On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:58:27 -0500 "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I love the temple but don't know about the rocks. > Their size as photographed makes them a dominant part of the photo. > I wondered what their actual dimensions were. > I suppose they are much smaller than the temple? > This leades to a bit of visual confusion on my part. > > The age of the temple is amazing - no earthquakes I presume. > We have nothing so old in North America, only cliff dwellings in the > southwest. I think the age is older than most churches in Europe, > funny how religion mobilized both societies to build. > > http://picasaweb.google.com/pdml.live/PESO#5258878789005299186 thanks for looking Bob. regarding the scale of the temple i guess i took the scale of it for granted. most indians would know roughly the size of the tower. :-) my bad. it is about 160 ft high and consists of about nine storeys.... i framed it this way because this place, hampi, while fertile, is a very rocky place. must have seemed heaven for a people who loved working with granite. i guess i tried to get the raw material and the end product in one frame. and as temples go, it is a relatively 'young' one ;-)) regards, subash -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
