I really like these. I didn't recall you getting the M9, but that's only a small example of my forgetfulness. If I had gotten an M9, it would be the right camera for a long time ;-) What lens?
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Joseph McAllister <pentax...@mac.com> wrote: > On Jan 24, 2012, at 18:40 , steve harley wrote: > >> on 2012-01-24 00:36 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote >>> I took the M9 up to Alameda for a photo walk at the USS Hornet on Sunday. >>> It was really the wrong camera for the task, but I wanted to get to know it >>> better and push myself a bit. >>> >>> Quickie output ... thirty five photos in this set: >>> >>> http://gallery.me.com/godders#100435 > > A most enjoyable set. In real life carriers are a lot dirtier, with grime and > streaked dirty grey paint. The interior lighting I see in your photos looks > much more even and bright than I remember. > >> this is very real; the details, for one who has some sense of the convoluted >> systems on these ships, are very suggestive of the whole (i could do without >> the people-shots, the airplanes, and the vignettes) >> >> just read a bit about the scuttling of the German High Seas Fleet, and a few >> months ago read an eye-opening (for a baby-boomer at least) book on the >> battle of Guadalcanal; i think warships, and how their little systems >> worked, are perhaps the perfect expression of the 20th century machine age; >> looking at controls and gauges, etc., one is forced to imagine the physical >> reality of the people who operated them > > Spent 10 months at sea and in various ports in 1965/66 in the south china sea > on a carrier that is even newer than the one your were on, CVA-31, the Bon > Homme Richard, built in New York in 1944. The thing you can't capture with a > camera, or even sense in port is the incredible amount of noise those things > make when at speed (40-45 knots), the steam turbines in the engine room > hissing and whining, the screech of the arresting gear playing out every 45 > seconds, the rumble of that heavy cable being drawn back across the deck for > the next 20 something pilot to thump his plane onto the deck, all diminished > by the undulating movements and rumbling sound of the entire steel envelope > you are in being pushed through water by 4 huge brass propellers. The ship > creates exclusive sounds at differing speeds, from the aforementioned rumble > to a sound like shaking a large china cabinet so it beats against the wall, > but more metallic. > > I've also been on more modern carriers (the Lincoln) but only cruising from > Everett to Seattle, never exceeding 10 knots, if that. And was most surprised > once stopped in Elliot Bay, beginning flight ops! Launching one or two of > each type of aircraft aboard, then recovering them. The Bonnie Dick had to > have at least 35 knots of wind down the deck to do that! We tourists toeing > the yellow safety line on the angled deck catapult, which meant the wingtips > of the F-14s and 18s passed about 4 feet in front of our noses as they were > pulled into the sky pointing right at downtown, a mile or closer to our bow. > Then came 9.11.01, and these publicity cruises stopped happening here. > Probably everywhere. Well worth the $20 fee, 'cause you got lunch and free > roam of the ship. > > Thanks for reading my memories. Images in a year or so when I start getting > my slides scanned. > > Joseph McAllister > pentax...@mac.com > > The Big Bang was silent, and invisible in it's beginning moments. > Photons were one of the earliest particles to develop, > but I don't think any were able to escape for a little bit more. > Once they could, there would have been a flash during expansion. > No one would notice, of course, for another 4.2 billion years. > Now we are trying to catch up by looking out, and back in time > to that infinitesimally small fraction of a millisecond in an attempt > to see what caused that singularity to become the Big Bang. This attempt > will fail in any visual way, as the furthest galaxies and elements > are now moving faster than light by recent theory, making the > information sought beyond a theoretical event horizon. > > — update to the Pentaxian's thoughts on particle physics, so far. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
