----- Original Message ----- From: "John Francis" Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
> > I use _my_ Lear Jet as a dust blower to keep the Van Goghs clean ... One of the local Indian bands near where I live has a Lear sitting in a quonset on the reservation. The thing has never been flown, but apparently, some former chief decided that if the white man's government could have private jets, then the Indian governments should be entitled to them as well. Politics at it's finest........ > > There's also a certain amount spent on stuff that looks like a good > idea when you buy it, but somehow never really ends up being used. > Many years (and a couple of kitchens) ago we bought a microwave oven > that used magnetic cards to store cooking programs. You just picked > the card you wanted, stuck it in the slot, and pushed "start". There > was even a way to program your own cards. > By the time we replaced it, some 15 years later, I don't think we'd > ever used the capability. It was just easier to enter the time. > Remids me of the stupid Minolta camera that had the interchangable ROM chips to allow the photographer to photograph varying situations without having to worry about any camera settings at all, or the Canon for Dummies� that came with a little book of pictures with a bar graph under each one. For a few dollars more, you could even get volumes 2 and 3 of the little picture books. Look up the scene type, scan the bar graph point the reader at the camera and download whatever information was being passed to the camera, thereby allowing the photographer to take the picture with correct (one presumes) exposure. All this so that the "photographer" (and I use the term very loosely here) doesn't have to have the photo technical knowledge that should have been included in the owners manual anyway. William Robb >
