food Stamp rolls.
The context for all of this goes unnoticed. While we hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton for billions of dollars we are trimming the budget in the Spaghetti-Os of impoverished children. Food Stamp recipients are being forced to pay for the president's latest $50 billion in tax cuts. Medicaid patients have no choice over a co-pay that will help our president and our congress pay for the current war without end. One estimate I read indicated that the first round of funding for the Iraqi invasion, which was $84 billion dollars, was enough to pay for full health care for every man, woman, and child in America for one year; no deductions, no co-pays. We are not just wasting lives in those ancient deserts.
Capitalism is not a perfect system. Effort does not always produce results. Some of us fail, regardless of how hard we try. The question for our country is whether we ignore the people who have fallen into the ditch or do we stop and give them a hand. And do we turn our backs on their children even though they had nothing to do with the circumstances in which they find themselves? And what do we lose if we walk away from them? There is no way to measure unlived lives or unrealized potential.
I want my America back.
William Graham - 20 Nov 2005 02:49 GMT > point is, it matters as much or more what you say, than how you say it. > james moore knows how to do both. i love these words of his... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of our differences in years, our current president and I were coming of > age in a nation thriving with prosperity and optimism. So what?
> Mr. Bush's father went out to West Texas with a $500,000 grubstake in > his pocket from his father the US senator and built and oil company. And that company employed, and still employes, thousands of people.
My
> dad, home from the same war, had failed miserably trying to grow cotton > on someone else's farm in the Mississippi River bottomland in Arkansas. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shack with her in-laws and she spent nights staring at the southern > moon passing between the wall and ceiling slats. And whose fault was that?
> A big man, daddy quickly got a job on an assembly line in Flint, > Michigan lifting bumpers out of a metal press and stacking them on > wooden pallets. Although she already had three children, And whose fault was that?
Ma went to
> work as a waitress at one of the short order restaurants surrounding > the automobile manufacturing complexes. Their tenth and eighth grade > educations did not provide them with much more potential. And whose fault was that?
They worked
> until they could not stand. Eventually, the needs of their six children > for food, health care, clothes, and an education far outstripped their > ability to provide. And whose fault was that?
Things got worse when daddy endured several years
> of hospitalization. Ma, though, never gave up in those years and > continued carrying hamburgers and open-faced sandwiches to the tables [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and I were turning to the government to get us food, education, and > health care. It's not what my parents wanted; nor did we. Then why did they have 6 children when they couldn't privide for them? - My parents had one child, and my father was an oil company executive.
We were
> ashamed. But had no choice. Eventually, though, I got to attend a > university because my country offered Basic Educational Opportunity > Grants and National Defense Student Loans to those who qualified. You were still on the public dole.......
And
> not a minute of any day passes where I am not thankful for where I was > born and the fellow citizens of my country who gave me such an > opportunity. Don't forget to thank those who risked their fortunes to go into business and build up corporations to give you work........
The fact that I ended up being the author of books and
> journalism critical of a president trying to take away similar programs > from a new generation also seems to me somehow distinctly American. You mean a president who is trying to get people off the public dole, and learn to provide for themselves?
> Last night, 220,000 people were cut from the Food Stamp program. And > Democrats considered that an accomplishment. States will now be asked [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the student lunch program at the same time their parents were being > dropped from Food Stamp rolls. Strange.....I always had lunch money, and there wasn't even a school cafeteria when I was in school back in the 40's.......
> The context for all of this goes unnoticed. While we hand out no-bid > contracts to Halliburton for billions of dollars Halliburton, unfortunately, was the only qualified contractor to handle the Iraqi oil drilling and repair problem........Not putting out a bidding call was the only reasonable thing to do when it was obvious that Halliburton would be the only qualified bidder.....Also, Halliburton has already stated that they will leave when the contract is finished, because they haven't made enough money to continue working in Iraq......
we are trimming the
> budget in the Spaghetti-Os of impoverished children. Food Stamp > recipients are being forced to pay for the president's latest $50 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > America for one year; no deductions, no co-pays. We are not just > wasting lives in those ancient deserts. Lose the war on terrorism, and see how much welfare you can collect then, you idiot.......
> Capitalism is not a perfect system. Effort does not always produce > results. Some of us fail, regardless of how hard we try. But the successful ones keep trying and investing until they finally make it.....And then there are those who just wait in the welfare lines........
The question
> for our country is whether we ignore the people who have fallen into > the ditch or do we stop and give them a hand. And for how many generations of too many children must "we" (the rich) keep giving them a hand? How long will it take before "they" (the poor) finally learn to have fewer children, and save their way to a comfortable retirement without taking welfare?
And do we turn our backs
> on their children even though they had nothing to do with the > circumstances in which they find themselves? Ah yes.....The children....That always has been the excuse. It isn't their fault, so why shouldn't we steal money from the rich to pay for them? Why shouldn't we require that welfare recipients be sterilized, is my question?
And what do we lose if we
> walk away from them? There is no way to measure unlived lives or > unrealized potential. Yes....Somewhere in the trillions of wasted sperm there was another Albert Einstein, or Wolfgang Mozart.....So what?
> I want my America back. Don't worry......You are stealing it back from me.........
Ken Nadvornick - 20 Nov 2005 05:36 GMT > Why shouldn't we require that welfare recipients be sterilized, > is my question? Wow...
That_Rich - 20 Nov 2005 05:50 GMT >> Why shouldn't we require that welfare recipients be sterilized, >> is my question? > >Wow... That was my reaction. I've met some dip sh.ts in my time but William is definitely in the team photo for jack-a.s of the year.
RP©
William Graham - 20 Nov 2005 07:51 GMT >>> Why shouldn't we require that welfare recipients be sterilized, >>> is my question? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > RP© Hey.....It's my money. Why shouldn't I attach strings before I give it to some, "dip sh.t" (to use your own expression) who turns out children every year and uses that as an excuse to steal it from me? Tell you what. If you want to finance all these welfare puppies, well, that's your right. Good luck. But just leave me out of it. You've got the right to spend your money any way you please, but you shouldn't have the right to spend my money any way you please. - Is there anything wrong with that?
Bob Hickey - 20 Nov 2005 20:20 GMT > Tell you what. If you want to finance all these welfare puppies, well, > that's your right. Good luck. But just leave me out of it. You've got the > right to spend your money any way you please, but you shouldn't have the > right to spend my money any way you please. - Is there anything wrong with > that? Good idea. I also have the right to vote for a president who turns everybodys money to sh.t. But I won't. I wonder what pulling that lever in the voting booth cost this country? And then things got tough. Before the wars. Very astute purchase. Bob Hickey
William Graham - 20 Nov 2005 21:30 GMT >> Tell you what. If you want to finance all these welfare puppies, >> well, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > what pulling that lever in the voting booth cost this country? And then > things got tough. Before the wars. Very astute purchase. Bob Hickey You're right. When it comes to voting, the majority rules. but there are some things that are just plain unconstitutional. The majority can't just take money away from the minority simply because they are more numerous, and can outvote them. Forcing me to give to the charity of the majority's choice is, IMO, unconstitutional. I want my government to stay out of the charity business. I believe that my charities are more important than theirs. I have spent my whole life knowing, and talking to, people who were on the public dole for no reason. That is to say, they were perfectly capable of working and supporting themselves, but took my tax dollars just because they were too lazy to work, and they liked sitting around the house watching television all day long. They were able to get away with this because they were astute enough to know how to fill out the right forms and knew exactly how to lie on them in order to get what they wanted. The people who really needed the welfare couldn't fill out those forms correctly. IOW, the exact skills that it took to get the free hand outs from the government were those skills that could be used in industry by employers. Those who were really unemployable were also the ones who couldn't fill out the forms correctly, and were denied welfare. Also, the way the welfare system was set up left no incentive to work. As soon as you worked and earned a dollar, they would take at least that much away from your welfare check. I have had several welfare collectors show me how impractical it would be for them to take jobs. They would lose much more than they gained by doing so. You know, if the government used its common sense to distribute the welfare, I might not be so much against it. but they distribute it so badly, and to the wrong people, that I know that I am much better at giving it away myself. I would go for a plan that forced everyone to give away so much money every year to the charity of their choice, rather than have the government do it, but then, I would go for almost any plan that let me spend my own money the way I saw fit, rather than let the government do it........
That_Rich - 21 Nov 2005 00:00 GMT <insane, misguided, over the top conservative rant snipped>
You don't kill all the dogs because one of them has fleas.
RP©
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 21 Nov 2005 02:11 GMT > <insane, misguided, over the top conservative rant snipped> > > You don't kill all the dogs because one of them has fleas. > > RP© You guys are wasting you time with Mr. Graham. He is so entrenched in his convoluted thinking, and god knows where these people get their training, that it is of little use to try and show them how things really work. The only hope I see for the future is if by chance most of these boneheads are old enough that at some point they are gone and we still have enough years left to fix what they let go. Personally I have very little hope for the states. It is a runaway train.
Now can we get back to cameras?
Father Kodak - 21 Nov 2005 03:43 GMT >> <insane, misguided, over the top conservative rant snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You guys are wasting you time with Mr. Graham. He is so entrenched in his >convoluted thinking, and god knows where these people get their training, Not convoluted. SImple. Too simple, not able to see the texture and complexity of issues. And because He Has Got His, then the hell with everyone else. That seems to be the conservative creed. That plus a mandatory surgical procedure to remove both the brain and the heart and replace them with straw and sawdust.
>that it is of little use to try and show them how things really work. The >only hope I see for the future is if by chance most of these boneheads >are old enough that at some point they are gone and we still have enough >years left to fix what they let go. Personally I have very little hope >for the states. It is a runaway train. Yeah,, as an American citizen (born and raised ...) I would like to forget that people like this Graham guy exist. Problem is that our Constitution gives everyone the right to vote, even people who are poorly educated, can't see beyond their own noses, and blindly follow the Republicans like sheep.
So of course, we have the government we deserve. It's almost enough to make me believe that the End of Days is near. Fortunately our Constitution has a two-term limit, so Bush can't run again.
>Now can we get back to cameras? Agreed. But let us note that people like this Graham guy support the most chilling, anti-civil liberties aspects of the Patriot Act, which limit our ability to take photos.
Kodak
DD - 21 Nov 2005 05:34 GMT > Yeah,, as an American citizen (born and raised ...) I would like to > forget that people like this Graham guy exist. Problem is that our [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to make me believe that the End of Days is near. Fortunately our > Constitution has a two-term limit, so Bush can't run again. Doesn't he have a brother who is a Senator (or Governor)? I wouldn't count them out at the end of 2008 just yet.
 Signature DD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer
William Graham - 21 Nov 2005 07:27 GMT >> Yeah,, as an American citizen (born and raised ...) I would like to >> forget that people like this Graham guy exist. Problem is that our [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Doesn't he have a brother who is a Senator (or Governor)? I wouldn't > count them out at the end of 2008 just yet. That's right. Jeb Bush, governor of Florida. And, I am hoping he will run for president in 2008. He'll likely get my vote if he does. But we have so many good people to trounce Hillary, that it really doesn't matter.........
DD - 21 Nov 2005 08:00 GMT > >> Yeah,, as an American citizen (born and raised ...) I would like to > >> forget that people like this Graham guy exist. Problem is that our [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > for president in 2008. He'll likely get my vote if he does. But we have so > many good people to trounce Hillary, that it really doesn't matter......... Has she been nominated by the dems already? I thought that Kerry was going to run again?
 Signature DD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer
William Graham - 21 Nov 2005 08:07 GMT >> >> Yeah,, as an American citizen (born and raised ...) I would like to >> >> forget that people like this Graham guy exist. Problem is that our [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Has she been nominated by the dems already? I thought that Kerry was > going to run again? No.....For some reason, politicians in this country never announce their intent to run until just a few months before the election. I don't expect we will know who is running on either ticket until Spring of 2008.
DD - 21 Nov 2005 08:24 GMT > > Has she been nominated by the dems already? I thought that Kerry was > > going to run again? > > > No.....For some reason, politicians in this country never announce their > intent to run until just a few months before the election. I don't expect we > will know who is running on either ticket until Spring of 2008. Hey! I just had my first American customer come through my doors. Not too many of you guys in this neck of the woods...
 Signature DD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer
William Graham - 21 Nov 2005 21:10 GMT >> > Has she been nominated by the dems already? I thought that Kerry was >> > going to run again? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hey! I just had my first American customer come through my doors. Not > too many of you guys in this neck of the woods... I don't know why.....I'd love to see the Kalahari desert, and go on a wildlife safari. SA is one of the most interesting places on earth in my book......
DD - 22 Nov 2005 05:22 GMT > > Hey! I just had my first American customer come through my doors. Not > > too many of you guys in this neck of the woods... > > > I don't know why.....I'd love to see the Kalahari desert, and go on a > wildlife safari. SA is one of the most interesting places on earth in my > book...... Well then, git yore butt on a plane and come over here. I haven't seen the Kalahari myself, unless you count the Karoo as part of it. I did my military "training" in a place called Kimberley. Flat, boring, dusty, windy, freezing cold in winter and unbearably hot in summer. I swore I would never go back there (and I haven't).
My family and I are taking a weekend break in early December and we have booked into this place www.gwahumbe.co.za, which is a private game reserve just an hours drive from where we live. It'll be the first time on a game reserve for me in about 25 years. Can't wait!
 Signature DD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer
William Graham - 22 Nov 2005 06:03 GMT >> > Hey! I just had my first American customer come through my doors. Not >> > too many of you guys in this neck of the woods... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > on a game reserve for me in about 25 years. Can't wait! > -- Bring your best long lens.....I lived across the park from the New Orleans zoo when I was about 5 years old....I still remember listening to the lions "grunt" into the ground at night, trying to attract game toward their location. I wonder what it would be like to hear that when there was no barrier between them and me.........
DD - 22 Nov 2005 08:17 GMT > Bring your best long lens.....I lived across the park from the New Orleans > zoo when I was about 5 years old....I still remember listening to the lions > "grunt" into the ground at night, trying to attract game toward their > location. I wonder what it would be like to hear that when there was no > barrier between them and me......... No Lions where I'm headed, but I do remember the sound they make. Enough to frighten the dead.
I'll be taking the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR amongst others.
 Signature DD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer
Father Kodak - 21 Nov 2005 18:33 GMT >>> Yeah,, as an American citizen (born and raised ...) I would like to >>> forget that people like this Graham guy exist. Problem is that our [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >for president in 2008. He'll likely get my vote if he does. But we have so >many good people to trounce Hillary, that it really doesn't matter......... The problem that a lot of conservatives -- appear -- to have with Hillary is that she "doesn't know her place," which should be in the kitchen and not in politics, which as we all know, is a man's world. And that is because women, with their "hormones" can be irrational and make poor decisions.
That plus the fact that she would upset the established order that benefits conservatives most. If you strip off the intellectual veneer of conservatism, most of it comes down to selfishness and heartlessness. In the economic area, the point of conservative doctrine is to provide some intellectual respectability for greed and worse. Very "unChristian," I might note.
Kodak
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 21 Nov 2005 18:57 GMT > >>> Yeah,, as an American citizen (born and raised ...) I would like to > >>> forget that people like this Graham guy exist. Problem is that our [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > And that is because women, with their "hormones" can be irrational and > make poor decisions. Yeah, you never know when a woman might start a war with nothing to base it on and then have to spin her way around it, or deny DNA results that prove a person innocent prior to executing a convict who was found guilty on circumstantial evidencee and denied a second trial, (Bush did this twice by the way) or napalm an innocent village, or give a tax break that only benifits 16,000 people and spin it so everyone thinks they are getting a tax break, or.........those women can't be trusted. :)
> That plus the fact that she would upset the established order that > benefits conservatives most. If you strip off the intellectual > veneer of conservatism, most of it comes down to selfishness and > heartlessness. In the economic area, the point of conservative > doctrine is to provide some intellectual respectability for greed and > worse. Very "unChristian," I might note. |
|