RE: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1
BOY oh BOY! Come to MY country, Steal MY Pets and People style! SHEESH! Give a guy a break! My favorite model doesn't appear very pleased about it either! http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/beau.htm Seriously, Nice Photo! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 6:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1 Just felt like posting this from the USA trip this spring: http://oksne.net/paw/assateague1.html Any and all comments welcome. Jostein
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
Jon, The Super Program has DOF preview (just double checked). The MEII winder with it makes a nice combination. The feel is lighter with a better grip than the LX + winder. The Motor Drive A is good, but heavy with 8 AA batteries. You are correct, there is no MLU. You don't mention TTL flash on the LX and Super Program. Once you try it, you'll love it. There is no going back... LXen are still $400US+ on ebay, if less they need a $200 CLA. If you are patient, you'll get a Super Program for under $100. It's a great bargain, as these are excellent cameras. Many more of them were sold than the LXen. They don't suffer from sticky mirror or need major overhauls. They had a Tyro Mode so could be used as a point'n'shoot. Many were purchased and saw only very light use. They are still in great condition 20 years later. Although I have LXen and Super Programs, I don't own a K2dmd. It is rare and expensive. Regards, Bob S. I've been thinking about picking up another camera body, and I wanted some opinions. Things I'd like in order of importance are aperture priority and manual mode, ability to be motorized (my A3000 has spoiled me), DOF preview and MLU. What I've given particular attention to is the LX (nice, very nice... but expensive), the K2DMD (seemingly uncommon, expensive compared to a regular K2), and the Super Program / Super A (common, cheap, lacks MLU and DOF preview). Anybody that's used any or all have any remarks about these, especially comparatively? Reading specifications only goes so far. Thanks. -Jon Myers
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
Probably the same that you have with any heavily used 20+ year old cameras with foam seals in it. Old Wheatfield Willie (William Robb) probably lets Leica and Rollei (his Rottweilers) use his LX's as chew toys (they chewed up hockey pucks so fast it got to be too expensive). I have never owned an LX myself (I'm an MX fan), but I do not remember hearing of reliability problems when they were fairly new. -- Jon M wrote: What sort of reliability issues are there with the LX? -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
I like the KX (non-DMD) for it's basic reliability. Over the years I've had several MX which have showed a profound ability to wear out. The two KX I've owned have been consistent performers. It's my bw body. The Super Program has the worst UI on a camera, next to the old Nikon N70 film camera. But with a winder it feels good to the hand. I use it for color shooting. Never had an LX. Maybe someday, if film is still around. Always like the 2 A3000s I've owned. It's a convenient design and I found them reliable. Collin Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Polite Request re Image Displaying
Can I make a very polite request? If you post a pic on a website, especially your own, is there any chance that you could offer users the option of viewing the full picture at an absolute maximum physical size of about 1000 pixels by 700 pixels? In fact I would personally go no bigger than 800 by 600. The reason for this is that when seen on a monitor that does not support a screen size larger than 1024 x 768 (as my computers don't) then one is looking at only a large portion of the pic, and scrolling is required. A number of users view the internet on screens only supporting 800 x 600 - although these are becoming less common now. Sites like Photo.net offer a choice of viewing sizes, which is excellent. If I open a page with a pic on and I can't see the entire shot, then frankly I'm not fussed, and close it again. That may be fine and you may not care one jot what i think or do, but I would suggest that if you are after maximum exposure when posting a pic, by posting it overly large, you are not getting it. HTH and thanks and sorry Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Fixing a viewfinder
That's a good point, thanks, hadn't thought to mention it. They can sometimes make custom diopter lenses too. Don -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 6:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fixing a viewfinder David, I assume you are talking about the lens in the viewfinder eyepiece. If so, when you get it out, your friendly local optician could probably grind a new one to fit, assuming you can not find a donor camera. Just take the old one in and ask. -- David Weiss wrote: Thanks Don, and others for your valuble tips. As soon as I find a replacement, I will let you know. Dave (Still in market for a parts KX camera) -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Samsung Camera Phone has a Pentax lens?
DPR are reporting a 3MP camera phone from Samsung with a Pentax lens. The link to the original story doesn't mention the Pentax lens, although DPR does. I'm just off to work - any detectives outn there? http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04071202samsungsph2300.asp Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
- Original Message - From: Lon Williamson Subject: Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program One of the reasons the SuperProgram might have a bouncy shutter is that it has a fairly low shutter lag, on the order of 50 milliseconds, which was considered fast in its day, and certainly respectable today. Mebbe that was more of a target in its design than a well-damped mirror. The LX is something like 35 ms lag, and the Program Plus (same chassis, different shutter) is less bouncy. William Robb
Re: Samsung Camera Phone has a Pentax lens?
Hi! DPR are reporting a 3MP camera phone from Samsung with a Pentax lens. The link to the original story doesn't mention the Pentax lens, although DPR does. I'm just off to work - any detectives outn there? http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04071202samsungsph2300.asp I like my gadgets combined. I used to carry Visor Platinum with VisorPhone module attached... If not the price, it could have been an interesting buy for me. Thanks Cotty, excellent news... Boris
Re: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1
- Original Message - From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] BOY oh BOY! Come to MY country, Steal MY Pets and People style! SHEESH! Give a guy a break! My favorite model doesn't appear very pleased about it either! http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/beau.htm Seriously, Nice Photo! ;-) Don LOL! Thanks, Don. Your model looks positively more wild than the so-called wild ponies of Assateague...:-) Of course you're welcome over here to steal my motifs anytime. Cheers, Jostein
RE: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
The Super Program has the worst UI on a camera, next to the old Nikon N70 film camera. But with a winder it feels good to the hand. I use it for color shooting. That's a matter of opinion, of course. :) I love the UI of the Super Program. I shoot mine almost exclusively in shutter priority mode, and the method for changing shutter speed on it works just fine for me. I have had problems with mine - the film transport on my first one needs to be lubricated or something, and I tried to do it myself but I think it needs professional care, so I bought another one (from Collin, actually). Jon, I think the only way you can make a decision is to go to a camera shop and play with these cameras. Do you have one near you? Everyone's preferences are different. Amita
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
Mr Robb quoted and posted as follows: - Original Message - From: Jon M Subject: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program I've been thinking about picking up another camera body, and I wanted some opinions. Things I'd like in order of importance are aperture priority and manual mode, ability to be motorized (my A3000 has spoiled me), DOF preview and MLU. Also, look at the ME Super as a possibility. It is kind of a mini LX in some respects, and is a very nice camera in it's own way. While it doesn't have the really nice feel of the LX, it is much more reliable. But it has neither DOF preview nor MLU. ERN
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
On 13 Jul 2004 at 6:22, William Robb wrote: The LX is something like 35 ms lag, and the Program Plus (same chassis, different shutter) is less bouncy. Hmm, VeeDub Bugs and 911s same chassis, different engine too? :-) 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: Polite Request re Image Displaying
On 13 Jul 2004 at 13:05, Cotty wrote: Can I make a very polite request? If you post a pic on a website, especially your own, is there any chance that you could offer users the option of viewing the full picture at an absolute maximum physical size of about 1000 pixels by 700 pixels? In fact I would personally go no bigger than 800 by 600. I'm a bit surprised that your browser doesn't have an option for automatic image resizing? Both my new browsers do, only my 2001 vintage Netscape can't. The only time it doesn't work is when the images are generated/posted to the browser using flash or java based applications. Check here for a real browser: http://www.mozilla.org/products/ Sites like Photo.net offer a choice of viewing sizes, which is excellent. If I open a page with a pic on and I can't see the entire shot, then frankly I'm not fussed, and close it again. That may be fine and you may not care one jot what i think or do, but I would suggest that if you are after maximum exposure when posting a pic, by posting it overly large, you are not getting it. Had a look at photo.net in the last week, they've screwed up what was a usable system (image sizing wise) trying to make it more glam. 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)
Hmmm. Regards, Bob... --- No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -- Mark Twain From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bob Blakely wrote: This is art and well done. It is indeed powerful, however... It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my parents, or perhaps my best friend. In fact, it was. That line is just obscure enough to make no sense at all. keith whaley The work reveals a lot about the artist, about his willingness to cause pain to a multitude of people which is about his character. You say It made an impact on [you]. Please describe this impact. Regards, Bob... --- From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I had a similar reaction. I do think it is well executed, in that I could have just ignored it if it was badly done. Bob said he felt sadness, whereas I feel more of an uncomfortable confusion. Either way I found the quality of the photo hard to ignore. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/04 11:54PM This is art and well done. It is indeed powerful, however... It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my parents, or perhaps my best friend. In fact, it was. The work reveals a lot about the artist, about his willingness to cause pain to a multitude of people which is about his character. You say It made an impact on [you]. Please describe this impact. Regards, Bob... --- No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -- Mark Twain From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
But most of them are men. mike wilson wrote: More tits in the UK than anywhere else in the world..
Re: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1
Hi Dave, Thanks for commenting. Trouble in the park, as I'm sure you know, is that some horses become aggressive towards tourists who don't feed them once they get used to getting something. I like the C1 converter very much. Unlike the Photoshop CS converter, you can work with curves and levels directly at the conversion, and there are eyedropper tools for setting blackpoint and whitepoint. In all the images I have played with so far except one, it took less time to achieve a good result with the C1 than with PSCS. The PRO version has a steep price, though. If I buy it, I will have to consider one of the lighter versions. Jostein - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:45 AM Subject: Re: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1 Just felt like posting this from the USA trip this spring: http://oksne.net/paw/assateague1.html Any and all comments welcome. Jostein Nice candid moment capture,Jostein. They may not be able to read as you comment,but she looks like she is having a blast. Good angle on the horse and love those long manes. Looks like that Sigma does a good job. How do you like the trial of C1.? Dave (horse guy) Brooks
Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
Thanks for reposting them. And kudos to everyone for a very civilized discussion on a subject where overall agreement was unlikely. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/13/04 07:15AM I don't see any of the three as an American version. The placement of the one woman's hands on the other's breasts was meant to be seen as yielding to temptation. It was not done as a coverup. Thanks to all who commented on these pics and my apologies to anyone who was offended by the pictures or the conversation. Remember, however, you weren't obliged to look, and you didn't have to read the thread. I am now going to delete them from my Photo Net folder. Paul On Jul 13, 2004, at 6:41 AM, Steve Desjardins wrote: The cultural moires and/or taboos of the viewer are an essential part of a photo. It may not be anything the photographer can control, but realistically it affects the perception of the photo far more than anything as simple as resolution does. OTOH, since the woman's breasts in the Americanversion are covered with the other woman's hands, I doubt that this would appease any of the serious objectors (wry grin). [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/04 02:47PM Nice work, Paul! Do the first two shots represent the European and American versions? I sometimes do a particular shot in a couple of versions, keeping in mind who I expect will see them. Pat White
Re: Another *istD pic (PTAW?)
Why, thanks, Don! Glad you liked it. Can't wait to see the prints from Cotty and Paul. Might turn out to be expensive, though, if it's so good that I have to buy an A3 printer...:-) Jostein - Original Message - From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:36 AM Subject: RE: Another *istD pic (PTAW?) Quite a hit with this one Jostein! I've adopted it as the desktop background on my office computer. Nice way to get my mind off of work once in a while. I've had a number of people ask if it was one of mine, I'm proud to say that I 'fess up right away and admit that it's not. I add though,. with a sigh,...maybe someday. Very nice indeed, thank you for sharing it with us. Don -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:51 PM To: pentax list Subject: Re: Another *istD pic (PTAW?) On 12/7/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, offered: Jostein's landscape prints beautifully, and an 11 x17 version of it is going to be hanging in my home as soon as I can cut a mat. Another fabulous image from our Scandinavian artist. My father, were he still with us, would have loved it. (But since my dad was a Swede, we weren't allowed to say the N word in the house. That's why I refer to Jostein as a Scandinavian vbg) I'm a very lucky boy. Paul Indeed. I have printed three. One the way Jostein wants it, with his settings. One with my settings (I will send him both), and one for hanging - with his permission of course ;-) It is a very good photograph, I am well impressed with it. Bloody Vikings Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my parents, or perhaps my best friend. In fact, it was. Please explain. The work reveals a lot about the artist, about his willingness to cause pain to a multitude of people which is about his character. The artist, Renee Cox, is a woman. This interview with her is worth the read. http://archive.salon.com/sex/feature/2001/02/22/renee_cox/ Cox portrayed Jesus herself so that she wouldnÂ’t exploit anyone. She was raised Catholic, and she says that the piece was meant as a critique of the Catholic church, because women hold no position in the church. She also says she wanted to include African-Americans in these classic scenarios. This piece was part of a series that includes the PietĂ , Adam and Eve and Michelangelo's David. You say It made an impact on [you]. Please describe this impact. It was moving to see Jesus portrayed as a woman. The fact that it was a woman of color made it that much more striking. It gave new meaning to the idea that God is in all of us. It was a very honest, confident piece.
Re: Apologies - was sex with filing cabinet
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/sdwap615.jpg LOL! That's hilarious. What a cool shot. Jostein
Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
On 13 Jul 2004 at 9:14, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: But most of them are men. mike wilson wrote: More tits in the UK than anywhere else in the world.. They have Great Tits in the UK. http://www.uksafari.com/greattits.htm 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: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
You don't mention TTL flash on the LX and Super Program. Once you try it, you'll love it. There is no going back... Amen. I haven't taken ~any~ non-TTL flash phot in a couple of decades now. (I still use some older bodies that don't provide TTL flash, but only for available light shooting.) Of course, I'm kinda lazy... Fred
Re: To ME or not to ME
The actual body, excluding the superstructure, is virtually identical, both in shape and size. The Super A/Program certainly has more on top (it's not a blonde, you see, at least the Euro version isn't). I accept they are different cameras, but the bit you hold is pretty much the same (which is why the winder fits both). That's why I argued with the assertion that the Super A is less sleek. I also disagree about it shaking like a wet dog. Mine was certainly no worse than my PZ-1p, which is better than my SFXs and K1000 and Spottie. Can't remember if the ME Super shook, doggilly or otherwise, but it's a long time ago. I did buy the Super A straight after the theft of the MES, and it just seemed like a similar camera with better features. Probably Bill Robb's got more use than mind did, and started to rattle a bit. John On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:14:57 CDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John said, regarding the Super A and the ME Super: They are sufficiently similar that they both take the ME Winder II. If they are different, there's barely a millimetre in it. They DO have different shutters, so they don't sound the same. I must admit, I made the comment assuming that the Super A and the SuperProgram are the same bodies, differing only in colour. I have owned both the ME Super and the SuperProgram, with a brief overlap, but only handled the Super A in the absence of both the others. According to the published specs, the dimensions of the two bodies (ME Super and SuperProgram) are as follows: SuperProgram -- 131mm W x 86.5mm H x 47.5mm D ME Super -- 131.5mm W x 83mm H x 49.5mm D they're pretty close but not quite the same shape, which could account for the earlier comment that the ME Super felt -- what was it, sleeker? Certainly it explains them feeling different in the hands, especially with a weight difference as well. Also it's apparent from the figures that they aren't the same body. The SuperProgram and the Program Plus, however (I think the outside-US names would be SuperA and ProgramA) have exactly the same published dimensions. Those could well be the same body with different features; perhaps they're the ones you were thinking about? ERN -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
OT: On the Road Again
In lovely old Montreal encore. This time without camera, in a combination internet cafe and employment bureau, trying to type on a keyboard that is actually in French but has English characters. Glad to see Fairygirl back on the list. She still owes me Cottys autograph (cannot locate the apostophe mark for the previous word on this keyboard). I am seeing more film cameras on this trip, including SLRs. Saw a Japanese tourist taking a tripod shot at night of a lovely building with what looked like a blad. But I have traveled 3 of the past 4 weeks, and want to stay home for a while. And, oh yeh, for those who recall my post of a couple of weeks ago, American Airlines started this trip by delaying me by two and one half hours. Back to photography in future posts, I promise. Joe
Re: To ME or not to ME
The ME Super has a very well damped mirror. There actually is a real shock absorber (like in a car) which is placed beneath the mirror box. I have a brochure on the ME Super where this is shown and explained. And it is true: The ME Super really is much more quiet than the Super A or any other Pentax SLR from that era. Arnold John Forbes schrieb: I also disagree about it shaking like a wet dog. Mine was certainly no worse than my PZ-1p, which is better than my SFXs and K1000 and Spottie. Can't remember if the ME Super shook, doggilly or otherwise, but it's a long time ago. I did buy the Super A straight after the theft of the MES, and it just seemed like a similar camera with better features. Probably Bill Robb's got more use than mind did, and started to rattle a bit. John On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:14:57 CDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John said, regarding the Super A and the ME Super: They are sufficiently similar that they both take the ME Winder II. If they are different, there's barely a millimetre in it. They DO have different shutters, so they don't sound the same. I must admit, I made the comment assuming that the Super A and the SuperProgram are the same bodies, differing only in colour. I have owned both the ME Super and the SuperProgram, with a brief overlap, but only handled the Super A in the absence of both the others. According to the published specs, the dimensions of the two bodies (ME Super and SuperProgram) are as follows: SuperProgram -- 131mm W x 86.5mm H x 47.5mm D ME Super -- 131.5mm W x 83mm H x 49.5mm D they're pretty close but not quite the same shape, which could account for the earlier comment that the ME Super felt -- what was it, sleeker? Certainly it explains them feeling different in the hands, especially with a weight difference as well. Also it's apparent from the figures that they aren't the same body. The SuperProgram and the Program Plus, however (I think the outside-US names would be SuperA and ProgramA) have exactly the same published dimensions. Those could well be the same body with different features; perhaps they're the ones you were thinking about? ERN
Re: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jostein wrote: I like the C1 converter very much. Unlike the Photoshop CS converter, you can work with curves and levels directly at the conversion, and there are eyedropper tools for setting blackpoint and whitepoint. In all the images I have played with so far except one, it took less time to achieve a good result with the C1 than with PSCS. The PRO version has a steep price, though. If I buy it, I will have to consider one of the lighter versions. I bought the $99 version (I think it is called LE). It works pretty well and gives me most of what I wanted from PRO and SE. The main annoyances: * can't copy settings from one image to another * you can't batch up more than 20 images at a time to convert Both are annoying, but neither feature is worth $150 to me (the cost to upgrade to SE). alex
Re: Polite Request re Image Displaying
G'day Rob What have I missed? I've been using Mozilla for ages and never come across an option for automatic image resizing. Can you show me the way.? Brian + Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia On Tue Jul 13 7:01 , 'Rob Studdert' [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: I'm a bit surprised that your browser doesn't have an option for automatic image resizing? Both my new browsers do, only my 2001 vintage Netscape can't. The only time it doesn't work is when the images are generated/posted to the browser using flash or java based applications. Check here for a real browser: http://www.mozilla.org/products/ Introducing Wheel: http://www.spymac.com/wheel
Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
If that's what you consider great tits, Rob, you qualify as an honorary Brit! Rob Studdert wrote: They have Great Tits in the UK.
Re: To ME or not to ME
The ME Super has a very well damped mirror. There actually is a real shock absorber (like in a car) which is placed beneath the mirror box. I have a brochure on the ME Super where this is shown and explained. And it is true: The ME Super really is much more quiet than the Super A or any other Pentax SLR from that era. Indeed. I use an ME Super as my dedicated church camera body, primarily for its relative quiet. As for the Super A / Super Program, its sound is not only louder, but is also clunkier (in that its sound is stretched out more over time). If Pentax had ever come out with an ME S with TTL flash, I'd be in hog's heaven - g. Fred
Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
Rob Studdert wrote: They have Great Tits in the UK. http://www.uksafari.com/greattits.htm And Blue Tits too: http://www.naturephotographers.bramleyfrith.co.uk/separates/british/birds/bi rd02.htm Dario
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
Not really, there were significant differences between the 911 and VW body pan. You could however make a 911 engine work if you also unbolted the transmission and put that in your bug. It did require some customer surgery IIRC. Rob Studdert wrote: On 13 Jul 2004 at 6:22, William Robb wrote: The LX is something like 35 ms lag, and the Program Plus (same chassis, different shutter) is less bouncy. Hmm, VeeDub Bugs and 911s same chassis, different engine too? :-) 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/PESO, Assateague pony #1
Jostein; I can't believe you were in our backyard and never hooked up with the DC-PDML! I love Assateague Island State and National Parks. Some amazing photo ops available. Christian -Original Message- From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jul 13, 2004 7:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1 Just felt like posting this from the USA trip this spring: http://oksne.net/paw/assateague1.html Any and all comments welcome. Jostein
Re: PESO - Night Bird
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: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
On 13 Jul 2004 at 16:58, Dario Bonazza wrote: And Blue Tits too: http://www.naturephotographers.bramleyfrith.co.uk/separates/british/birds/bi rd02.htm I hear they only come out in the cold? 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)
HAR! Regards, Bob... From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 :-)
Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
Sure you're not thinking of polititcians? Daniel J. Matyola wrote: But most of them are men. mike wilson wrote: More tits in the UK than anywhere else in the world..
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. 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. 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? As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly be called disparaging. 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 13:02:48 -0400 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. Paul On Jul 13, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Bob Blakely wrote: In fact, it was - .done (that is, portrayed by this artist) to my God who is my Father and my best friend. Regards, Bob... From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my parents, or perhaps my best friend. In fact, it was. Please explain.
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: 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. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. 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. 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? I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster proceeded was fair and correct IMO. With great respect, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
Steve Desjardins wrote: The cultural moires and/or taboos of the viewer are an essential part of a photo. But is there a pattern to it?
Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
Hi, I honestly don't know where you've seen all these birds with disgraceful names. I certainly haven't seen any We did have a lone Red Raw Freshly Spanked Buttock at the feeder the other day, I really did laugh out loud at that one! It reminds me of the gag Steven Fry and Hugh Laurie used to do (it doesn't work in writing): I was strolling through the fields and stopped to pick a buttercup - why people leave buttocks lying around in fields is beyond me - ... -- Cheers, Bob
Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
LOL. I thought the thread needed more photographic content. ;-) (Damn Spell Checker. Why can't it know the word I want? ) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/13/04 01:07PM Steve Desjardins wrote: The cultural moires and/or taboos of the viewer are an essential part of a photo. But is there a pattern to it?
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Cotty, I respect what you said. I am not suggesting censorship. I am suggesting self-sensorship. I for one, believe in the right to free speech and free expression. The obvious problem occurs when exercising ones rights to such trample on/or violates another perceived rights. We all exercise a degree of self-censorship when we are about to say/write something and then have a second thought about how that might affect the recipient, or the recipient's view of ourselves. I am simply suggesting we exercise that same thoughtfulness when it comes to presenting images. Granted, these images are not imbedded in the PDML... and an individual has a choice... Tom C. From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:47:48 +0100 On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: 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. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. 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. 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? I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster proceeded was fair and correct IMO. With great respect, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
- Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] They have Great Tits in the UK. http://www.uksafari.com/greattits.htm I honestly don't know where you've seen all these birds with disgraceful names. I certainly haven't seen any To bring them down, you have to place wing nuts on the feeding tray. We did have a lone Red Raw Freshly Spanked Buttock at the feeder the other day, but it flew off when a pair of Large Breasts With Nipples The Size Of Scammell Wheel Nuts arrived after a particularly arduous flight from South Africa. Yeah, they're stealin and robin all the time. nietsoJ
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Society decays for any number of reasons. Poverty is the worst. I think perhaps, nudity in society is not a cause but an effect of other problems. Julius Ceasar said that Poverty is the mother of all crime. Poverty fosters immorality. Decay stems from poverty not from nudity. To think that society will be destroyed because of nudity, is absurd, narrow-minded, even ignorant. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) 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. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. 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. 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? As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly be called disparaging. 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 13:02:48 -0400 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. Paul On Jul 13, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Bob Blakely wrote: In fact, it was - .done (that is, portrayed by this artist) to my God who is my Father and my best friend. Regards, Bob... From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my parents, or perhaps my best friend. In fact, it was. Please explain.
Re: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1
Hi Christian. It was on our way back from GFM. Adelheid and I took to the coast and followed the Outer Banks northwards from NC to Assateague. Sorry we didn't think of that... Jostein - Original Message - From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:03 PM Subject: Re: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1 Jostein; I can't believe you were in our backyard and never hooked up with the DC-PDML! I love Assateague Island State and National Parks. Some amazing photo ops available. Christian -Original Message- From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jul 13, 2004 7:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1 Just felt like posting this from the USA trip this spring: http://oksne.net/paw/assateague1.html Any and all comments welcome. Jostein
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
You are mispplying my words. I did not say or think society will be destroyed because of nudity. I said 'moral decay contributes to the decay or society as a whole'. What makes Julius Ceasar, of all people, an authority on the subject? 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 13:13:13 -0500 Society decays for any number of reasons. Poverty is the worst. I think perhaps, nudity in society is not a cause but an effect of other problems. Julius Ceasar said that Poverty is the mother of all crime. Poverty fosters immorality. Decay stems from poverty not from nudity. To think that society will be destroyed because of nudity, is absurd, narrow-minded, even ignorant. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) 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. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. 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. 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? As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly be called disparaging. 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 13:02:48 -0400 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. Paul On Jul 13, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Bob Blakely wrote: In fact, it was - .done (that is, portrayed by this artist) to my God who is my Father and my best friend. Regards, Bob... From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] It brings great pain and sadness to me (no, it's not the nudity per se). It's as though this was done to one of my parents, or perhaps my best friend. In fact, it was. Please explain.
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks censorship in making requests? I think your judgment that what Tom suggested censorship was way off base. And no, I am not censoring you from accusing folks of suggesting censorship, by the way. Make and report your false assumptions all you like. I even suggest that you make them seem more real by assigning me (or others) to some group about whom you have some caricature view of and then accuse us of those views! GAWD! The prejudice! Now, the following is a request. It is only a request. It is not a demand. Failure to honor the request will not result in any form of discipline. The request may be ignored. 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. Regards, Bob... From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: 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. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. 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. 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? I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster proceeded was fair and correct IMO.
Re: Polite Request re Image Displaying
Cotty, I can agree with this request. Whenever I design a website, or even just a page, I try and constrain it to 800 on the horizontal dimension. I realize the majority of internet users have this setup. IL Bill On Jul 13, 2004, at 7:05 AM, Cotty wrote: Can I make a very polite request? If you post a pic on a website, especially your own, is there any chance that you could offer users the option of viewing the full picture at an absolute maximum physical size of about 1000 pixels by 700 pixels? In fact I would personally go no bigger than 800 by 600. The reason for this is that when seen on a monitor that does not support a screen size larger than 1024 x 768 (as my computers don't) then one is looking at only a large portion of the pic, and scrolling is required. A number of users view the internet on screens only supporting 800 x 600 - although these are becoming less common now. Sites like Photo.net offer a choice of viewing sizes, which is excellent. If I open a page with a pic on and I can't see the entire shot, then frankly I'm not fussed, and close it again. That may be fine and you may not care one jot what i think or do, but I would suggest that if you are after maximum exposure when posting a pic, by posting it overly large, you are not getting it. HTH and thanks and sorry Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I might also add that the disclaimor regarding the content of an image/movie/lyrics, etc., no matter how well intentioned, is the loophole that is used by entertainment industries to present material that might otherwise be considered totally objectionable. There is a great dichotomy in society and even individuals today regarding what we view as proper behavior for ourselves and others vs. what we view as acceptable to watch or look at. If rape is wrong, why depict it in popular entertainment for young people to view. If drug use is wrong, why depict it in popular entertainment for young people to view? There's the saying 'we are what we eat'. That can also be applied in a more intellectual sense. Our behavior and mores can be affected by what we consume and process with our eyes, ears and brains. Not meaning to be on the soapbox here... heading back down. Tom C. From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:47:48 +0100 On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: 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. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. 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. 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? I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster proceeded was fair and correct IMO. With great respect, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
OT: Afghan girl (was Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Hi, BTW I have a real problem with the Afghan Girl pic I'm not quite sure how you can have a problem with the original photo. As far as I know, when he took it he was not really aware of what he had in the can until it was processed. He was taking photos around a displaced persons camp, as that type of photographer does every day, and she was just one of many. 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. and worse the fact that he went back for another dip at the trough, 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. as far I I'm aware she's still no better off even after all it's done for them (McCurry and NG). http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0311_020312_sharbat.html NG and McCurry set up a fund for Afghan girls at the request of the woman in question. Here is some information 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. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
For which we should all be thankful... Jens Bladt wrote: 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: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: I respect what you said. I am not suggesting censorship. I am suggesting self-sensorship. I for one, believe in the right to free speech and free expression. The obvious problem occurs when exercising ones rights to such trample on/or violates another perceived rights. We all exercise a degree of self-censorship when we are about to say/write something and then have a second thought about how that might affect the recipient, or the recipient's view of ourselves. I am simply suggesting we exercise that same thoughtfulness when it comes to presenting images. Granted, these images are not imbedded in the PDML... and an individual has a choice... Understood ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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? One or two pics in (a long time) is hardly 'bombardment'! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Personally, I think there are far too many racing car pictures on this site. As a devout Walkist, any form of car picture tends to offend me, and fast cars pictures tend to offend me absolutely. Now I don't want to impose any form of censorship, so just stop posting them. I know there are only a few Walkists here, but we're right and you're wrong, so just do what we say. Ours is the one true religion! John On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:29:25 -0700, Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks censorship in making requests? I think your judgment that what Tom suggested censorship was way off base. And no, I am not censoring you from accusing folks of suggesting censorship, by the way. Make and report your false assumptions all you like. I even suggest that you make them seem more real by assigning me (or others) to some group about whom you have some caricature view of and then accuse us of those views! GAWD! The prejudice! Now, the following is a request. It is only a request. It is not a demand. Failure to honor the request will not result in any form of discipline. The request may be ignored. 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. Regards, Bob... From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: 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. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today in society as a whole. 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. 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? I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster proceeded was fair and correct IMO. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
Why not an MX? I notice it wasn't really considered in this thread. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/13/04 12:27PM BTW why not an MZ-S ?? I've not seen any used ones around (haven't looked much on ebay tho), and new ones are $770 from KEH, whereas they regularly have the LX for $350... but even that is pushing it. Jon, I think the only way you can make a decision is to go to a camera shop and play with these cameras. Do you have one near you? Everyone's preferences are different. None of the shops around here have anything more than the more common cameras. (ME, K1000, etc) Does KEH have a retail storefront, or are they phone internet order only? I'm about 2.5 to 3 hours driving distance from Atlanta. I really think I'd like the LX, but I'm scared I'll spend $350-$500 on a camera body that will need $200 worth of repairs in six months. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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. Best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Polite Request re Image Displaying
On 13/7/04, William M. Kane, discombobulated, offered: Cotty, I can agree with this request. Whenever I design a website, or even just a page, I try and constrain it to 800 on the horizontal dimension. I realize the majority of internet users have this setup. IL Bill Yeah Bill, I think that's just plain good netiquette. I like Rob's idea of being able to resize images in the browser window though might just give Mozilla a whirl... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
They are phone and internet order only, if you're in Atlanta you can stop in and pick up your order in person, but I'd hardly call their location a storefront. Jon M wrote: BTW why not an MZ-S ?? I've not seen any used ones around (haven't looked much on ebay tho), and new ones are $770 from KEH, whereas they regularly have the LX for $350... but even that is pushing it. Jon, I think the only way you can make a decision is to go to a camera shop and play with these cameras. Do you have one near you? Everyone's preferences are different. None of the shops around here have anything more than the more common cameras. (ME, K1000, etc) Does KEH have a retail storefront, or are they phone internet order only? I'm about 2.5 to 3 hours driving distance from Atlanta. I really think I'd like the LX, but I'm scared I'll spend $350-$500 on a camera body that will need $200 worth of repairs in six months. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Bombardment may not have been the right word... I was using it in a general sense... we are bombarded from numerous sources, and I was lumping the recent PDML posts in with the rest. Tom C. From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:50:43 +0100 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? One or two pics in (a long time) is hardly 'bombardment'! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
AW: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
I always thought that Pentax missed the boat somehow with the Super A/Super program although it was a very successfull camera. When it came out I was a devoted MX user - and I immediately liked the LCD display in the Super A finder ... until I discovered that it did not provide the information it promised: no aperture readout in aperture priority or in Manual - combined with a DOF lever that *only* works correctly in aperture priority / manual. I always thought when setting out to design a new lens line they should have gone he whole way and invent something that provides all the information - always. It is still a nice camera, though. Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Jon M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Juli 2004 18:27 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program BTW why not an MZ-S ?? I've not seen any used ones around (haven't looked much on ebay tho), and new ones are $770 from KEH, whereas they regularly have the LX for $350... but even that is pushing it. Jon, I think the only way you can make a decision is to go to a camera shop and play with these cameras. Do you have one near you? Everyone's preferences are different. None of the shops around here have anything more than the more common cameras. (ME, K1000, etc) Does KEH have a retail storefront, or are they phone internet order only? I'm about 2.5 to 3 hours driving distance from Atlanta. I really think I'd like the LX, but I'm scared I'll spend $350-$500 on a camera body that will need $200 worth of repairs in six months. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
I have had and used all three models you've mentioned. I think for your purposes the super program is the way to go. It is small and compact, and with the winder, only a bit bigger than the K2DMD without a winder. The main advantages I can think of (compared to the others) are: - less expensive by far... many folks not intimate with pentax models don't realize what a capable camera the SP is. That could explain why the going price on ebay (and Elsewhere) compare to the other models. - significant feature set, equal to the others and better in some regards. Like: a. TTL flash-- the 280AFT is a must have to go with this camera. Unless you spring even more for the 400 AF T. b. Faster flash sync. c. Nice viewfinder. d. Program capability with A lenses. I'm sure there's more, but those are the main ones. Having said all that, I must say that the SP stays on the shelf more than the others (LX and K2DMD) these days, but I think that is just because these models have just a bit more cool factor than the Super program. Just my opinions of course. Sid B I've been thinking about picking up another camera body, and I wanted some opinions. Things I'd like in order of importance are aperture priority and manual mode, ability to be motorized (my A3000 has spoiled me), DOF preview and MLU. What I've given particular attention to is the LX (nice, very nice... but expensive), the K2DMD (seemingly uncommon, expensive compared to a regular K2), and the Super Program / Super A (common, cheap, lacks MLU and DOF preview). Anybody that's used any or all have any remarks about these, especially comparatively? Reading specifications only goes so far.
Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I would have labelled this Off Topic, but it's actually about the list even though it's not about photography or cameras per se any more. Tom C wrote: 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. Gonna come back to that one... 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? Mores have changed. Have _morals_ actually _declined_? Not that I'm usually one to argue value relativism, but it does seem to me that in this particular area it is customs and taboos that are at stake, not morality in any meaningfully measurable sense. Does a shift in decency standards necessarily correspond to an increase in theft, fraud, murder, broken promises, usury, and so on, or is it really more a change in fashion of sorts? Do people actually behave in a less _moral_ manner today? 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. Man/Woman/Child. No, that's a relatively recent development. Civilization was built on the _extended_ family. 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. You may have a point there. I'm not convinced that you do, but I can see that you might. It would mean that most people are not wired the way I am, but I guess I should not find that possibility surprising. 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? Bombard??? Okay, admittedly I have not looked at very many of the PAW images and I'm a couple months behind on the PUG, but -- and this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one -- is this forum actually being _bombarded_ with sexual images? Or is it just a couple of them this week that's suddenly being interpreted as a bombardment? *IF* the answer is that it's just this week, then the next question obviously becomes, does this mean that no sexual imagery ever is the only acceptable (to you) guideline? Or is the perception that you are being bombarded here a result of the bombardment with sexual imagery in the world at large more than here, so that any inkling here, however usual or unusual for here, is oh no, not more of this! where the rest of this is on the telly and billboards and such? As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly be called disparaging. Distort ... corrupt ... disrepect ... Re-examine? Question? Re-interpret? Show another side of? Doesn't disrespect imply _intent_, and doesn't corrupt depend on a particular point of view? I *do* see where you're coming from on that one -- there are things you could do to holy symbols or depictions of my saviour which would similarly upset me, to be honest (though this one does not) -- but I think you're using language that polarizes the debate rather than fostering communication on the points you're trying to get across. Bob Blakely wrote: Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks censorship in making requests? I'd say the request is in a grey area with regards to concepts and definitions of censorship. No, this is clearly not an example of the _legal_, or strict, definition of censorship, but it shares much in common with actual censorship. I'm _not_ going to claim that it's morally equivalent, because, as I said, it's in a grey area, but I do not think it is unreasonable for people to have an initial emotional reaction the same as they would react to a call for censorship. You see, it's advocacy of a community standard which would impose censure on certain things; no formal censor, since messages are not manually approved by a moderator before posting, but it's an exhortation for others to raise their voices in support of this no sexual bombardment idea and _make_sexual_images_unwelcome_. The result would be self-censorship not from an innate sense of I shouldn't do that, but from _fear_ of community disapproval, complaint, argument ... whatever force the would-be-censors can bring to bear in this medium ... the fear of becoming outcast. It's a tricky thing. The request is, in some senses, a reasonable one: I don't want to see these things and I would prefer a forum where they are not present. But asking others to make them unwelcome means changing the environment for others in a way that is, to them, for the worse. And let's face it, it's really hard to make such a request without the folks it's aimed at feeling like it's an attempt to restraint them at best, or to disparage them (as morally
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: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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: OT: Afghan girl (was Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Well and rationally countered, Bob. keith whaley Bob W wrote: Hi, BTW I have a real problem with the Afghan Girl pic I'm not quite sure how you can have a problem with the original photo. As far as I know, when he took it he was not really aware of what he had in the can until it was processed. He was taking photos around a displaced persons camp, as that type of photographer does every day, and she was just one of many. 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. and worse the fact that he went back for another dip at the trough, 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. as far I I'm aware she's still no better off even after all it's done for them (McCurry and NG). http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0311_020312_sharbat.html NG and McCurry set up a fund for Afghan girls at the request of the woman in question. Here is some information 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.
Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series
LOL! mike wilson wrote: Steve Desjardins wrote: The cultural moires and/or taboos of the viewer are an essential part of a photo. But is there a pattern to it? . -- Daniel J. Matyola (908)725-3322 fax:(908)707-0399 Stanley, Powers Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 78 Grove Street mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Somerville, NJ 08876 http://geocities.com/dmatyola/
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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 position, has more insight into social matters than you or I ever will. And if you think about what he is saying for a moment, you will realize, that it is in essence, a condemnation of the state of Rome. Rome itself, could only be blamed for crime, because Rome could not keep the people out of poverty... Imagine that you rule the most powerful nation on earth, and when I say rule, I mean, RULE, not REPRESENT Imagine that, and then imagine how tempting it would be to behave like Stalin, just send the criminals to Siberia... Stalin was a fool, Caesar on the other hand, at least had the intelligence to see how his nation was flawed, and for me, when a person in that heady position, is driven to such self-assessing insight, I can only assume there is some truth in that insight. -el gringo What makes Julius Ceasar, of all people, an authority on the subject? Tom C.
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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)
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, 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. There was plenty of warning on these images. I was curious to see them, but first read the messages while I was at work. I went to look at them from home, but they had already been removed by then. PAWs should be allowed to display anything which is legal to display. If the content might offend some folks then there should be a warning saying that. Among a group of friends who often forward things to each other we just put a small tag not worksafe before links which wouldn't be appropriate to have on your display in most companies. alex
RE: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
D. Glenn Arthur and all, I'd like to respond more to your post, but lack the time and I need to go to lunch. Let's look at it from another simplistic viewpoint. The PDML has had little, if any, sexual content, art depicting nudity, art with sexual content, however one wishes to define it, in the past. Now two in one week. As you said, the term bombardment was used in a collective sense, not neccesarially accurate when used in reference to the PDML only. We have all done well and fine without it in the past... why bring it in now? How many more persons will be encouraged to present similar, if not stronger images? How many will not use any disgression when posting the link? That's probably all I'll post. I sincerely want this to be a Pentax/Photography forum. Nothing more, nothing less. Tom C. From: D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:33:42 -0400 (EDT) I would have labelled this Off Topic, but it's actually about the list even though it's not about photography or cameras per se any more. Tom C wrote: 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. Gonna come back to that one... 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? Mores have changed. Have _morals_ actually _declined_? Not that I'm usually one to argue value relativism, but it does seem to me that in this particular area it is customs and taboos that are at stake, not morality in any meaningfully measurable sense. Does a shift in decency standards necessarily correspond to an increase in theft, fraud, murder, broken promises, usury, and so on, or is it really more a change in fashion of sorts? Do people actually behave in a less _moral_ manner today? 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. Man/Woman/Child. No, that's a relatively recent development. Civilization was built on the _extended_ family. 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. You may have a point there. I'm not convinced that you do, but I can see that you might. It would mean that most people are not wired the way I am, but I guess I should not find that possibility surprising. 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? Bombard??? Okay, admittedly I have not looked at very many of the PAW images and I'm a couple months behind on the PUG, but -- and this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one -- is this forum actually being _bombarded_ with sexual images? Or is it just a couple of them this week that's suddenly being interpreted as a bombardment? *IF* the answer is that it's just this week, then the next question obviously becomes, does this mean that no sexual imagery ever is the only acceptable (to you) guideline? Or is the perception that you are being bombarded here a result of the bombardment with sexual imagery in the world at large more than here, so that any inkling here, however usual or unusual for here, is oh no, not more of this! where the rest of this is on the telly and billboards and such? As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly be called disparaging. Distort ... corrupt ... disrepect ... Re-examine? Question? Re-interpret? Show another side of? Doesn't disrespect imply _intent_, and doesn't corrupt depend on a particular point of view? I *do* see where you're coming from on that one -- there are things you could do to holy symbols or depictions of my saviour which would similarly upset me, to be honest (though this one does not) -- but I think you're using language that polarizes the debate rather than fostering communication on the points you're trying to get across. Bob Blakely wrote: Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks censorship in making requests? I'd say the request is in a grey area with regards to concepts and definitions of censorship. No, this is clearly not an example of the _legal_, or strict, definition of censorship, but it shares much in common with actual censorship. I'm _not_ going to claim that it's morally equivalent, because, as I said, it's in a grey area, but I do not think it is unreasonable for people to have an initial emotional reaction the same as they would react to a call for censorship. You see, it's
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Rome never did become Christian. It became Christian. 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)
'S a'matter, Greywolf? Someone say something that really resurrected your P.O. button? keith graywolf wrote: 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...
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
-Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rome never did become Christian. It became Christian. Hey I've stayed out of this thread! Why drag me into it Christian or Christian vbg
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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)
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. 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)
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID I MEAN EVERYTHING!! -el gringo -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) 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)
On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: Bombardment may not have been the right word... I was using it in a general sense... we are bombarded from numerous sources, and I was lumping the recent PDML posts in with the rest. Ahhh, understood. Except that there is one problem with that. I am not bombarded! Oh that i were ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Sometimes I wonder if people who are so afraid of naked bodies are so afraid because they cant control themselves?? -el gringo -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) D. Glenn Arthur and all, I'd like to respond more to your post, but lack the time and I need to go to lunch. Let's look at it from another simplistic viewpoint. The PDML has had little, if any, sexual content, art depicting nudity, art with sexual content, however one wishes to define it, in the past. Now two in one week. As you said, the term bombardment was used in a collective sense, not neccesarially accurate when used in reference to the PDML only. We have all done well and fine without it in the past... why bring it in now? How many more persons will be encouraged to present similar, if not stronger images? How many will not use any disgression when posting the link? That's probably all I'll post. I sincerely want this to be a Pentax/Photography forum. Nothing more, nothing less. Tom C. From: D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:33:42 -0400 (EDT) I would have labelled this Off Topic, but it's actually about the list even though it's not about photography or cameras per se any more. Tom C wrote: 1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. Gonna come back to that one... 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? Mores have changed. Have _morals_ actually _declined_? Not that I'm usually one to argue value relativism, but it does seem to me that in this particular area it is customs and taboos that are at stake, not morality in any meaningfully measurable sense. Does a shift in decency standards necessarily correspond to an increase in theft, fraud, murder, broken promises, usury, and so on, or is it really more a change in fashion of sorts? Do people actually behave in a less _moral_ manner today? 4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. Man/Woman/Child. No, that's a relatively recent development. Civilization was built on the _extended_ family. 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. You may have a point there. I'm not convinced that you do, but I can see that you might. It would mean that most people are not wired the way I am, but I guess I should not find that possibility surprising. 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? Bombard??? Okay, admittedly I have not looked at very many of the PAW images and I'm a couple months behind on the PUG, but -- and this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one -- is this forum actually being _bombarded_ with sexual images? Or is it just a couple of them this week that's suddenly being interpreted as a bombardment? *IF* the answer is that it's just this week, then the next question obviously becomes, does this mean that no sexual imagery ever is the only acceptable (to you) guideline? Or is the perception that you are being bombarded here a result of the bombardment with sexual imagery in the world at large more than here, so that any inkling here, however usual or unusual for here, is oh no, not more of this! where the rest of this is on the telly and billboards and such? As far as disparaging anyones god, a work that distorts and corrupts or disprects an idea/concept/belief that some consider as sacred, can certainly be called disparaging. Distort ... corrupt ... disrepect ... Re-examine? Question? Re-interpret? Show another side of? Doesn't disrespect imply _intent_, and doesn't corrupt depend on a particular point of view? I *do* see where you're coming from on that one -- there are things you could do to holy symbols or depictions of my saviour which would similarly upset me, to be honest (though this one does not) -- but I think you're using language that polarizes the debate rather than fostering communication on the points you're trying to get across. Bob Blakely wrote: Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks censorship in making requests? I'd say the request is in a grey area with regards to concepts and definitions of censorship. No, this is clearly
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
I guess you're another victim... :) Tom C. From: Christian [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 16:16:44 -0400 (GMT-04:00) -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rome never did become Christian. It became Christian. Hey I've stayed out of this thread! Why drag me into it Christian or Christian vbg
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, offered: 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. I concur. And back at ya! ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot
Cotty quoted and posted as follows, and I am snipping only for the sake of space: On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: .. 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? I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Cotty, it is possible to interpret his suggestion as a request for self- restraint rather than a call for censorship. I don't know what was in his mind, but that was what I thought he was saying when I read his post. Perhaps he will clarify it for us, but do you not think it's possible to read it this way too? ER
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, graywolf, discombobulated, offered: REMEMBER! I DID NOT START THIS RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL [expletive deleted] THREAD! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEONES PHOTOS, THEN DON'T! OTHERWISE STICK YOUR HEADS BACK UP YOUR expletive deleted] WHERE THEY BELONG. PS: I didn't much care for the photos myself. Tom, *calm down* boy. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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)
On 13/7/04, Christian, discombobulated, offered: Rome never did become Christian. It became Christian. Hey I've stayed out of this thread! Why drag me into it Christian or Christian vbg ROTFLMAO Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
Steve D asked: Why not an MX? I notice it wasn't really considered in this thread. Perhaps because the original post mentioned that aperture-priority was an important consideration ER
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
From: Tom C Rome never did become Christian. It became Christian. Like so many other nations after them. Interestingly, most muslim countries are more muslim than christian nations are christian. That's one of the things they despise about the western world. I must say I can understand their POV...:-) Jostein (waving the cloth before the bull again)
Re: Polite Request re Image Displaying
I can agree with this request. Whenever I design a website, or even just a page, I try and constrain it to 800 on the horizontal dimension. I realize the majority of internet users have this setup. I try to stick to 750 or 760 pixels, in fact, to allow for window frame thicknesses and vertical scroll bar thickness, etc. A photo 800 pixels wide on an 800-pixel screen will pop up a horizontal scroll bar in the browser window. Fred
OT - Jaques Henri Lartigue
Prog on BBC 4 in the UK on right now. Pentax content! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT - Jaques Henri Lartigue
Cotty wrote: Prog on BBC 4 in the UK on right now. Pentax content! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Henri is a very good name! /Henri
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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: Metadiscussion: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On 13/7/04, D. Glenn Arthur Jr., discombobulated, offered: At the same time, I would like to ask that those of us who perceive such requests as censorshop try to refrain from jumping the gun on accusations of actual censorship, and to try to understand where the request is coming from, so that we might find solutions instead of just girding our loins for a fight. Censorship is a pretty emotionally charged word these days, so even when it's partially applicable, saying it tends to make the other side get all defensive. Yeah, we need to point out the censorial aspects, but try to do so gently so that others can see why you say it rather than just making them go, No I'm not! Guilty as charged. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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
Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
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/
Let's Talk about PENTAX
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: 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!
Re: Polite Request re Image Displaying
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 _
