Re: Me and my 250-600 (now nothing to do with filing cabinets)

[Ryan Lee]

Sigh.. that brings back bad memories for me.. The day I had to contemplate
switching to c***n.. I've never been able to face a giraffe since..
http://home.iprimus.com.au/heygoose/africa.jpg

Cheers,
Ryan


- Original Message - 
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: Me and my 250-600 (now nothing to do with filing cabinets)


> >
> > --- Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "John
> > Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > >
> > http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/sdwap615.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL! That's hilarious. What a cool shot.
> > >
> > > Jostein
> > >
> >
> > Is that Greywolf before his last trip to the barber
> > for a trim?
> >
> > 
> >
> > -frank
>
> Well, I guess either greywolf or I might just have been
> insulted, but I'm darned if I can figure out which :-)
>
> That is, of course, me with the 250-600, on it's shakedown
> test outing at San Diego Wild Animal Park.
>
> Other images from that trip (most taken with the 250-600)
> can be found here:
>
> 
>
>
> There are two shots there not taken with a Pentax camera,
> but with a Nikon point-and-shoot (35mm, not digital).
> One, obviously, is the shot of me holding my camera.
> Would anyone care to guess which the other one is?
>
>

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Tom C]

Hi Stan,
I appreciate your sentiments.  I do appreciate that someone is exploring 
their beliefs (though personally I doubt that, and would suggest exploring 
in other fashions), a... I have to say this to Paul, especially, since I 
don't want him to get the wrong impression (which I suspect he hasn't).

It was thoughtful and appropriate that he post a warning regarding the 
content of his photos.  I was not "offended", as I did not look.  I just 
wish we hadn't broached the subject matter at all.

In reference to distortion of images... I'm not sure to which you're 
referring.

Tom C.


From: Stan Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three 
shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:18:16 -0500

I usually avoid getting into one of these side-bar discussions. But I do 
want to note here that I am very impressed and appreciative that Bob B. and 
Tom C. and others have been able to express their objections without 
screaming, yelling, or accusing anyone of being the devil in disguise. And 
people by and large have responded to their objections without invective, 
distortion, or any of the other verbal spices that so often lead to verbal 
blows on this forum. Antonio, there is a model here you could learn from.

And since I have gotten started... Bob, Tom, one thing you might want to 
reflect on that may make you more comfortable with the image of the last 
supper: a famous painter once misrepresented a scene that is portrayed in 
the Gospels. The image is not the truth. The Word is the truth. And so now 
someone has done a parody of that false image to make a point about their 
own beliefs. Maybe you could celebrate that there is someone who is 
actively exploring and displaying their beliefs rather than rejecting the 
person and their art because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

Stan
On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Bob Blakely wrote:
Thanks! I appreciate hearing your opinion. It differs from mine, but 
you're
entitled to it. Knowing other folks opinions is a Privilege. After all, 
they
don't have to tell you.

Regards,
Bob...
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

On 13/7/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, offered:
"Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't
bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?"
Now, the preceding was a request. It was only a request. It was not a
demand. Again, failure to honor the request will not result in any form
of
discipline. Again, the request may be ignored. In fact you have my
permission to ridicule me for stating it.
Okay Bob:
RIDICULOUS
Here's my request:
I think things work pretty well the way things are, I haven't noticed any
bombardment of sexual images. I think anyone who considers posting images
of a similar nature in the future should not be discouraged.

Completely OT: RE: PAW: Self Portrait...

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Ok, so I have been completely bombarded with off-list emails.  I thank you
all so much for your amazing words of support and love.  I really don't want
to air any more of my private life on list as it is about as far off topic
as it could possibly be, and besides, it is a private matter, and saying
this stuff here is about as public as it could get! I really don't want to
be the centre of the first PDML Gossip Circle!

However, please know that this whole situation has not come as a surprise to
me - in fact, it has been carefully considered and has been "on the cards"
for a good year or two now.

Also, please know that I am doing this primarily for my children, and the
life that it could give to them in the future, and of course, to a lesser
extent, to me as well.

Lastly, I won't be leaving for DC for another year, so I am not up and
making any rash, or unthought-out decisions here.  I have a very thoughtful
person that is helping me to pursue this and all will be done as safely and
securely as possible, with my kids happiness and continuing relationship
with their Dad, being the main focus.

Thanks again to everyone for your wonderful support, things have been very
tough for me lately, and it is lovely to feel as though I have some sort of
"family" here that I can rely on to make me smile (and often laugh myself
silly), just when I need it!  You guys, and also other, off-list friends,
have really helped me to keep my true fairygirl-esque about me!

And Frank, with all that winking, I promise you that you wouldn't be the one
I'd be calling on! ha! ;-)  (there's a wink back for you!)

Now, lets change the subject, shall we?!?

Isn't it lovely weather we've been having.

tan.



Frank the winker with a fetish for weird ear wearing wrote:

We're all in your corner, so if you need any help,
call Cotty, tv, Jostein, anyone but me 

(again, seriously)hang in there,
frank

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: Muvo question

[Rob Studdert]

On 14 Jul 2004 at 14:57, Ryan Lee wrote:

> Rob and Tan, as Peter pointed out, 44c is the part of the serial number of
> the newer, allegedly non-working muvo drives (specifically the last digits
> of the serial number). The older muvos apparently have serial numbers ending in
> 43b etc., and those 44c and higher supposedly don't work.

Mine was purchased from a US vendor and its drive works in the *ist D, you can 
see the serial number of the Muvo here:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp4974.jpg

I checked the actual drive serial number too, there is a 41B on the end of 
that, not that it would do you much good to know before you peel apart the Muvo 
:-(


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Me and my 250-600 (now nothing to do with filing cabinets)

[Rob Studdert]

On 14 Jul 2004 at 0:36, John Francis wrote:

> There are two shots there not taken with a Pentax camera,
> but with a Nikon point-and-shoot (35mm, not digital).
> One, obviously, is the shot of me holding my camera.
> Would anyone care to guess which the other one is?

Isn't it Bill who claims that high contrast test targets don't exist in the 
real world :-)

http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/sdwap125.jpg


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Muvo question

[Ryan Lee]

Rob and Tan, as Peter pointed out, 44c is the part of the serial number of
the newer, allegedly non-working muvo drives (specifically the last digits
of the serial number). The older muvos apparently have serial numbers ending
in 43b etc., and those 44c and higher supposedly don't work.

Strangely, I got Tan and Peter's post, but didn't get Rob's- the list's
acting up again it seems..

Tan, no I didn't get an ist D, but am putting together the costs to see
whether I can afford it. So far it looks like I'll need USD1250 for the
body, USD160 for the battery grip, USD60 for the AC adapter and between
USD200-400 for 4gb storage, and some on top of that for postage. It would
make a big difference if I could get the 4gb at 200USD..

Cheers,
Ryan


- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Muvo question


> >> Has there been a solution to the non-working 44c and newer muvo/hitachi
> >> 4gb
> >> microdrives for use in the ist D? I've been looking around and have
found
> >> the
> >> occasional comment that it can be worked around by a firmware fix.
> >> However, it
> >> sounds a bit dodgy.
> >>
> >> What's the current status on this issue, if anyone would like to give
me
> >> a
> >> quick update.
> >
> > You've lost me, what's the 44c issue? The drive out of my Muvo worked
> > straight
> > up, the drives contained in the latest Muvos apparently don't work and
> > there's
> > no way to make them.
>
> Yeah, 44c is part of the serial on the newer hitachi drives, so same
> problem.  I don't know of a fix if there is.
>
> Having said that, the Muvo I bought a month ago in Oz still had the old
> drive in it... took a punt on them not getting new stock here yet, and was
> lucky.  Works perfectly in the *istD.
>
> Curiously, it had the "new" style packaging, but without the warning on.
> Some sort of in-between stock, or perhaps simply different style for
> different regions.  I got mine from mp3direct.com.au, as I beleive others
on
> here have.  Not anywhere near as cheap as they were from the US, but on
the
> other hand, those are garrunteed not to work.
>
> Some people have indicated that you can also tell by the "Partition Par
No"
> on the back of the muvo2 packaging, mine was 06PD05238 - I beleive
some
> higher numbers at the end mean later units.  But I'd guess if the package
> doesn't have the "warning not for use with other equipment" thing on, it
is
> likely old stock.  Could always call and ask, mp3direct seemed pretty
> helpful when I talked to them.
>
> Love, Light and Peace,
> - Peter Loveday
> Director of Development, eyeon Software
>
>

Me and my 250-600 (now nothing to do with filing cabinets)

[John Francis]

> 
> --- Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "John
> Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> >
> http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/sdwap615.jpg
> > 
> > 
> > LOL! That's hilarious. What a cool shot.
> > 
> > Jostein
> > 
> 
> Is that Greywolf before his last trip to the barber
> for a trim?
> 
> 
> 
> -frank

Well, I guess either greywolf or I might just have been
insulted, but I'm darned if I can figure out which :-)

That is, of course, me with the 250-600, on it's shakedown
test outing at San Diego Wild Animal Park.

Other images from that trip (most taken with the 250-600)
can be found here:




There are two shots there not taken with a Pentax camera,
but with a Nikon point-and-shoot (35mm, not digital).
One, obviously, is the shot of me holding my camera.
Would anyone care to guess which the other one is?

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Stan Halpin]

I usually avoid getting into one of these side-bar discussions. But I 
do want to note here that I am very impressed and appreciative that Bob 
B. and Tom C. and others have been able to express their objections 
without screaming, yelling, or accusing anyone of being the devil in 
disguise. And people by and large have responded to their objections 
without invective, distortion, or any of the other verbal spices that 
so often lead to verbal blows on this forum. Antonio, there is a model 
here you could learn from.

And since I have gotten started... Bob, Tom, one thing you might want 
to reflect on that may make you more comfortable with the image of the 
last supper: a famous painter once misrepresented a scene that is 
portrayed in the Gospels. The image is not the truth. The Word is the 
truth. And so now someone has done a parody of that false image to make 
a point about their own beliefs. Maybe you could celebrate that there 
is someone who is actively exploring and displaying their beliefs 
rather than rejecting the person and their art because it makes you 
feel uncomfortable.

Stan
On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Bob Blakely wrote:
Thanks! I appreciate hearing your opinion. It differs from mine, but 
you're
entitled to it. Knowing other folks opinions is a Privilege. After 
all, they
don't have to tell you.

Regards,
Bob...
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

On 13/7/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, offered:
"Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we 
don't
bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?"

Now, the preceding was a request. It was only a request. It was not a
demand. Again, failure to honor the request will not result in any 
form
of
discipline. Again, the request may be ignored. In fact you have my
permission to ridicule me for stating it.
Okay Bob:
RIDICULOUS
Here's my request:
I think things work pretty well the way things are, I haven't noticed 
any
bombardment of sexual images. I think anyone who considers posting 
images
of a similar nature in the future should not be discouraged.

Re: OT - Jaques Henri Lartigue

[Henri Toivonen]

Anthony Farr wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Henri Toivonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

(snip)
 

Henri is a very good name!
/Henri
   

And Henri Toivonen is a very famous name in WRC.  Is this a common name in
your country, like John Smith in Anglo countries?  And are you old enough to
remember the late, great HT's career?
regards,
Anthony Farr
No, it's not very common. Just a coincidence actually.
The other Henri Toivonen died when I was 3, so I don't remember him.
/Henri

Re: OT: Non-Microsoft browsers are most secure choice

[Peter J. Alling]

Especially those OS religion threads...
Anthony Farr wrote:
Not sleeping, Peter, just semi-lurking.  And staying out of the
sex/religion/politics threads.
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 

Nothin' Anthony, go back to sleep.  We'll wake you when something
interesting happens.
Anthony Farr wrote:
   

Wha' happen?  What'd I do? :-(
regards,
Anthony Farr
 


 

RE: PAW: Self Portrait...

[frank theriault]

--- Tanya Mayer Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: > 
> lol - erm, well, i'm not sure about that one...
> 
> what it means, is that legally, i am now officially
> "separated", ie. no
> longer partnered.  I am however, still married, and
> will be for about
> another 11 months and 3 days.  Not that i'm counting
> or anything...
> 
> So, I am now "single" again, however, still not
> "available", in that regard.
> So, please refrain from winking at me, will
> y'all...?!?!  
> 
> And that is way too much information, so I'm not
> going into it in anymore
> detail, except to say, "DC, here I come..."
> 
> tan.

Hey, Tan,

I'm sure that Peter and I were members of the Spanish
Inquisition in our formers lives ("YES!!  It's the
Spanish Inquisition!").  We really had to come close
to torture to squeeze that out of you!

Here's a tip for when you get to the US:  Don't play
poker.  

Well, seriously, I quite suspected that your recent
quiet period had something very nearly to do with what
seems to be happening.  Except I was thinking LA for
some reason, not DC.  

Still, again on a serious note, I know from personal
experience how wrenching a separation and divorce can
be, even when the husband and wife separate on
friendly terms (again, I know nothing of your
circumstances).  You must be going through a period of
great turmoil and upheaval right now.  

All I can say is that you know in your heart what you
have to do, difficult and daunting as it may seem. 
And, always, always, always, the kids come first - but
I know you enough to know you'd never do anything
without putting them first!!

We're all in your corner, so if you need any help,
call Cotty, tv, Jostein, anyone but me 

(again, seriously)hang in there,
frank

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: PAW: Self Portrait...

[Peter J. Alling]

Never think of it... 

Since I suspected this was the case from your previous posts, but still 
couldn't refrain from a wise ass comment
I think I'll fold my tent and quietly go to bed.  (How's that for mixed 
metaphors).

Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
lol - erm, well, i'm not sure about that one...
what it means, is that legally, i am now officially "separated", ie. no
longer partnered.  I am however, still married, and will be for about
another 11 months and 3 days.  Not that i'm counting or anything...
So, I am now "single" again, however, still not "available", in that regard.
So, please refrain from winking at me, will y'all...?!?!  
And that is way too much information, so I'm not going into it in anymore
detail, except to say, "DC, here I come..."
tan.
-Original Message-
From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 1:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PAW: Self Portrait...
Isn't that like being not "exactly" pregnant?
frank theriault wrote:
 

--- Tanya Mayer Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: >
   

Erm, I'm not exactly "available", I'd appreciate it
if you stopped winking
at me, OK?!?!
;-)

 

Besides, what do you mean by "exactly".  Either you're
available or you're not...
-frank
=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The
   

pessimist fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
 

__
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

   



 

Re: OT: Non-Microsoft browsers are most secure choice

[Anthony Farr]

Not sleeping, Peter, just semi-lurking.  And staying out of the
sex/religion/politics threads.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Nothin' Anthony, go back to sleep.  We'll wake you when something
> interesting happens.
>
> Anthony Farr wrote:
>
> >Wha' happen?  What'd I do? :-(
> >
> >regards,
> >Anthony Farr
> >

Re: PAW: Self Portrait...

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

FW> http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall/Self_Portrait/

FW> As an aside to the current flame wars I offer up my PAW for this
FW> week. My wife says its a very good likeness, though I think she's
FW> mistaking me with the person on the right.

I should say it makes lots of sense. I mean it really works for me.
Now I only have to go watch the movie to get to appreciate you more as
a person, Fred ...

Well done.

FW> DISCLAIMER:
FW> ==
FW> No nudity or other offensive content - other than my face that is -
FW> and the image is suitable for viewing by people of all religions,
FW> creeds, nationalities, genders or moral viewpoints.

Except in certain countries where this motion picture is banned ...

Boris
([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three

[frank theriault]

--- "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: 

> I hate to say this Frank but you're breaking my
> heart. 
> 

Dear me,

How will I ever get to sleep tonight?

cheers,
knarf

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

LOL! I'm sure it doesn't matter, but I'm up there close to record status on
both accounts, I would think!

;-)

tan.

-Original Message-
From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three
shot series)


--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14
Jul 2004 at 12:35, Tanya Mayer Photography
> wrote:
>
> > And that has got to be the most inconcise, and
> long-winded sentence anyone
> > has ever written on the PDML, jeez, I am so full
> of BS...
>
> That was OK, I'm pretty sure I win that competition
> :-)

Which contest is that, Rob?

The "Most Inconcise, Longest-winded Sentence Ever On
PDML" contest, or the "Geez, I'm So Full of Bullshit"
contest?

Or, does it matter?



(sorry, couldn't resist that one...)

cheers,
frank



=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

RE: PAW: Self Portrait...

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

lol - erm, well, i'm not sure about that one...

what it means, is that legally, i am now officially "separated", ie. no
longer partnered.  I am however, still married, and will be for about
another 11 months and 3 days.  Not that i'm counting or anything...

So, I am now "single" again, however, still not "available", in that regard.
So, please refrain from winking at me, will y'all...?!?!  

And that is way too much information, so I'm not going into it in anymore
detail, except to say, "DC, here I come..."

tan.

-Original Message-
From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 1:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PAW: Self Portrait...


Isn't that like being not "exactly" pregnant?

frank theriault wrote:

>--- Tanya Mayer Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote: >
>
>
>>Erm, I'm not exactly "available", I'd appreciate it
>>if you stopped winking
>>at me, OK?!?!
>>
>>;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>Besides, what do you mean by "exactly".  Either you're
>available or you're not...
>
>-frank
>
>=
>"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The
pessimist fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
>
>__
>Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
>
>
>
>

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three

[Peter J. Alling]

frank theriault wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi folks,
 

Have I just walked into an episode of Monty Pithon's
Flying Circus?  Did somebody just say Spanish
Inquisition?  Where's the comfy chair?
Paul warned us about the nudity and told us not to
look.
The "Last Supper" link came without warning and
deserves criticism for doing so.  If I cared, I
would find it offensive.  

Let's torture the perpetrator with the comfy chair.
:-)
   

Bob,
You spelled "Python" wrong.  Other than that, I pretty
much agree with you.  
Oh no, not "The Rack"!!  
-frank
ps:  Tomorrow, if it turns out kind of nice, I'm going
to post another doggie and his master pic for my PAW. 
That should calm everyone down...  

-ft
=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it is 
true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

 

I hate to say this Frank but you're breaking my heart. 

Re: PAW: Self Portrait...

[Peter J. Alling]

Isn't that like being not "exactly" pregnant?
frank theriault wrote:
--- Tanya Mayer Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: > 
 

Erm, I'm not exactly "available", I'd appreciate it
if you stopped winking
at me, OK?!?!
;-)
   

Besides, what do you mean by "exactly".  Either you're
available or you're not...
-frank
=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it is 
true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

 

Re: Religious Icons (Was WARNING...)

[Paul Stenquist]

This is a church interior that I shot in Mexico City. It was built in 
the 16th century. Note that the candles and foreground floor appear to 
be square in frame but the back wall is not. Earthquake damage. Yet it 
remains a beautiful monument to a god that was first forced upon the 
people of Mexico but eventually embraced by them. The history of Mexico 
is very confused in regard to their Spanish and Native American 
ancestry. In years past Mexicans who were descendants of Native 
Americans were considered second class citizens. Yet many Mexicans 
resented the European invasion of their country. A Mexican friend of 
mine summed it up this way: " We hate our father and despise our 
mother." It's a difficult burden to bear. But, hey this is a thread 
about religious icons, and you can find mine here:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2524744
On Jul 13, 2004, at 10:32 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:

On 13 Jul 2004 at 20:10, Tom C wrote:
:)
Just making a point, not aimed specifically at you... yes, let's see 
them.
I'll play. This is a grab shot made on a recent two day trip down the 
coast.
Could have done better contrast wise and composition wise but hey it 
fits the
bill. No technical details as I know how they can offend, sorry about 
the size
too Cotty :-)

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp4599.jpg


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[frank theriault]

--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14
Jul 2004 at 12:35, Tanya Mayer Photography
> wrote:
> 
> > And that has got to be the most inconcise, and
> long-winded sentence anyone
> > has ever written on the PDML, jeez, I am so full
> of BS...
> 
> That was OK, I'm pretty sure I win that competition
> :-)

Which contest is that, Rob?  

The "Most Inconcise, Longest-winded Sentence Ever On
PDML" contest, or the "Geez, I'm So Full of Bullshit"
contest?

Or, does it matter?



(sorry, couldn't resist that one...)

cheers,
frank



=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[frank theriault]

--- Tanya Mayer Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: > 

> 
> PS Frank, did you just wink at me again?!?!

No, dear.

I mean, Yes, dear.

I mean, I don't know.

Well, I really mean, "whatever you think the best
answer is"...

-frank (having a horrid flashback to my days as a
married man) 

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Rob Studdert]

On 14 Jul 2004 at 12:35, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:

> And that has got to be the most inconcise, and long-winded sentence anyone
> has ever written on the PDML, jeez, I am so full of BS...

That was OK, I'm pretty sure I win that competition :-)


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: Muvo question

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Ry, I see you tried to IM me before, I am assuming that it was for this
question?

I agree with Rob here, you've lost me too, for the same reasons as he
mentioned...

There are two different drives in thd MUVO - if you were lucky enough to get
the early model, you will be fine to use it, if you have a later one, then
you won't be able to.  Also, did you buy an *ist D?...

And what is a 44c?

:-)

t.

-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 12:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Muvo question


On 14 Jul 2004 at 12:18, Ryan Lee wrote:

> Has there been a solution to the non-working 44c and newer muvo/hitachi
4gb
> microdrives for use in the ist D? I've been looking around and have found
the
> occasional comment that it can be worked around by a firmware fix.
However, it
> sounds a bit dodgy.
>
> What's the current status on this issue, if anyone would like to give me a
> quick update.

You've lost me, what's the 44c issue? The drive out of my Muvo worked
straight
up, the drives contained in the latest Muvos apparently don't work and
there's
no way to make them.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Instant messaging?

[Christian]

I recently started working for the largest "online" company in "America"
after many years of rejecting their products and services.

With that came my intro into AIM...

AIM: cskofteland

Christian
Yes, I drank the kool-aid...


- Original Message - 
From: "cbwaters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:52 PM
Subject: OT: Instant messaging?


> Do ya'll use instant messaging?
>
> Cory Waters
> AIM = seebwaters
> Microsoft IM = corywatersinga
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 7/9/2004
>

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

And just WHERE did I say that Neanderthals were offensive?!?!

I simply said that we like to show off on this list about just how
"educated" we are on a certain subject, and then go and negate it all by
acting like and uneducated, illiterate being (ie. neanderthal)...

And I totally agree with Bill, there are far more things that could be
deemed as offensive, such as people with blatant disregard for other
people's opinions due to them being so self centred that they think that
they are the only one who is RIGHT. ie. "uncouth" or "crude" - which is how
*I* would view somebody who thinks that they are the only ones entitled to
an opinion, or with the correct opinion, on any given subject.

And that has got to be the most inconcise, and long-winded sentence anyone
has ever written on the PDML, jeez, I am so full of BS...

lol.

tan.

PS Frank, did you just wink at me again?!?!

-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 12:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three
shot series)



- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the
three shot series)


> On 14 Jul 2004 at 10:40, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
>
> > We seem to
> > pride ourselves on showing just how educated we are on such
matters on this
> > list, and then go and negate it all by acting like a bunch of
vulgar
> > neanderthals!
>
> So prey tell, what is offensive about Neanderthals? :-)
>

Not offensive, uncouth.
Far worse in my opinion.

William Robb

Re: WARNING...

[Rob Studdert]

On 13 Jul 2004 at 20:10, Tom C wrote:

> :)
> 
> Just making a point, not aimed specifically at you... yes, let's see them.

I'll play. This is a grab shot made on a recent two day trip down the coast. 
Could have done better contrast wise and composition wise but hey it fits the 
bill. No technical details as I know how they can offend, sorry about the size 
too Cotty :-)

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp4599.jpg






Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

New toy arrived today...

[Christian]

Yep... An Optio MX.  Replaces my Optio 330 as P&S.  Gave the 330 to my
parents.

Batteries are charging.  Full report soon

Christian

Re: Muvo question

[Peter Loveday]

Has there been a solution to the non-working 44c and newer muvo/hitachi 
4gb
microdrives for use in the ist D? I've been looking around and have found 
the
occasional comment that it can be worked around by a firmware fix. 
However, it
sounds a bit dodgy.

What's the current status on this issue, if anyone would like to give me 
a
quick update.
You've lost me, what's the 44c issue? The drive out of my Muvo worked 
straight
up, the drives contained in the latest Muvos apparently don't work and 
there's
no way to make them.
Yeah, 44c is part of the serial on the newer hitachi drives, so same 
problem.  I don't know of a fix if there is.

Having said that, the Muvo I bought a month ago in Oz still had the old 
drive in it... took a punt on them not getting new stock here yet, and was 
lucky.  Works perfectly in the *istD.

Curiously, it had the "new" style packaging, but without the warning on. 
Some sort of in-between stock, or perhaps simply different style for 
different regions.  I got mine from mp3direct.com.au, as I beleive others on 
here have.  Not anywhere near as cheap as they were from the US, but on the 
other hand, those are garrunteed not to work.

Some people have indicated that you can also tell by the "Partition Par No" 
on the back of the muvo2 packaging, mine was 06PD05238 - I beleive some 
higher numbers at the end mean later units.  But I'd guess if the package 
doesn't have the "warning not for use with other equipment" thing on, it is 
likely old stock.  Could always call and ask, mp3direct seemed pretty 
helpful when I talked to them.

Love, Light and Peace,
- Peter Loveday
Director of Development, eyeon Software

RE: Another Picture of clouds breaking.

[El Gringo]

Thanks for the comments and advice on the image.  

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2524694&size=lg

Here is an updated version.

-el gringo

-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Another Picture of clouds breaking.



On Jul 13, 2004, at 9:49 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:

>
> Nice country scene but would be much nicer with a brighter foreground, 
> this
> image is an ideal candidate for range enhancement using layering.

Good suggestion Rob. Computers make that easy. It's something we all 
should consider more often.

Re: Muvo question

[Rob Studdert]

On 14 Jul 2004 at 12:18, Ryan Lee wrote:

> Has there been a solution to the non-working 44c and newer muvo/hitachi 4gb
> microdrives for use in the ist D? I've been looking around and have found the
> occasional comment that it can be worked around by a firmware fix. However, it
> sounds a bit dodgy.
> 
> What's the current status on this issue, if anyone would like to give me a
> quick update.

You've lost me, what's the 44c issue? The drive out of my Muvo worked straight 
up, the drives contained in the latest Muvos apparently don't work and there's 
no way to make them.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PAW and introductory post

[Peter J. Alling]

Surreal in a very nice way.
Billy Abbott wrote:
I've been lurking for a few weeks and thought I'd post a pic and wee 
introduction.

I've only been taking photographs for a couple of years after a gap 
since I was a kid, and was introduced to Pentax gear by Steve Jolly, 
who appears on this list from time to time, who only got me to get 
Pentax stuff so he could pinch my lenses...

Anyway, this is one of the pictures from my first attempt to do funky 
things with water and long exposures.

http://cowfish.org.uk/paw/waterfall.html
If anyone is going to say "you need to do a better scan" then, yes I 
do :)
Thanks to whoever posted about the new Epson scanners coming out next 
month - I now have one of them on my shopping list, and my scans 
should become better after that...

Comments/advice much appreciated.
billy

Muvo question

[Ryan Lee]

Hi all,

Sorry if this has been discussed to bits- I haven't been paying attention to
the muvo threads and I haven't been able to pinpoint the exact info in the
archives because of the large number of results.

Has there been a solution to the non-working 44c and newer muvo/hitachi 4gb
microdrives for use in the ist D? I've been looking around and have found
the occasional comment that it can be worked around by a firmware fix.
However, it sounds a bit dodgy.

What's the current status on this issue, if anyone would like to give me a
quick update.

If not a muvo, what's the next best value 1gb 2gb or 4gb storage options?

Thanks,
Ryan

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the
three shot series)


> On 14 Jul 2004 at 10:40, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
>
> > We seem to
> > pride ourselves on showing just how educated we are on such
matters on this
> > list, and then go and negate it all by acting like a bunch of
vulgar
> > neanderthals!
>
> So prey tell, what is offensive about Neanderthals? :-)
>

Not offensive, uncouth.
Far worse in my opinion.

William Robb

Re: PAW - Not everyone sells their stuff on eBay

[Peter J. Alling]

I know who he was, it's Shel's connection I'm interested in, and he's 
off the list now and I'll never know.

Paul Stenquist wrote:
Meyer Lansky was a Jewish gangster in the United States. Ironically, 
he was a supporter of Israel. He was one of the few American mobsters 
who escaped prosectution. He died in his eighties as a wealthy man 
living in Miami. There are many fascinating stories about Lansky. He 
was quite a character and a prototypical underworld boss.
Paul
On Jul 13, 2004, at 6:26 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote:

Now that sounds like a story.  Meyer Lansky?
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I've been refused entry to Israel due to my fanily's connection with 
Meyer
Lansky.
Shel


[Original Message]
From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I almost wish to challenge you to come to Israel and try your magic
here. At least I would get to meet you in person ...

Re: WARNING...

[Tom C]

:)
Just making a point, not aimed specifically at you... yes, let's see them.

Tom C.


From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WARNING...
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:04:11 -0400
I can't imagine why anyone would mind. Although you might delete the part 
about redeeming one's soul. After all, I didn't say that my nudes were an 
attempt to damn one for eternity. But as a matter of fact, I have some 
photos of religious icons. I have a nice shot of a jade rosary. I also have 
a shot of Our Lady of Guadalupe that I took at the shrine in Mexico. I will 
post them soon  . I find religious icons and religious history quite 
fascinating. Many icons are a worthy subject of photography. I remember 
when I was quite young and an altar boy at St. Felicitas Church in Chicago. 
We had a benediction of the blessed sacrament every Saturday night. The 
host was contained in a beautiful gold vessel called a "monstrance." I wish 
I could shoot it today. It was a beautiful icon.
Paul
On Jul 13, 2004, at 9:48 PM, Tom C wrote:

The following link contains a number of pictures of religious icons and is 
an attempt to proselytize and redeem your soul.  I hope no one will mind 
about the proselytizing and that you can just see the arsty-fartsy side of 
the photographs.

I wonder what kind of response this would have gotten, had such a link 
been posted.  I'm sure the poster's rights to free speech and expression 
would have been respected.  Yes, I'm quite sure no one would have minded 
in the least and that there would be nary a comment.

Tom C.


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three 
shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:11:32 CDT

El gringo, whoever that is, posted:
> Okay, sure, some art is offensive just to be offensive BUT EVEN IN 
THOSE
> CASES, it is still ART, it is still SELF EXPRESSION, it is still the 
RIGHT
> OF THE ARTIST to PROVOKE, INSULT, or otherwise offend ANY GROUP HE OR 
SHE
> CHOOSES...

Thank you for agreeing that some art is offensive just to be offensive.
I did not say that such art is not art and I did not say it is not still 
self-
expression.
Of course it is art. Of course it is self-expression. And the artist does
indeed have a right to insult anybody he or she chooses.
Of course, in doing that, such artists are also being rude, and anybody 
being
insulted has a perfect right to object to being insulted.

> You cannot argue against it, by arguing against it you are a
> hypocrite, because you wish to have your belief heard over theirs, 
when all
> they want is to have their belief heard, not necessarily above any 
other
> belief.

I believe that people should not be unnecessarily rude to other people. I 
am
quite aware that many people do not share this belief. Just for the 
record,
that is simply MY belief and I claim my right to have that belief heard. 
The
belief that artists may insult anyone else with impunity was already 
being
heard.

> I think I pointed out what the meaning of the last supper piece
> with naked black woman probably was, without getting to patronizing, 
but I
> can patronize you if Thats what it takes...

Why bother to try to patronize me? I'm still right, whether you like it 
or not:
Apparently as much as you wanted to disagree with what I said, you 
couldn't. In
the beginning of your post, you agreed with the point I made, and then 
you
proceeded SHOUT all sorts of objections to things I did NOT say! Well, I 
did
borrow your phrase about "missing the point" but really, unless you know 
beyond
any doubt what a particular artist intended a piece to mean, how can you 
be
certain who did and who did not miss the point?
Note that I said I knew nothing whatsoever about this particular artist 
and
what she intended with this particular piece of work (which I have not 
examined
closely). I said I was making a general comment.

The rest of your post can pass without response from me since it has 
absolutely
nothing to do with anything I wrote.

> I honestly cannot believe the
> kind of idiocy some of you people subscribe to.  ARE YOU FROM THE 
MIDDLE
> AGES?>???  Why don't you just start advocating chopping peoples heads 
off
> for speaking ill of our good lord...  Whomever that is.
>
> -el gringo
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the 
three
> shot series)
>
>
> Paul "Steady" Stenquist shared:
> > I don't think the work disparages anyone's God. It simply applies 
the
> > Last Supper as a metaphor. One can interpret in any number of ways.
> > Perhaps it speaks to the dehumanizing of women as sex objects. 
Perhaps
> > it speaks to the sacrifice women make in bringing children into the
> > world. Like most art, it is ambiguous. It's a shame that

Re: OT: Windows Scob virus collects passwords, financial data; Macintosh unaffected

[Peter J. Alling]

Paul, I don't actually get to see his post's, he's filtered out.  I have 
a hard time not making an asinine remark from time to time.
especially after deleting most of these posts.  And sad to say I haven't 
actually looked at the date-time stamps until now.

I do apologize, the last thing I really want is to re-start a dormant 
flame war. 

Paul Stenquist wrote:
Hey, here's an idea. Let's rekindle a dead flame war.
Yes, you've been away that long.
On Jul 13, 2004, at 7:26 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote:
Wise words? From Antonio?  Have I been away that long!!
Bob Blakely wrote:
Jostein was a respected member of this list before you uttered your 
first
wise word and he remains so.

Regards,
Bob...
From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Grow up Jostein. Take your trolling elsewhere. I am not interested.

Re: WARNING...

[Paul Stenquist]

I can't imagine why anyone would mind. Although you might delete the 
part about redeeming one's soul. After all, I didn't say that my nudes 
were an attempt to damn one for eternity. But as a matter of fact, I 
have some photos of religious icons. I have a nice shot of a jade 
rosary. I also have a shot of Our Lady of Guadalupe that I took at the 
shrine in Mexico. I will post them soon  . I find religious icons and 
religious history quite fascinating. Many icons are a worthy subject of 
photography. I remember when I was quite young and an altar boy at St. 
Felicitas Church in Chicago. We had a benediction of the blessed 
sacrament every Saturday night. The host was contained in a beautiful 
gold vessel called a "monstrance." I wish I could shoot it today. It 
was a beautiful icon.
Paul
On Jul 13, 2004, at 9:48 PM, Tom C wrote:

The following link contains a number of pictures of religious icons 
and is an attempt to proselytize and redeem your soul.  I hope no one 
will mind about the proselytizing and that you can just see the 
arsty-fartsy side of the photographs.

I wonder what kind of response this would have gotten, had such a link 
been posted.  I'm sure the poster's rights to free speech and 
expression would have been respected.  Yes, I'm quite sure no one 
would have minded in the least and that there would be nary a comment.

Tom C.


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the 
three shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:11:32 CDT

El gringo, whoever that is, posted:
> Okay, sure, some art is offensive just to be offensive BUT EVEN IN 
THOSE
> CASES, it is still ART, it is still SELF EXPRESSION, it is still 
the RIGHT
> OF THE ARTIST to PROVOKE, INSULT, or otherwise offend ANY GROUP HE 
OR SHE
> CHOOSES...

Thank you for agreeing that some art is offensive just to be 
offensive.
I did not say that such art is not art and I did not say it is not 
still self-
expression.
Of course it is art. Of course it is self-expression. And the artist 
does
indeed have a right to insult anybody he or she chooses.
Of course, in doing that, such artists are also being rude, and 
anybody being
insulted has a perfect right to object to being insulted.

> You cannot argue against it, by arguing against it you are a
> hypocrite, because you wish to have your belief heard over theirs, 
when all
> they want is to have their belief heard, not necessarily above any 
other
> belief.

I believe that people should not be unnecessarily rude to other 
people. I am
quite aware that many people do not share this belief. Just for the 
record,
that is simply MY belief and I claim my right to have that belief 
heard. The
belief that artists may insult anyone else with impunity was already 
being
heard.

> I think I pointed out what the meaning of the last supper piece
> with naked black woman probably was, without getting to 
patronizing, but I
> can patronize you if Thats what it takes...

Why bother to try to patronize me? I'm still right, whether you like 
it or not:
Apparently as much as you wanted to disagree with what I said, you 
couldn't. In
the beginning of your post, you agreed with the point I made, and 
then you
proceeded SHOUT all sorts of objections to things I did NOT say! 
Well, I did
borrow your phrase about "missing the point" but really, unless you 
know beyond
any doubt what a particular artist intended a piece to mean, how can 
you be
certain who did and who did not miss the point?
Note that I said I knew nothing whatsoever about this particular 
artist and
what she intended with this particular piece of work (which I have 
not examined
closely). I said I was making a general comment.

The rest of your post can pass without response from me since it has 
absolutely
nothing to do with anything I wrote.

> I honestly cannot believe the
> kind of idiocy some of you people subscribe to.  ARE YOU FROM THE 
MIDDLE
> AGES?>???  Why don't you just start advocating chopping peoples 
heads off
> for speaking ill of our good lord...  Whomever that is.
>
> -el gringo
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the 
three
> shot series)
>
>
> Paul "Steady" Stenquist shared:
> > I don't think the work disparages anyone's God. It simply applies 
the
> > Last Supper as a metaphor. One can interpret in any number of 
ways.
> > Perhaps it speaks to the dehumanizing of women as sex objects. 
Perhaps
> > it speaks to the sacrifice women make in bringing children into 
the
> > world. Like most art, it is ambiguous. It's a shame that anyone is
> > offended by art, whether it be good art or bad art. I believe 
that art
> > is usually too vague to take that personally.
>
>
> I think that as many artists as there are in the world, we can't 
generalize
> about all of t

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[frank theriault]

--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
I think Spencer Tunick's photos are more about scale
> than art. It's a 
> feat of organization to get all those people in one
> place at the same 
> time without their clothes.
> But most of the images seem ordinary to me. I guess
> my favorite is the 
> one that looks like a field of sheep. It's
> metaphorical and has some 
> elementary beauty to it,
> but I find the majority of the work to be dull.
> paul

I saw a TV doc on Tunick once.  I believe he uses (or
at least used) a 6x7 or 67.  

Just thought I'd inject some Pentax content into the
thread 

Don't much like his work, though.  I mean, it's okay,
but it don't turn my crank...

cheers,
frank

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: OT: Non-Microsoft browsers are most secure choice

[Peter J. Alling]

Nothin' Anthony, go back to sleep.  We'll wake you when something 
interesting happens.

Anthony Farr wrote:
Wha' happen?  What'd I do? :-(
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(snip)
 

However, Brian, I would take it as a personal favor if you would leave
   

Anthony's
 

name in the message somewhere so my troll filters can delete it with out
   

my
 

seeing it.
   

(snip)
 

graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
   



 

Re: OT - Jaques Henri Lartigue

[Anthony Farr]

- Original Message - 
From: "Henri Toivonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

(snip)
>
> Henri is a very good name!
>
> /Henri
>
>

And Henri Toivonen is a very famous name in WRC.  Is this a common name in
your country, like John Smith in Anglo countries?  And are you old enough to
remember the late, great HT's career?

regards,
Anthony Farr

Re: Another Picture of clouds breaking.

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jul 13, 2004, at 9:49 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
Nice country scene but would be much nicer with a brighter foreground, 
this
image is an ideal candidate for range enhancement using layering.
Good suggestion Rob. Computers make that easy. It's something we all 
should consider more often.

Re: OT: Instant messaging?

[frank theriault]

--- "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: > That's our Frank, always the politician...
> 

See, Peter?

Ya go away.  Ya come back.  Nothing changes...



-frank, who's actually never been accused of being a
politician before, but really doesn't give a hoot 

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: OT: My latest toys.. something 'old' and something 'new'

[Peter J. Alling]

Don't make me laugh like that, I nearly coughed up a lung...
graywolf wrote:
As an addendum to this. I noticed in the current Freestyle catalog 
that they now offer Polaroid backs for the Holga camera. Can digital 
backs be far behind.

--
Fred Widall wrote:
Fred Widall wrote:


The Cocarette has a 105mm F4.5 Tessar lens and produces 6x9cm 
negatives.
Apart from a very minor pinhole in the bellows (now fixed) and a dirty
lens (now cleaned) the camera is in amazing shape for 75+ years. I've
found that by stopping the Tessar down to F16 I get excellent 
sharpness
and resolution. Not bad for a CA$40 camera off Ebay.

But does it have matrix metering and will a digital back be 
available? :)

Tom C.

I think they added matrix metering in 1928, and the digital back is
due out next year :) I confess I'm not very impressed with the
speed of the auto-focus on this either - I can wait for hours and it 
still
doesn't focus !!!

Fred.

Re: OT: Instant messaging?

[Peter J. Alling]

That's our Frank, always the politician...
frank theriault wrote:
--- cbwaters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do
ya'll use instant messaging?
 

Cory Waters
AIM = seebwaters
Microsoft IM = corywatersinga
   

Like I'd tell you if I did!  

-frank
=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it is 
true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

 

Re: Another Picture of clouds breaking.

[Paul Stenquist]

I prefer the first shot, but for reasons of composition rather than 
exposure. I doubt that you would have gotten anything better on film. 
You're getting substantial latitude here, and the results look very 
good. If you wanted more stretch you could tweak it in PS with shadows 
and highlights, but I think the high contrast nature of the image is 
part of what makes it work.
Paul
On Jul 13, 2004, at 9:34 PM, El Gringo wrote:

Here is another somewhat underexposed picture of the same cloud scene.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2524581&size=lg
I tried slower shutter speeds, but, that only resulted in ruining the
interesting clouds in the sky, which are the whole reason I took these
shots.  Any advice on how to get a better exposure in this situation 
with
digital would be appreciated, though, I imagine there is nothing that 
can be
done except to shoot film.

-el gringo

-Original Message-
From: El Gringo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PAW: Picture of clouds breaking.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2524422
Let me know if you like it...  There are some jpeg artifacts there, 
that,
wont go away because photo.net doesn't let me upload files that have 
xml
preview data.  If anyone knows how to upload the higher quality jpegs
without having xml preview data, let me know.

-el gringo

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three

[frank theriault]

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi folks,
> 
> Have I just walked into an episode of Monty Pithon's
> Flying Circus?  Did somebody just say Spanish
> Inquisition?  Where's the comfy chair?
> 
> Paul warned us about the nudity and told us not to
> look.
> 
> The "Last Supper" link came without warning and
> deserves criticism for doing so.  If I cared, I
> would find it offensive.  
> 
> Let's torture the perpetrator with the comfy chair.
> :-)
> 

Bob,

You spelled "Python" wrong.  Other than that, I pretty
much agree with you.  

Oh no, not "The Rack"!!  

-frank

ps:  Tomorrow, if it turns out kind of nice, I'm going
to post another doggie and his master pic for my PAW. 
That should calm everyone down...  

-ft

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: Messages failing to post again

[Tom C]

Bad boy!

Tom C.


From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Messages failing to post again
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:44:09 -0400
No, I've been off for a while, just catching up.  It's my fault.
Tom C wrote:
I sent this one sometime last week, and it apparently just got to the 
PDML.


Tom C.


From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Messages failing to post again
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:21:42 -0400
Awww Stop your wingeing.  If you missed any of the microsoft rant you 
should count yourself lucky.

Tom C wrote:
It seems either my posts are failing to get to the list, or the list is 
failing to return them to me... don't know which...

Pretty aggravating. Complain. Complain.
Tom C.

Re: PAW: Self Portrait...

[frank theriault]

--- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 

> 
> Naw, that's Frank after a few beers!

I don't get it.  Even people I've never met seem to
make this connection between me and beer.  What's up
with that? 

Nothing could be further from the truth.  In fact, I
prefer a nice tall cold bubbly glass of milk any day.

Beer?  Yuck!

cheers,
frank (this post has been approved by my lawyer)

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[ernreed2]

Rob said:
> So prey tell, what is offensive about Neanderthals? :-)


Not a single one of them ever used a Pentax. Clearly, they had no taste.

ERN

Re: PAW: Self Portrait...

[frank theriault]

--- Fred Widall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
Now you mention it, Keith, I do see a resemblance
> there - must
> be the ears !!!
> 
> > Naw, that's Frank after a few beers!
> >
> > keith
> >

I fail to see any resemblance:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2447405

The guy on the right looks the same in both pictures,
though.  

-frank

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: PAW: Picture of clouds breaking.

[Paul Stenquist]

Beautiful shot. I love the warm tones in the sky and the contrast 
between sky and trees. Nice framing as well. You did the right thing 
with your crop. Very good work.
Paul
On Jul 13, 2004, at 8:36 PM, El Gringo wrote:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2524422
Let me know if you like it...  There are some jpeg artifacts there, 
that,
wont go away because photo.net doesn't let me upload files that have 
xml
preview data.  If anyone knows how to upload the higher quality jpegs
without having xml preview data, let me know.

-el gringo

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Rob Studdert]

On 14 Jul 2004 at 10:40, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:

> We seem to
> pride ourselves on showing just how educated we are on such matters on this
> list, and then go and negate it all by acting like a bunch of vulgar
> neanderthals! 

So prey tell, what is offensive about Neanderthals? :-)


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PAW: Picture of clouds breaking.

[Rob Studdert]

On 13 Jul 2004 at 19:36, El Gringo wrote:

> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2524422
> 
> Let me know if you like it...  There are some jpeg artifacts there, that,
> wont go away because photo.net doesn't let me upload files that have xml
> preview data.  If anyone knows how to upload the higher quality jpegs
> without having xml preview data, let me know.

Using the "save for web" option in PS strips all the enclosures that photo.net 
can't deal with however images for up-load are still limited to 100kB in file 
size I believe.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: PAW: Self Portrait...

[frank theriault]

--- Tanya Mayer Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: > 
> Erm, I'm not exactly "available", I'd appreciate it
> if you stopped winking
> at me, OK?!?!
> 
> ;-)
> 

Besides, what do you mean by "exactly".  Either you're
available or you're not...

-frank

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

RE: PAW: Self Portrait...

[frank theriault]

--- Tanya Mayer Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: > 
> Erm, I'm not exactly "available", I'd appreciate it
> if you stopped winking
> at me, OK?!?!
> 
> ;-)
> 

I wasn't winking at you, Tanya.

That was just a speck of dust in my eye.  All weekend
long at GFM, I had dust in my eye.  It was dusty
(after the rain), remember?



cheers,
frank

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: OT: Instant messaging?

[frank theriault]

--- cbwaters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do
ya'll use instant messaging?
> 
> Cory Waters
> AIM = seebwaters
> Microsoft IM = corywatersinga
> 

Like I'd tell you if I did!  

-frank

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[frank theriault]

--- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi,

> "You mustn't do that, some people might find it
> offensive".
> 
> Well, f_ck them.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
>  Bob

Thank you, Bob, for briefly and succinctly putting
things into a language and perspective I can
understand and relate to.



cheers,
frank

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Hohum, I HAD, previous to this, been enjoying this really interesting,
thought provoking, and at times, funny thread.  HOWEVER, can't you people
see that us all having different opinions is just the thing that makes the
world an interesting place to live in?!?  I probably have extremely
different opinions to most of you here, and if I feel like it, I may voice
them from time to time, HOWEVER, I do not judge somebody because their
opinion differs from mine, and I would appreciate the same respect for the
opinions that I have formed myself.  I listen to it, I note it, and I say to
myself "well, good on them for being able to think for themselves instead of
being some kind of pack animal".  If we all thought the same, and agreed on
everything, what a boring world this would be...

I love heated discussions, whether it be on photography, politics, religion,
naked pics (hehe!), WHATEVER, but why does it have to deteriorate it to some
undiginfied, egotistical, mudslinging and insult throwing competition every
time?  Can't we all just agree to disagree and leave it at that? We seem to
pride ourselves on showing just how educated we are on such matters on this
list, and then go and negate it all by acting like a bunch of vulgar
neanderthals! (and I am not referring to anyone in particular here, before
you all go getting offended by that comment!)

I love it when people disagree with me, and I always respect their opinions
and their right to *have* a different opinion from mine.  In many cases,
people offering me their different opinions has opened my mind and taught me
to "think outside the box".  Jeez, think of it this way - there are many
hundreds (maybe thousands?) of religions in this world - most of whom vastly
different  beliefs, if every person in everyone of those religions really
took things to task and wanted to pursue the fact that *they* were they only
ones who could possibly be correct in their beliefs, then we would all be
trying to kill each other!  (We don't need to start a discussion about past
and ongoing religious wars here, it was just an example).  Or to take the
emphasis off religion, if I hate peas, but ERN loves them, does that make
her right and me wrong? Or vice versa? The age old argument about abortion
is a classic one - I personally could never do it, and disagree with it
wholeheartedly, but who am I to say what another person can or cannot
believe or do with their body and what's in it etc? (again, not trying to
start an argument here, it's just an example!)

Lets just have some interesting, thought provoking discussions, whatever the
topic may be, and make it a rule that we won't let our friggin' egos get in
the way and start calling each other childish names, shall we?

tan. *the peace loving hippy chic* (well, my name is "fairygirl" for a
reason, you know! hehe.)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 10:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three
shot series)


El gringo, whoever that is, posted:
> Okay, sure, some art is offensive just to be offensive BUT EVEN IN THOSE
> CASES, it is still ART, it is still SELF EXPRESSION, it is still the RIGHT
> OF THE ARTIST to PROVOKE, INSULT, or otherwise offend ANY GROUP HE OR SHE
> CHOOSES...

Thank you for agreeing that some art is offensive just to be offensive.
I did not say that such art is not art and I did not say it is not still
self-
expression.
Of course it is art. Of course it is self-expression. And the artist does
indeed have a right to insult anybody he or she chooses.
Of course, in doing that, such artists are also being rude, and anybody
being
insulted has a perfect right to object to being insulted.

> You cannot argue against it, by arguing against it you are a
> hypocrite, because you wish to have your belief heard over theirs, when
all
> they want is to have their belief heard, not necessarily above any other
> belief.

I believe that people should not be unnecessarily rude to other people. I am
quite aware that many people do not share this belief. Just for the record,
that is simply MY belief and I claim my right to have that belief heard. The
belief that artists may insult anyone else with impunity was already being
heard.

> I think I pointed out what the meaning of the last supper piece
> with naked black woman probably was, without getting to patronizing, but I
> can patronize you if Thats what it takes...

Why bother to try to patronize me? I'm still right, whether you like it or
not:
Apparently as much as you wanted to disagree with what I said, you couldn't.
In
the beginning of your post, you agreed with the point I made, and then you
proceeded SHOUT all sorts of objections to things I did NOT say! Well, I did
borrow your phrase about "missing the point" but really, unless you know
beyond
any doubt what a particular artist intended a piece to mean, how can you be
certain who did and who di

PAW: Picture of clouds breaking.

[El Gringo]

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2524422

Let me know if you like it...  There are some jpeg artifacts there, that,
wont go away because photo.net doesn't let me upload files that have xml
preview data.  If anyone knows how to upload the higher quality jpegs
without having xml preview data, let me know.

-el gringo

Re: PAW: Self Portrait...

[frank theriault]

--- Fred Widall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall/Self_Portrait/
> 
> As an aside to the current flame wars I offer up my
> PAW for this
> week. My wife says its a very good likeness, though
> I think she's
> mistaking me with the person on the right.
> 
> DISCLAIMER:
> ==
> No nudity or other offensive content - other than my
> face that is -
> and the image is suitable for viewing by people of
> all religions,
> creeds, nationalities, genders or moral viewpoints.

Well, Fred,

I'll tell you who you've offended:

The producers and distributors of Shrek.

Please cease and desist from disseminating your
photograph immediately, or you'll face the wrath of
the court system of the US of A.

signed,
Shrek's producers' and distributors' lawyers

PS:  Actually, all kidding aside, I think that's
pretty cute, and very well done!

cheers,
frank

=
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist fears it 
is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: Messages failing to post again

[Paul Stenquist]

No, Peter just returned.
On Jul 13, 2004, at 8:24 PM, Tom C wrote:
I sent this one sometime last week, and it apparently just got to the 
PDML.


Tom C.


From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Messages failing to post again
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:21:42 -0400
Awww Stop your wingeing.  If you missed any of the microsoft rant you 
should count yourself lucky.

Tom C wrote:
It seems either my posts are failing to get to the list, or the list 
is failing to return them to me... don't know which...

Pretty aggravating. Complain. Complain.
Tom C.

Re: Messages failing to post again

[Tom C]

I sent this one sometime last week, and it apparently just got to the PDML.

Tom C.


From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Messages failing to post again
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:21:42 -0400
Awww Stop your wingeing.  If you missed any of the microsoft rant you 
should count yourself lucky.

Tom C wrote:
It seems either my posts are failing to get to the list, or the list is 
failing to return them to me... don't know which...

Pretty aggravating. Complain. Complain.
Tom C.

RE: PAW: Self Portrait...

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Erm, I'm not exactly "available", I'd appreciate it if you stopped winking
at me, OK?!?!

;-)

btw, my kids just saw Shrek 2 on the weekend, and they think your pic is
hilarious!!

tan.

-Original Message-
From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 8:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PAW: Self Portrait...




Fred Widall wrote:

> http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall/Self_Portrait/
>
> As an aside to the current flame wars I offer up my PAW for this
> week. My wife says its a very good likeness, though I think she's
> mistaking me with the person on the right.

Naw, that's Frank after a few beers!

keith

Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program

[ernreed2]

Alan Chan inquired:
> I have got the impression that the AF of the MZ-5/5n/3 would go dead after a 
> few years, after reading similar complaints several times. How many here had 
> this problem?
>

My ZX-5n, bought in December 1998 (which as I recall was shortly after its 
introduction) is still autofocusing quite nicely.
I had not seen the autofocus complaints myself. I have seen complaints about 
the pop-up flash mechanism breaking, which did happen to mine; and the film 
transport mechanism going bad, which also happened to mine (both fixed under 
extended warranty a while back and behaving properly thereafter.)

ERN

Re: Messages failing to post again

[Peter J. Alling]

Awww Stop your wingeing.  If you missed any of the microsoft rant you 
should count yourself lucky.

Tom C wrote:
It seems either my posts are failing to get to the list, or the list 
is failing to return them to me... don't know which...

Pretty aggravating. Complain. Complain.
Tom C.

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[ernreed2]

El gringo, whoever that is, posted:
> Okay, sure, some art is offensive just to be offensive BUT EVEN IN THOSE
> CASES, it is still ART, it is still SELF EXPRESSION, it is still the RIGHT
> OF THE ARTIST to PROVOKE, INSULT, or otherwise offend ANY GROUP HE OR SHE
> CHOOSES... 

Thank you for agreeing that some art is offensive just to be offensive.
I did not say that such art is not art and I did not say it is not still self-
expression. 
Of course it is art. Of course it is self-expression. And the artist does 
indeed have a right to insult anybody he or she chooses.
Of course, in doing that, such artists are also being rude, and anybody being 
insulted has a perfect right to object to being insulted. 

> You cannot argue against it, by arguing against it you are a
> hypocrite, because you wish to have your belief heard over theirs, when all
> they want is to have their belief heard, not necessarily above any other
> belief.  

I believe that people should not be unnecessarily rude to other people. I am 
quite aware that many people do not share this belief. Just for the record, 
that is simply MY belief and I claim my right to have that belief heard. The 
belief that artists may insult anyone else with impunity was already being 
heard.

> I think I pointed out what the meaning of the last supper piece
> with naked black woman probably was, without getting to patronizing, but I
> can patronize you if Thats what it takes... 

Why bother to try to patronize me? I'm still right, whether you like it or not: 
Apparently as much as you wanted to disagree with what I said, you couldn't. In 
the beginning of your post, you agreed with the point I made, and then you 
proceeded SHOUT all sorts of objections to things I did NOT say! Well, I did 
borrow your phrase about "missing the point" but really, unless you know beyond 
any doubt what a particular artist intended a piece to mean, how can you be 
certain who did and who did not miss the point?
Note that I said I knew nothing whatsoever about this particular artist and 
what she intended with this particular piece of work (which I have not examined 
closely). I said I was making a general comment.

The rest of your post can pass without response from me since it has absolutely 
nothing to do with anything I wrote.

> I honestly cannot believe the
> kind of idiocy some of you people subscribe to.  ARE YOU FROM THE MIDDLE
> AGES?>???  Why don't you just start advocating chopping peoples heads off
> for speaking ill of our good lord...  Whomever that is.
> 
> -el gringo
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three
> shot series)
> 
> 
> Paul "Steady" Stenquist shared:
> > I don't think the work disparages anyone's God. It simply applies the
> > Last Supper as a metaphor. One can interpret in any number of ways.
> > Perhaps it speaks to the dehumanizing of women as sex objects. Perhaps
> > it speaks to the sacrifice women make in bringing children into the
> > world. Like most art, it is ambiguous. It's a shame that anyone is
> > offended by art, whether it be good art or bad art. I believe that art
> > is usually too vague to take that personally.
> 
> 
> I think that as many artists as there are in the world, we can't generalize
> about all of them successfully. I don't know anything about Renee Cox at
> all,
> so I'm not saying anything about her specifically. But -- Some artists may
> indeed produce something that can be interpreted in any number of ways and
> be
> ambiguous, but some other artists do select their subject matter and their
> presentation deliberately to provoke, or even to insult, people whose values
> they do not share. If the intent of the artist is to cause offence, why then
> should the viewer not take offence? In fact, the viewer who doesn't take
> offence in that case is the person who "missed the point" of the work,
> wouldn't
> you think?
> If an artist didn't set out to cause offence, but is too self-centred to
> notice
> that his or her choice of subject and presentation can offend other people's
> taste or values, again -- why should the viewer not take offence if the work
> is
> offensive, even if the offence was caused by the artist's ignorance rather
> than
> malice? Why, in other words, should an artist be exempt from the
> criticism "this is offensive" just because he (or she) has declared: "This
> is
> my ART"??
> 
> 
> ERN
> 
> 

Re: PAW: Self Portrait...

[Keith Whaley]

Fred Widall wrote:
Now you mention it, Keith, I do see a resemblance there - must
be the ears !!!

Naw, that's Frank after a few beers!
keith

Ears?  Hell, I never thought of that!  Thanks!
keith

Re: PAW: Self Portrait...

[Fred Widall]

Now you mention it, Keith, I do see a resemblance there - must
be the ears !!!

> Naw, that's Frank after a few beers!
>
> keith
>
>

Re: OT: Non-Microsoft browsers are most secure choice

[Peter J. Alling]

I think there was a website where they cut a hole in door of a 
refrigerator to see if the light went out when the door was closed.
(I'll look for it).

Norm Baugher wrote:
You wouldn't happen to have any of that research handy that you could 
post to the list, do you?
Norm

Rob Brigham wrote:
We field tested that when I was in University actually and they do go
out ;-)
 

-Original Message-
From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or how to prove that refrigerator lights actually go out when the 
door is shut, I'm sure we'd be interested in those too!
  

 

Re: PAW: Self Portrait...

[Cotty]

On 13/7/04, Fred Widall, discombobulated, offered:

>http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall/Self_Portrait/
>
>As an aside to the current flame wars I offer up my PAW for this
>week. My wife says its a very good likeness, though I think she's
>mistaking me with the person on the right.
>
>DISCLAIMER:
>==
>No nudity or other offensive content - other than my face that is -
>and the image is suitable for viewing by people of all religions,
>creeds, nationalities, genders or moral viewpoints.


Blimey Fred, a bleedin donkey! You might have warned me pal.



Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

Re: OT: Windows Scob virus collects passwords, financial data; Macintosh unaffected

[Paul Stenquist]

Hey, here's an idea. Let's rekindle a dead flame war.
Yes, you've been away that long.
On Jul 13, 2004, at 7:26 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote:
Wise words? From Antonio?  Have I been away that long!!
Bob Blakely wrote:
Jostein was a respected member of this list before you uttered your 
first
wise word and he remains so.

Regards,
Bob...
From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Grow up Jostein. Take your trolling elsewhere. I am not interested.

Re: OT: Windows Scob virus collects passwords, financial data; Macintosh unaffected

[Peter J. Alling]

Wise words? From Antonio?  Have I been away that long!!
Bob Blakely wrote:
Jostein was a respected member of this list before you uttered your first
wise word and he remains so.
Regards,
Bob...
From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 

Grow up Jostein. Take your trolling elsewhere. I am not interested.
   


 

Re: Let's Talk about PENTAX

[Tom C]

Thanks for being so considerate...

Tom C.


From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Let's Talk about PENTAX
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:59:04 +0100
Yes.  Next...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:47:10 -0600, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even though I find the ongoing topics very interesting, it's preventing  
me from getting my work done...

Does anyone know the origin of the name PENTAX?

Tom C.


From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three  
shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:37:24 -0600

That's what I meant, not to imply any disrespect to others on the list.
If I remember my history correctly, Rome was already disintegrating,  and 
the conversion of Constantine helped unite it to some degree.  The  
"official" State Christianity adopted numeorus  holidays, teachings,  and 
beliefs from the pagan system of worship in Rome, and they continue  to 
this day.

That form of Christianity was startlingly different from both the  
teaching and behavior of Christ himself, and the early 1st century  
congregations.


Tom C.


From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the  three 
shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:17:45 -0700


Tom C wrote:
Rome never did become Christian.  It became "Christian".
Is that your way of saying, "in name only?"
I can't think of any other way of interpreting those two sentences.
keith  whaley
And you're way over the top.

Tom C.

From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the  
three shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:00:55 -0400

"My values are the only "right" ones. If you do not subscribe to  them 
with every bit of your mind, body, and soul you are damned! If  you do 
not I have the duty to send you to the maker for judgment  right now."

Are those the values you are talking about?
100 years ago the white, puritan, English descended, culture here  
dictated right and wrong. They were right, and everyone else in the  
world was wrong. Of course they came to America because they wanted  
to get away from all those evil degenerate people in England.

Actually, though, to my way of thinking, intolerance and hypocrisy  
was the only thing they actually practiced.

In my experience life is far better today then it was when I was a  
kid 40-60 years ago. When self-rightous "moral" "nuclear family"  
assholes had the "right" to abuse their kids.

And a thought to end this on, Rome never fell until after it became  
Christian.

REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL SHIT THREAD! IF  
YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE  
STICK YOUR HEADS BACK UP YOUR ASSHOLES WHERE THEY BELONG.

PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself.
--
Tom C wrote:
The problem I see with this whole thing is this...

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html








--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: PESO - Night Bird

[David Nelson]

Thanks Brian, I was hoping someone local would recognise it (-:
Frogmouths are really funny birds. They also manage to stay perfectly 
still for six seconds when the shutter's open (-:
Taken with a 50mm lens, I was about 5 metres away from it. Focussing was 
a pain.

David
Brian Walters wrote:
David
Really great image.  You managed to get just the right angle to show it's
unmistakably a frogmouth.  Love the  eyebrows!
Cheers
Brian
+
Brian Walters
Western Sydney, Australia
On Tue Jul 13  5:05 , David Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:

http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/tawny2.jpg
Taken just then. Processed relatively little (crop and a slight level 
adjust to kill the blacks), other than that it's straight out of the camera.

Oh, and no smart comments advising me to have a play with the 
shadow/highlight tool q-:

David

 Introducing Wheel: http://www.spymac.com/wheel

Re: Let's Talk about PENTAX

[John Forbes]

Yes.  Next...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:47:10 -0600, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even though I find the ongoing topics very interesting, it's preventing  
me from getting my work done...

Does anyone know the origin of the name PENTAX?

Tom C.


From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three  
shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:37:24 -0600

That's what I meant, not to imply any disrespect to others on the list.
If I remember my history correctly, Rome was already disintegrating,  
and the conversion of Constantine helped unite it to some degree.  The  
"official" State Christianity adopted numeorus  holidays, teachings,  
and beliefs from the pagan system of worship in Rome, and they continue  
to this day.

That form of Christianity was startlingly different from both the  
teaching and behavior of Christ himself, and the early 1st century  
congregations.


Tom C.


From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the  
three shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:17:45 -0700


Tom C wrote:
Rome never did become Christian.  It became "Christian".
Is that your way of saying, "in name only?"
I can't think of any other way of interpreting those two sentences.
keith  whaley
And you're way over the top.

Tom C.

From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the  
three shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:00:55 -0400

"My values are the only "right" ones. If you do not subscribe to  
them with every bit of your mind, body, and soul you are damned! If  
you do not I have the duty to send you to the maker for judgment  
right now."

Are those the values you are talking about?
100 years ago the white, puritan, English descended, culture here  
dictated right and wrong. They were right, and everyone else in the  
world was wrong. Of course they came to America because they wanted  
to get away from all those evil degenerate people in England.

Actually, though, to my way of thinking, intolerance and hypocrisy  
was the only thing they actually practiced.

In my experience life is far better today then it was when I was a  
kid 40-60 years ago. When self-rightous "moral" "nuclear family"  
assholes had the "right" to abuse their kids.

And a thought to end this on, Rome never fell until after it became  
Christian.

REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL SHIT THREAD! IF  
YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE  
STICK YOUR HEADS BACK UP YOUR ASSHOLES WHERE THEY BELONG.

PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself.
--
Tom C wrote:
The problem I see with this whole thing is this...

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html








--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: F, FA and FAJ??

[Peter J. Alling]

Don Sanderson wrote:
Sorry for the last post without a subject, still trying to get used to the
list
requiring "Plain Text" format.
Have to send them a couple more times to get it right.
Does anyone know if there is a clear cut distinction between these different
Pentax
AF lens designations, or perhaps a site that lists the differences?
 

There is a site:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/
But the short answer is that in practice there is little or no 
difference in operation between FA and F lenses.
The FAJ lenses are designed without aperture rings making them less 
useful or effectively useless on cameras
which cannot change the aperture manually from the camera body.

Also what is the difference between SMC and SMCP?
 

None.
Thanks
Don
 

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Paul Stenquist]

Tom C. noted:
Now... the flipside... most people without a moral center (religious 
or otherwise), and I'm not intending to imply anything about any PDML 
member, won't give a damn about infringing on my freedoms, wishes, or 
desires.
And we can be thankful that no one here has infringed on your freedoms, 
wishes, or desires.  No one has asked you to look at anything you find 
offensive, and no one has asked you to discuss any of these issues.  We 
are all free to do as we choose. Thank God for that.
Paul

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Rob Studdert]

On 13 Jul 2004 at 11:41, Tom C wrote:

> The problem I see with this whole thing is this...
> 
> 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society.
> 2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years.  What is OK
> today was not OK yesterday.  Did it suddenly become OK or did standards change?
> 3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of nudity
> put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. 4. The basic
> building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. Man/Woman/Child. 

Societies position of what is moral changes constantly (is cyclic in fact) and 
has since the start of written history (if not before).


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: OT: Afghan girl (was Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Rob Studdert]

On 13 Jul 2004 at 19:42, Bob W wrote:

> It seems to me that unless you have a problem with that type of
> photography in general then it is probably rather inconsistent to
> single out that particular picture.

Well yes I do in fact, I'm totally at odds with it usually, the arguments/self 
justifications presented by most photographers engaging in these types of 
activities are generally poor to say the least.

> I think you're putting a very negative spin on his motives. According
> to what I have read, he returned many times looking for her to try and
> learn what had become of her, partly to satisfy public curiosity,
> partly to satisfy his own, and partly to tell her the story of her
> photograph. Eventually he succeeded.

I'd like to know what the motives really were and who drove/financed them.

> NG and McCurry set up a fund for Afghan girls at the request of the
> woman in question. Here is some information about it:

17 or so years later, and they had to be asked, think about it.

> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/12/1205_031205_afghanfund.html
> 
> It's probably true that National Geographic and Steve McCurry have made more
> money out of the photograph than the fund has earned, but that is one of the
> dilemmas of having professional journalists telling us about the world.
> Different journalists resolve the dilemma in different ways.

It may be but I've seen the particular National Geographic and Steve McCurry 
"how they found the Afghan girl" production and it's pure exploitation 
regardless of what has since been born out of it. But that's just my opinion of 
course, I don't even like shooting people on the street here without asking 
permission and I know legally it's entirely unnecessary.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PAW: Self Portrait...

[Keith Whaley]

Fred Widall wrote:
http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall/Self_Portrait/
As an aside to the current flame wars I offer up my PAW for this
week. My wife says its a very good likeness, though I think she's
mistaking me with the person on the right.
Naw, that's Frank after a few beers!
keith

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

lol, good point Jens!

tan.

-Original Message-
From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 3:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three
shot series)


It's interesting that the last supper apparently always takes place at only
three sides of the table - too make life easier for painters and
photographers :-)

Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 12. juli 2004 23:58
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three
shot series)


Hey Paul, interesting shots. By the way, have you ever seen "Yo Mama's
Last Supper" by Renee Cox? It was the life-sized photograph that was
displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 2001. It caused quite a flap
because it depicted the Last Supper, with Jesus portrayed as a naked
woman. I went to see it at the museum and I found it quite powerful. I'm
having trouble finding a decent-sized image of it online but here is a
small one. (Collin, this obviously isn't for you.)

http://www.nerve.com/Photography/Cox/Shocking/viewimage.asp?num=4

Amita

Re: PAW - Not everyone sells their stuff on eBay

[Paul Stenquist]

Meyer Lansky was a Jewish gangster in the United States. Ironically, he 
was a supporter of Israel. He was one of the few American mobsters who 
escaped prosectution. He died in his eighties as a wealthy man living 
in Miami. There are many fascinating stories about Lansky. He was quite 
a character and a prototypical underworld boss.
Paul
On Jul 13, 2004, at 6:26 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote:

Now that sounds like a story.  Meyer Lansky?
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I've been refused entry to Israel due to my fanily's connection with 
Meyer
Lansky.
Shel


[Original Message]
From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I almost wish to challenge you to come to Israel and try your magic
here. At least I would get to meet you in person ...

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Keith Whaley]

Bob W wrote:
Hi,
Tuesday, July 13, 2004, 8:58:42 PM, El wrote:

I'm sorry I implied your statement was ignorant...  Julius Caesar, as the
ruler of possibly the most powerful empire ever in history, by nature of his...

On a point of pedantry, Julius Caesar was never the emperor. Rome became an empire 
under
Augustus.
Yeah, but it was Julius, the old dog, that made Cleopatra preggers!  
keith whaley

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Tom C]

That's appreciated Paul... sincerely.
It also means if my son walked up and saw the warning in a post, he could 
conclude I was going to, or already had gone and looked.  Or my wife, the 
same thing... or maybe now my son has the idea to go and look.

I'm probably oversimplifying, and among other things realize I am not an 
island.

Tom C.


From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three 
shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:39:44 -0400

I have never seen a sexually explicit image posted by a PDML member either 
on the PUG or elsewhere. The images I posted included nudity, they were not 
sexually explicit. And of course the PUG doesn't even allow nudity. That's 
a good thing, because you don't know what you're going to find when you go 
there. On the other hand, if I post a nude on my own web page and tell 
people here they can look at it if they choose, that's an entirely 
different matter. You can still read the PDML in the library and never 
worry about offending anyone. The images I posted didn't appear on the PDML 
or the PUG.
Paul
On Jul 13, 2004, at 3:53 PM, Jens Bladt wrote:

I second that, Tom.
I would prefer to be able to see PDML stuff on the screen, even if there 
are
children present, at work, the libraries etc., where I don't want do cause
others to feel embarrassed.
Jens Bladt

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 13. juli 2004 21:36
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three
shot series)
Many of us, and let me presume all of us, filter out all kinds of things 
we
don't want to see or hear.  My satellite TV controller has plenty of 
filters
set up.

This constant filtering from all sources becomes exhausting and tiresome.  
I
personally would prefer that the PDML, and by extension the PUG, does not
become a forum for the display of what some  would consider sexually
explicit images, even if there's a warning/disclaimor.

It's as simple as that.  I know that's probably too much to ask and that
somone will suggest this a public forum that reflects the disparate views 
of
it's constituents.   Which is true.  I still would wish that nudity, 
whether
considered art by some or pornography by others, does not become a topic 
of
this list.


Tom C.


From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three
shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:17:08 -0400
On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:29 PM, Bob Blakely wrote:

"Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't
bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?"

We already have that. No one here is bombarded with sexual images. For 
one,
sex and artful nudity are not the same thing. More importantly, to the 
best
of my knowledge no one on the forum has ever referenced a nude without
indicating that viewer discretion is advised. If you choose of our own 
free
well to view the piece, that certainly doesn't constitute bombardment.
Paul

RE: GFM Article

[Butch Black]

TV Wrote:

Yeah, but they *taste* like bear, so it's the same difference.


And when was the last time you ate bear? Not to be confused with the
question when was the last time you ate bare? (do not want to know the
answer to either question)

Butch

Re: OT Strange eBay ad

[Peter J. Alling]

This is Gooeyduck.  He used to sell a lot of photo-related stuff on 
e-bay until he got himself kicked off due to
excessive bad feedback.  (He was very slow shipping, although most 
people were happy with his quality).  He
apparently talked his friend ssearss into letting him run adverts for 
him.  This is however a classic Gooeyduck advert.

Rob Studdert wrote:
A latent photographer trying to break free of the bindings of an eBay existence 
maybe or a frustrated ex-govt employee? In any case it's the weirdest eBay ad 
I've come across for a while :-)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4688&item=3825994568
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
 

PAW: Self Portrait...

[Fred Widall]

http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall/Self_Portrait/

As an aside to the current flame wars I offer up my PAW for this
week. My wife says its a very good likeness, though I think she's
mistaking me with the person on the right.

DISCLAIMER:
==
No nudity or other offensive content - other than my face that is -
and the image is suitable for viewing by people of all religions,
creeds, nationalities, genders or moral viewpoints.


--
 Fred Widall,
 Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall
--

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[DagT]

Nudity is an issue here, as a result of cultural differences.  I don´t 
think it has much to do with religion at all.

When I was 4 to 6 I lived in Colorado.  I didn´t care to much for 
clothes so when it was warm I usually took them of.  My parents where, 
of course, scared of being arrested.  In Norway, having a christian 
state religion (and in fact in most of the world), this seems crazy.  
Even at my brothers house in a strict muslim part of Indonesia small 
children were running around naked.

As a nude child is considered to be innocent in my culture I could very 
easily have file such a picture in a PAW.  I even did in the PUG, but 
you only saw his back.

Now, is there a rule saying that I should follow some moral standards 
more than others?  Should the photographed person cover their body, 
their breasts, their heads, or should we not make images of human 
beings at all, like some traditions dictate.

For me sitting here it is difficult to know which standard to choose.  
On the internet you have to rely on peoples ability to make their own 
decisions, I cannot make them for them.  When in doubt, I can warn 
them, but that was done in this case, so I can´t understand the 
reactions.

DagT
På 13. jul. 2004 kl. 23.03 skrev Tom C:
I don't think nudity is as much the issue...  I personally think the 
human body is a great work of art, but IMO, most images of nudes are 
not designed with that in mind.

By in large I guess what I'd like to express is that there's a whole 
plethora of images and subject matter that could be discussed that is 
likely offensive to no one.  Surely we can find something within that 
selection, instead of choosing what will offend some.


Tom C.


From: Anders Hultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Also consider that nude human bodies during all times have been one 
of the major motives for all kinds of art. Sculptures, paintings, 
drawings... and photography. Not everyone agrees that nudity is the 
limit to enforce.
--
anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/
med dagens bild och allt!

Re: PAW - Not everyone sells their stuff on eBay

[Peter J. Alling]

Now that sounds like a story.  Meyer Lansky?
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I've been refused entry to Israel due to my fanily's connection with Meyer
Lansky.  

Shel 

 

[Original Message]
From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   

 

I almost wish to challenge you to come to Israel and try your magic
here. At least I would get to meet you in person ...

   


 

Re: OT: Instant messaging?

[Jon M]

AIM: jonwithouth
ICQ: 59436253

-Jon Myers.



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Tom C]

And you are the POT calling the KETTLE black, El Gringo.


Tom C.


From: "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three 
shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:38:20 -0500

Okay, sure, some art is offensive just to be offensive BUT EVEN IN THOSE
CASES, it is still ART, it is still SELF EXPRESSION, it is still the RIGHT
OF THE ARTIST to PROVOKE, INSULT, or otherwise offend ANY GROUP HE OR SHE
CHOOSES...  You cannot argue against it, by arguing against it you are a
hypocrite, because you wish to have your belief heard over theirs, when all
they want is to have their belief heard, not necessarily above any other
belief.  I think I pointed out what the meaning of the last supper piece
with naked black woman probably was, without getting to patronizing, but I
can patronize you if Thats what it takes...  I honestly cannot believe the
kind of idiocy some of you people subscribe to.  ARE YOU FROM THE MIDDLE
AGES?>???  Why don't you just start advocating chopping peoples heads off
for speaking ill of our good lord...  Whomever that is.
-el gringo

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three
shot series)
Paul "Steady" Stenquist shared:
> I don't think the work disparages anyone's God. It simply applies the
> Last Supper as a metaphor. One can interpret in any number of ways.
> Perhaps it speaks to the dehumanizing of women as sex objects. Perhaps
> it speaks to the sacrifice women make in bringing children into the
> world. Like most art, it is ambiguous. It's a shame that anyone is
> offended by art, whether it be good art or bad art. I believe that art
> is usually too vague to take that personally.
I think that as many artists as there are in the world, we can't generalize
about all of them successfully. I don't know anything about Renee Cox at
all,
so I'm not saying anything about her specifically. But -- Some artists may
indeed produce something that can be interpreted in any number of ways and
be
ambiguous, but some other artists do select their subject matter and their
presentation deliberately to provoke, or even to insult, people whose 
values
they do not share. If the intent of the artist is to cause offence, why 
then
should the viewer not take offence? In fact, the viewer who doesn't take
offence in that case is the person who "missed the point" of the work,
wouldn't
you think?
If an artist didn't set out to cause offence, but is too self-centred to
notice
that his or her choice of subject and presentation can offend other 
people's
taste or values, again -- why should the viewer not take offence if the 
work
is
offensive, even if the offence was caused by the artist's ignorance rather
than
malice? Why, in other words, should an artist be exempt from the
criticism "this is offensive" just because he (or she) has declared: "This
is
my ART"??

ERN

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jul 13, 2004, at 5:42 PM, Cotty wrote:
Ah, but were they taken with a Pentax?
HAR!

You can bet your sweet booty they were!  Pentax *ist D all the way with 
the venerable SMC Pentax 50/1.4 mounted. No Canons in my closet 
HAR!

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Bob W]

Hi,

[...]
> If the intent of the artist is to cause offence, why then
> should the viewer not take offence? In fact, the viewer who doesn't take
> offence in that case is the person who "missed the point" of the work, wouldn't
> you think?

I wouldn't, no. Any artist could try to offend me, and perhaps fail. That
does not mean that I've missed the point. It just means I live in early
21st century London and have seen several generations of attempts to
'epater le bourgeoisie'. Eventually it becomes tiresome.

> malice? Why, in other words, should an artist be exempt from the
> criticism "this is offensive" just because he (or she) has declared: "This is
> my ART"??

Perhaps we can turn this round, and ask why so many people seem to
spend so much time being 'offended' by so many things. There seems to
be a widespread belief around that everybody should be immune from
'offense' and protected from things they don't like.

"You mustn't do that, some people might find it offensive".

Well, f_ck them.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program

[Alan Chan]

Have you looked at more modern cameras?  I almost bought a PZ-1P recently.
US$300/C$400 could buy you a mint one. Not bad imo.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Re: Polite Request re Image Displaying

[Cotty]

On 13/7/04, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, offered:

>Do you feel this is not a good/proper method of presenting them?
>The new FAQ says nothing to guide me in this and the old FAQ seems to no
>longer be accessible.
>
>Don (PDML Newbie)

That;s fine Don, but nothing to do with the PDML per se, I think it's
just reasonable to assume that a picture posted should be accessed by the
technical equivalent of the 'lowest common denominator', which I would
guess as being 800 x 600. Of course, this is purely a courtesy and nobody
need comply. But as a viewer, I don;t have to look at it ;-)

(hey does this sound like a different thread currently running or what ?!? ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Anders Hultman]

Tom C:
2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years.
I don't agree. Morals have changed, for certain, but I'd say that 
most of these changes have been for the better. My assessment is that 
people on average are more happy now than a hundred years ago, and 
that is partly due to more liberal morals.

4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family.
Man/Woman/Child.  When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks
down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down.  Hence the decay
we see today in society as a whole.
I don't agree with this either. Despite the big changes in what is 
considered acceptable behaviour etc, people still form families. Of 
course they do. I don't think there is any imminent threat to society 
or the family as a concept. And I don't think that people gradually 
will behave less ethical either.

How does this relate to sexual images?  Sexual images on the whole do
not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, if not most, are
designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and desires.
I can't possibly see how you make that connection.
5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't
bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?
Maybe, maybe not. Since we all have very different definitions of 
"bombardment" and what acually is a "sexual image" it may be hard to 
draw that line. For example, I wouldn't call the pictures in question 
sexual.

Also consider that nude human bodies during all times have been one 
of the major motives for all kinds of art. Sculptures, paintings, 
drawings... and photography. Not everyone agrees that nudity is the 
limit to enforce.
--
anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/
med dagens bild och allt!

Let's Talk about PENTAX

[Tom C]

Even though I find the ongoing topics very interesting, it's preventing me 
from getting my work done...

Does anyone know the origin of the name PENTAX?

Tom C.


From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three 
shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:37:24 -0600

That's what I meant, not to imply any disrespect to others on the list.
If I remember my history correctly, Rome was already disintegrating, and 
the conversion of Constantine helped unite it to some degree.  The 
"official" State Christianity adopted numeorus  holidays, teachings, and 
beliefs from the pagan system of worship in Rome, and they continue to this 
day.

That form of Christianity was startlingly different from both the teaching 
and behavior of Christ himself, and the early 1st century congregations.


Tom C.


From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three 
shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:17:45 -0700


Tom C wrote:
Rome never did become Christian.  It became "Christian".
Is that your way of saying, "in name only?"
I can't think of any other way of interpreting those two sentences.
keith  whaley
And you're way over the top.

Tom C.

From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three 
shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:00:55 -0400

"My values are the only "right" ones. If you do not subscribe to them 
with every bit of your mind, body, and soul you are damned! If you do 
not I have the duty to send you to the maker for judgment right now."

Are those the values you are talking about?
100 years ago the white, puritan, English descended, culture here 
dictated right and wrong. They were right, and everyone else in the 
world was wrong. Of course they came to America because they wanted to 
get away from all those evil degenerate people in England.

Actually, though, to my way of thinking, intolerance and hypocrisy was 
the only thing they actually practiced.

In my experience life is far better today then it was when I was a kid 
40-60 years ago. When self-rightous "moral" "nuclear family" assholes 
had the "right" to abuse their kids.

And a thought to end this on, Rome never fell until after it became 
Christian.

REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL SHIT THREAD! IF YOU 
DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE STICK YOUR 
HEADS BACK UP YOUR ASSHOLES WHERE THEY BELONG.

PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself.
--
Tom C wrote:
The problem I see with this whole thing is this...

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Tom C]

WHO did I TELL what?  I only made some statements, expressed some opnions, 
and asked some questions?


Tom C.


From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:18:47 -0600, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I myself believe there is an absolute truth and that their is a God with  
standards for right and wrong.

Some people believe not.  That's their right to choose.
Even having strongly held personal views and convictions, I believe it  is 
not my right to force mine on others.  If God has given individuals  the 
freedom to choose their way of life, who am I to take it away?

Now... the flipside... most people without a moral center (religious or  
otherwise), and I'm not intending to imply anything about any PDML  
member, won't give a damn about infringing on my freedoms, wishes, or  
desires.

Whilst it's perfectly in order for you to tell them what to do and what  
not to do?

Good grief!
If there were a God, I'd ask to be a lion.
John
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)

[Malcolm Smith]

> Tom C wrote:

> Many of us, and let me presume all of us, filter out all 
> kinds of things we don't want to see or hear.  My satellite 
> TV controller has plenty of filters set up.
> 
> This constant filtering from all sources becomes exhausting 
> and tiresome.  I personally would prefer that the PDML, and 
> by extension the PUG, does not become a forum for the display 
> of what some  would consider sexually explicit images, even 
> if there's a warning/disclaimor.
> 
> It's as simple as that.  I know that's probably too much to 
> ask and that somone will suggest this a public forum that 
> reflects the disparate views of
> it's constituents.   Which is true.  I still would wish that 
> nudity, whether
> considered art by some or pornography by others, does not 
> become a topic of this list.

There is certainly a lot on the internet that *I* don't want to see, much
less my children. Having said that, as a subscriber of individual e-mails, I
am often warned twice that a PAW might not be for me; firstly by any OT
header in the subject line and secondly by having to click on a hyperlink to
see the image concerned. The PUG has it's own rules of what is permissible
to submit and what isn't.

I certainly don't like the feeling that certain images may upset people -
particularly here, but the images we see often reflect parts of human life
some would best like forgotten - like iWitness. But it happens.

By submitting some shots as PAWs, an element of choice is given with the
captions before the link. I retain responsibility over use of the computer
my end, but no doubt no matter how well I filter the outside world,
something unpleasant will come in, often without any warning being given.
PDML has always given me a choice.

Malcolm