Re: PESO children of the corn

[Ann Sanfedele]

I wonder if tiny teeth can deal with the cob.

Mark - now you know none of our PESO's are never quite what
the subject line suggests - I had no fear :-)

ann

On 9/1/2014 18:25, Mark C wrote:

Nice slice of Americana and also of family life. From the title I was
expecting something more ominous!

Mark

On 8/31/2014 7:19 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17848905&size=lg




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO children of the corn

[Richard Womer]

Ahhh, it looks roasted--the best way to cook it!

Nice shot, Paul.  Did you use fill flash?

Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Christine Aguila  wrote:
> Fun!  Dekalb, Illinois had its corn festival this past weekend. I didn't go, 
> but I have a friend who lives out there and attends every year. Cheers, 
> Christine
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Aug 31, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
>>
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17848905&size=lg
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO children of the corn

[Christine Aguila]

Fun!  Dekalb, Illinois had its corn festival this past weekend. I didn't go, 
but I have a friend who lives out there and attends every year. Cheers, 
Christine 

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 31, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
> 
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17848905&size=lg
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
> 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO children of the corn

[Mark C]

Nice slice of Americana and also of family life. From the title I was 
expecting something more ominous!


Mark

On 8/31/2014 7:19 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17848905&size=lg




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO children of the corn

[Eric Weir]

On Aug 31, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:

> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17848905&size=lg

So we remember, many things we take for granted as adults—eating corn on the 
cob—have to be learned. I see tender care, perhaps love, in this photo.

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net

"What does it mean...that the world is so beautiful?" 

- Mary Oliver 








-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO children of the corn

[Alan C]

Well caught, Paul. It'll soon be mealie season here!

Alan C

-Original Message- 
From: Paul Stenquist

Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 1:19 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: PESO children of the corn

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17848905&size=lg

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions. 



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

PESO children of the corn

[Paul Stenquist]

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17848905&size=lg

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[John]

Had to deal with shit like that when I was running the mini-lab.

Had a woman come in with one of those disposable cameras. The film had 
two toddlers in diapers playing in the sprinkler & a wading pool. The 
inevitable result of toddlers in water-logged diapers happened before 
she got to the end of the roll. Nothing pornographic, just two kids 
splashing in a plastic blow up pool where they've lost their diapers in 
the last three or four frames.


But one of my nutcase co-workers got all upset & went to store 
management when I told her not to call the police on the woman.


On 8/25/2014 12:15 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

There are bluenoses everywhere.  Naked chile photos are a tradition that
goes back to the Victorian era. The extreme politically correct and the
the over the top religious of a number of religions will find the naked
photos objectionable, and in some jurisdictions prosecutable.  The
photos of the little girl are not pornographic, but they aren't anything
I'd show. They look more like snapshots designed to embarrass her in
front of future dates.

On 8/24/2014 6:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote:


Wyatt Neumann is a photographer and a father. In 2014 he took his
two-year-old daughter Stella on a cross-country road trip,
photographing their journey along the way. Neumann captured sunsets
and cornfields and, of course, Stella, often donning one of most
two-year-old girls' two favorite ensembles: a princess dress and
nothing at all.

In the middle of the trip, what the Safari Gallery describes as "a
hyper puritanical, neo-conservative group" launched a cyber-attack on
Neumann's images, specifically those of Stella. Calling the images
"perverse," "sick" and "pornographic," members of the group attempted
to remove all traces of them from the web. They successfully prompted
Facebook and Instagram to shut down his accounts, and they criticized
his artist website as well. While Neumann claims he was open to others
expressing their opinions about his work, the "forced censorship" went
too far.

And so on.  Text and some pictures at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html






--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[Bill]

On 25/08/2014 10:17 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:

On 8/25/2014 9:25 AM, Bill wrote:

On 24/08/2014 11:45 PM, Larry Colen wrote:



Bill wrote:

I always wonder exactly what is going on in the heads of people who
sexualize very young children and then pretend someone else is doing
something wrong.
Neumann is an idiot if he didn't expect some mentally unstable portion
of the population of the USA to react just as they did , the people
who are seeing his daughter as an object of sexuality are sick minded,
fucked up whack jobs.


Kind of like the people that don't expect people to get upset when they
let their children go play at the park unsupervised.

Whatever you think about Neumann, what some people would see as a cute
"kid taking a bath" photo, other people see as child pornography. As
photographers, we need to be aware of other people pushing their agendas
on other people.  A few months ago, someone got upset at one of my
pictures that she described as pornographic.  It was a fully clothed
woman, holding her boyfriend from behind, with her hands on his bare
chest.



Good art has always provoked a rather visceral reaction in the viewer.
Judging from the reaction of some of the people who hunted him down
just to bitch about his pictures, his work must be right up there with
some of the best art ever created.
I don't get his work, but I've always been somewhat of a plebeian,
uneducated in the finer points of culture.

bill


Bill don't worry that you don't get his work.  You're looking for
something that isn't there...



To be completely honest, I didn't look very hard. If I'm going to look 
at pictures of nekkid wimmen, I set the bar a little higher (they have 
to be wimmen).


bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[P.J. Alling]

On 8/25/2014 9:25 AM, Bill wrote:

On 24/08/2014 11:45 PM, Larry Colen wrote:



Bill wrote:

I always wonder exactly what is going on in the heads of people who
sexualize very young children and then pretend someone else is doing
something wrong.
Neumann is an idiot if he didn't expect some mentally unstable portion
of the population of the USA to react just as they did , the people
who are seeing his daughter as an object of sexuality are sick minded,
fucked up whack jobs.


Kind of like the people that don't expect people to get upset when they
let their children go play at the park unsupervised.

Whatever you think about Neumann, what some people would see as a cute
"kid taking a bath" photo, other people see as child pornography. As
photographers, we need to be aware of other people pushing their agendas
on other people.  A few months ago, someone got upset at one of my
pictures that she described as pornographic.  It was a fully clothed
woman, holding her boyfriend from behind, with her hands on his bare 
chest.




Good art has always provoked a rather visceral reaction in the viewer. 
Judging from the reaction of some of the people who hunted him down 
just to bitch about his pictures, his work must be right up there with 
some of the best art ever created.
I don't get his work, but I've always been somewhat of a plebeian, 
uneducated in the finer points of culture.


bill

Bill don't worry that you don't get his work.  You're looking for 
something that isn't there...


--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[P.J. Alling]

There are bluenoses everywhere.  Naked chile photos are a tradition that 
goes back to the Victorian era. The extreme politically correct and the 
the over the top religious of a number of religions will find the naked 
photos objectionable, and in some jurisdictions prosecutable.  The 
photos of the little girl are not pornographic, but they aren't anything 
I'd show. They look more like snapshots designed to embarrass her in 
front of future dates.


On 8/24/2014 6:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote:


Wyatt Neumann is a photographer and a father. In 2014 he took his 
two-year-old daughter Stella on a cross-country road trip, 
photographing their journey along the way. Neumann captured sunsets 
and cornfields and, of course, Stella, often donning one of most 
two-year-old girls' two favorite ensembles: a princess dress and 
nothing at all.


In the middle of the trip, what the Safari Gallery describes as "a 
hyper puritanical, neo-conservative group" launched a cyber-attack on 
Neumann's images, specifically those of Stella. Calling the images 
"perverse," "sick" and "pornographic," members of the group attempted 
to remove all traces of them from the web. They successfully prompted 
Facebook and Instagram to shut down his accounts, and they criticized 
his artist website as well. While Neumann claims he was open to others 
expressing their opinions about his work, the "forced censorship" went 
too far.


And so on.  Text and some pictures at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html




--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[Ken Waller]

Ditto !

Couldn't have said it better.

-Original Message-
>From: Bill 
>Subject: Re: I feel sorry for your children
>
>I always wonder exactly what is going on in the heads of people who 
>sexualize very young children and then pretend someone else is doing 
>something wrong.
>Neumann is an idiot if he didn't expect some mentally unstable portion 
>of the population of the USA to react just as they did , the people who 
>are seeing his daughter as an object of sexuality are sick minded, 
>fucked up whack jobs.
>
>bill
>
>
>
>
>On 24/08/2014 4:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>> Wyatt Neumann is a photographer and a father. In 2014 he took his
>> two-year-old daughter Stella on a cross-country road trip, photographing
>> their journey along the way. Neumann captured sunsets and cornfields
>> and, of course, Stella, often donning one of most two-year-old girls'
>> two favorite ensembles: a princess dress and nothing at all.
>>
>> In the middle of the trip, what the Safari Gallery describes as "a hyper
>> puritanical, neo-conservative group" launched a cyber-attack on
>> Neumann's images, specifically those of Stella. Calling the images
>> "perverse," "sick" and "pornographic," members of the group attempted to
>> remove all traces of them from the web. They successfully prompted
>> Facebook and Instagram to shut down his accounts, and they criticized
>> his artist website as well. While Neumann claims he was open to others
>> expressing their opinions about his work, the "forced censorship" went
>> too far.
>>
>> And so on.  Text and some pictures at:
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[Bill]

On 24/08/2014 11:45 PM, Larry Colen wrote:



Bill wrote:

I always wonder exactly what is going on in the heads of people who
sexualize very young children and then pretend someone else is doing
something wrong.
Neumann is an idiot if he didn't expect some mentally unstable portion
of the population of the USA to react just as they did , the people
who are seeing his daughter as an object of sexuality are sick minded,
fucked up whack jobs.


Kind of like the people that don't expect people to get upset when they
let their children go play at the park unsupervised.

Whatever you think about Neumann, what some people would see as a cute
"kid taking a bath" photo, other people see as child pornography. As
photographers, we need to be aware of other people pushing their agendas
on other people.  A few months ago, someone got upset at one of my
pictures that she described as pornographic.  It was a fully clothed
woman, holding her boyfriend from behind, with her hands on his bare chest.



Good art has always provoked a rather visceral reaction in the viewer. 
Judging from the reaction of some of the people who hunted him down just 
to bitch about his pictures, his work must be right up there with some 
of the best art ever created.
I don't get his work, but I've always been somewhat of a plebeian, 
uneducated in the finer points of culture.


bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[Attila Boros]

Exactly what I was going to say, but Brian said it already.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Brian Walters  wrote:
> Quoting "Daniel J. Matyola" :
>
>> I don't think they are pornographic, but I don't think they are
>> tasteful or artistic either.
>
>
>
> I saw these a couple of days ago on Peta Pixel.  I don't think they are
> pornographic either but if the father didn't realise that posting them on
> social media wouldn't draw the reaction it did, he is the most naive person
> I've yet come across.
>
> I reckon he fully expected the reaction and was deliberately trying to
> provoke the sickos out there.  But I don't think his daughter will thank him
> in years to come.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>
> ++
> Brian Walters
> Western Sydney Australia
> http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/
>
>
>
>
>
>> Dan Matyola
>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Wyatt Neumann is a photographer and a father. In 2014 he took his
>>> two-year-old daughter Stella on a cross-country road trip, photographing
>>> their journey along the way. Neumann captured sunsets and cornfields and,
>>> of
>>> course, Stella, often donning one of most two-year-old girls' two
>>> favorite
>>> ensembles: a princess dress and nothing at all.
>>>
>>> In the middle of the trip, what the Safari Gallery describes as "a hyper
>>> puritanical, neo-conservative group" launched a cyber-attack on Neumann's
>>> images, specifically those of Stella. Calling the images "perverse,"
>>> "sick"
>>> and "pornographic," members of the group attempted to remove all traces
>>> of
>>> them from the web. They successfully prompted Facebook and Instagram to
>>> shut
>>> down his accounts, and they criticized his artist website as well. While
>>> Neumann claims he was open to others expressing their opinions about his
>>> work, the "forced censorship" went too far.
>>>
>>> And so on.  Text and some pictures at:
>>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)
>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>>> follow the directions.
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>
> ++
> Brian Walters
> Western Sydney Australia
> http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[Larry Colen]

Bill wrote:
I always wonder exactly what is going on in the heads of people who 
sexualize very young children and then pretend someone else is doing 
something wrong.
Neumann is an idiot if he didn't expect some mentally unstable portion 
of the population of the USA to react just as they did , the people 
who are seeing his daughter as an object of sexuality are sick minded, 
fucked up whack jobs.


Kind of like the people that don't expect people to get upset when they let 
their children go play at the park unsupervised.

Whatever you think about Neumann, what some people would see as a cute "kid taking a 
bath" photo, other people see as child pornography. As photographers, we need to be 
aware of other people pushing their agendas on other people.  A few months ago, someone 
got upset at one of my pictures that she described as pornographic.  It was a fully 
clothed woman, holding her boyfriend from behind, with her hands on his bare chest.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[Bill]

I always wonder exactly what is going on in the heads of people who 
sexualize very young children and then pretend someone else is doing 
something wrong.
Neumann is an idiot if he didn't expect some mentally unstable portion 
of the population of the USA to react just as they did , the people who 
are seeing his daughter as an object of sexuality are sick minded, 
fucked up whack jobs.


bill




On 24/08/2014 4:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote:


Wyatt Neumann is a photographer and a father. In 2014 he took his
two-year-old daughter Stella on a cross-country road trip, photographing
their journey along the way. Neumann captured sunsets and cornfields
and, of course, Stella, often donning one of most two-year-old girls'
two favorite ensembles: a princess dress and nothing at all.

In the middle of the trip, what the Safari Gallery describes as "a hyper
puritanical, neo-conservative group" launched a cyber-attack on
Neumann's images, specifically those of Stella. Calling the images
"perverse," "sick" and "pornographic," members of the group attempted to
remove all traces of them from the web. They successfully prompted
Facebook and Instagram to shut down his accounts, and they criticized
his artist website as well. While Neumann claims he was open to others
expressing their opinions about his work, the "forced censorship" went
too far.

And so on.  Text and some pictures at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[Jack Davis]

What Dan said. Plus, somewhat sick.

Jack

- Original Message -
From: "Daniel J. Matyola" 
To: "PDML" 
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 5:12:06 PM
Subject: Re: I feel sorry for your children

I don't think they are pornographic, but I don't think they are
tasteful or artistic either.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>
> Wyatt Neumann is a photographer and a father. In 2014 he took his
> two-year-old daughter Stella on a cross-country road trip, photographing
> their journey along the way. Neumann captured sunsets and cornfields and, of
> course, Stella, often donning one of most two-year-old girls' two favorite
> ensembles: a princess dress and nothing at all.
>
> In the middle of the trip, what the Safari Gallery describes as "a hyper
> puritanical, neo-conservative group" launched a cyber-attack on Neumann's
> images, specifically those of Stella. Calling the images "perverse," "sick"
> and "pornographic," members of the group attempted to remove all traces of
> them from the web. They successfully prompted Facebook and Instagram to shut
> down his accounts, and they criticized his artist website as well. While
> Neumann claims he was open to others expressing their opinions about his
> work, the "forced censorship" went too far.
>
> And so on.  Text and some pictures at:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html
>
> --
> Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[Brian Walters]

Quoting "Daniel J. Matyola" :


I don't think they are pornographic, but I don't think they are
tasteful or artistic either.



I saw these a couple of days ago on Peta Pixel.  I don't think they  
are pornographic either but if the father didn't realise that posting  
them on social media wouldn't draw the reaction it did, he is the most  
naive person I've yet come across.


I reckon he fully expected the reaction and was deliberately trying to  
provoke the sickos out there.  But I don't think his daughter will  
thank him in years to come.




Cheers

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/





Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:


Wyatt Neumann is a photographer and a father. In 2014 he took his
two-year-old daughter Stella on a cross-country road trip, photographing
their journey along the way. Neumann captured sunsets and cornfields and, of
course, Stella, often donning one of most two-year-old girls' two favorite
ensembles: a princess dress and nothing at all.

In the middle of the trip, what the Safari Gallery describes as "a hyper
puritanical, neo-conservative group" launched a cyber-attack on Neumann's
images, specifically those of Stella. Calling the images "perverse," "sick"
and "pornographic," members of the group attempted to remove all traces of
them from the web. They successfully prompted Facebook and Instagram to shut
down his accounts, and they criticized his artist website as well. While
Neumann claims he was open to others expressing their opinions about his
work, the "forced censorship" went too far.

And so on.  Text and some pictures at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html

--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above  
and follow the directions.



--
Cheers

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[John]

Who I feel sorry for is the children of the sick fucks who find prurient 
interest in his photos. They're likely to grow up into narrow minded 
warped assholes just like their parents.


On 8/24/2014 6:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote:


Wyatt Neumann is a photographer and a father. In 2014 he took his
two-year-old daughter Stella on a cross-country road trip, photographing
their journey along the way. Neumann captured sunsets and cornfields
and, of course, Stella, often donning one of most two-year-old girls'
two favorite ensembles: a princess dress and nothing at all.

In the middle of the trip, what the Safari Gallery describes as "a hyper
puritanical, neo-conservative group" launched a cyber-attack on
Neumann's images, specifically those of Stella. Calling the images
"perverse," "sick" and "pornographic," members of the group attempted to
remove all traces of them from the web. They successfully prompted
Facebook and Instagram to shut down his accounts, and they criticized
his artist website as well. While Neumann claims he was open to others
expressing their opinions about his work, the "forced censorship" went
too far.

And so on.  Text and some pictures at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html



--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: I feel sorry for your children

[Daniel J. Matyola]

I don't think they are pornographic, but I don't think they are
tasteful or artistic either.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>
> Wyatt Neumann is a photographer and a father. In 2014 he took his
> two-year-old daughter Stella on a cross-country road trip, photographing
> their journey along the way. Neumann captured sunsets and cornfields and, of
> course, Stella, often donning one of most two-year-old girls' two favorite
> ensembles: a princess dress and nothing at all.
>
> In the middle of the trip, what the Safari Gallery describes as "a hyper
> puritanical, neo-conservative group" launched a cyber-attack on Neumann's
> images, specifically those of Stella. Calling the images "perverse," "sick"
> and "pornographic," members of the group attempted to remove all traces of
> them from the web. They successfully prompted Facebook and Instagram to shut
> down his accounts, and they criticized his artist website as well. While
> Neumann claims he was open to others expressing their opinions about his
> work, the "forced censorship" went too far.
>
> And so on.  Text and some pictures at:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html
>
> --
> Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

I feel sorry for your children

[Larry Colen]

Wyatt Neumann is a photographer and a father. In 2014 he took his 
two-year-old daughter Stella on a cross-country road trip, photographing 
their journey along the way. Neumann captured sunsets and cornfields 
and, of course, Stella, often donning one of most two-year-old girls' 
two favorite ensembles: a princess dress and nothing at all.


In the middle of the trip, what the Safari Gallery describes as "a hyper 
puritanical, neo-conservative group" launched a cyber-attack on 
Neumann's images, specifically those of Stella. Calling the images 
"perverse," "sick" and "pornographic," members of the group attempted to 
remove all traces of them from the web. They successfully prompted 
Facebook and Instagram to shut down his accounts, and they criticized 
his artist website as well. While Neumann claims he was open to others 
expressing their opinions about his work, the "forced censorship" went 
too far.


And so on.  Text and some pictures at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/wyatt-neumann_n_5683243.html

--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

OT: 35 reasons to have children

[John Sessoms]

Someone sent it to me, so I'm sending it to y'all.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephiekate/35-reasons-to-have-children-7xwj

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

PESO Children of the Corn

[Paul Stenquist]

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=16520002&size=lg

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

First Tulip,Bigfoot,Coca Cola,Flag photos, Children and Work for Food photos

[jn289]

Thanks to all for your remarks on my photos. Been away from the 
computer for days..Joe


http://photo.net/photos/pjjdxn

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Children

[Subash]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 23:15:10 -0400
jn289  wrote:

> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691

that's a beautiful photo Joe... perfect.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Children

[Mark C]

On 4/2/2012 11:15 PM, jn289 wrote:

Children being Children. Joe


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691


I think that qualifies as capturing the moment.. Great shot!

MCC

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Children by Joe Dixon

[jn289]

Morris, this was a 200 mm F2.8 A Pentax lens...Also Pentax did make a 
20 mm F2.8 A lens which I have one. Also have a 20 mm F4.0 M Pentax 
lens...
Thanks for the remarks on the photo. I have some other photos of 
other children playing, when I get to it I will post them. Again 
Thanks, Joe







Lurker pulls his head out to say:

Two of our best commenting on a stunning shot by Joe Dixon.

Frankly, what Joe did was impossible.  First he used a Film Camera, 
and an old one at that.  A Pentax LX that could be Thirty-two years 
old, if he has the Early Version made the first year.


Next he used a lens without auto-focus on  two moving subjects. At 
close range, no less.  Supposedly this lens  could be up to 28 years 
old.  A rumored Pentax A* 20mm f:\2.8 ED.  Frankly I doubt such a 
lens was ever made.


The whole thing sounds made up.  Hmph!  Film, no less.

Everyone knows you can only take good pictures with the very newest 
equipment.  'Cept for me.   I've got some of the new stuff and still 
can't do crap.


g



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above 
and follow the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

re: Children

[Don Guthrie]

Nothing brightens the day like pictures of joy. You can almost hear the 
laughter. Nice one.





Message: 2
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 23:15:10 -0400
From: jn289 
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Children
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Children being Children. Joe


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Children

[knarftheria...@gmail.com]

Joyous!

Great photo.

Cheers,
frank 

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- 
Christopher Hitchens

--- Original Message ---

From: jn289 
Sent: April 2, 2012 4/2/12
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Children

Children being Children. Joe


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Children

[Jack Davis]

Just this minute saw this terrific image for the first time. What a wonderful 
shot for the album.
Congrats, Joe!

Jack

- Original Message -
From: jn289 
To: pdml@pdml.net
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 8:15 PM
Subject: Children

Children being Children. Joe


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691

-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Children

[Christine Aguila]

That's great, Joe!  Composition great, expressions great, interaction between 
subjects caught at just the right moment!  Love it.  Cheers, Christine





On Apr 2, 2012, at 10:15 PM, jn289 wrote:

> Children being Children. Joe
> 
> 
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Children by Joe Dixon

[Morris Galloway]

Lurker pulls his head out to say:

Two of our best commenting on a stunning shot by Joe Dixon.

Frankly, what Joe did was impossible.  First he used a Film Camera, and 
an old one at that.  A Pentax LX that could be Thirty-two years old, if 
he has the Early Version made the first year.


Next he used a lens without auto-focus on  two moving subjects. At close 
range, no less.  Supposedly this lens  could be up to 28 years old.  A 
rumored Pentax A* 20mm f:\2.8 ED.  Frankly I doubt such a lens was ever 
made.


The whole thing sounds made up.  Hmph!  Film, no less.

Everyone knows you can only take good pictures with the very newest 
equipment.  'Cept for me.   I've got some of the new stuff and still 
can't do crap.


g



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Children

[Paul Stenquist]

Very nice, Joe. A perfect moment.
Paul
On Apr 2, 2012, at 11:15 PM, jn289 wrote:

> Children being Children. Joe
> 
> 
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Children

[Bob W]

> 
> Children being Children. Joe
> 
> 
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691
> 

that's a great shot - just perfect.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Children

[Walt Gilbert]

On 4/2/2012 10:15 PM, jn289 wrote:

Children being Children. Joe


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691


Very nicely captured, Joe!

I like the sense of movement a lot, and the overall mood of the shot has 
an almost nostalgic feel to it, somehow.


-- Walt

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Children

[jn289]

Thanks, Bob



Very nice moment, special smiles on both, good catch.  Regards,  Bob S.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:15 PM, jn289  wrote:

 Children being Children. Joe


 http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above 
and follow the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Children

[Bob Sullivan]

Very nice moment, special smiles on both, good catch.  Regards,  Bob S.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:15 PM, jn289  wrote:
> Children being Children. Joe
>
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Children

[jn289]

Children being Children. Joe


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10834691

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fwd: Photos of Children

[knarftheria...@gmail.com]

I agree with you. I initially missed the "invitation' part of this scenario. 
Beyond providing my opinion wrt one's right to photograph people in situations 
where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, I should have said no more.

One comment on what you said:  everyone has the same rights to take photos in 
public. "Real" photographers have no more rights than anyone else. You and I, 
Martin Parr and grandpa with a p&s, we have the same right to photograph the 
world and the public around us. It ~must~ be that way.

That being said, freedom of speech means that individuals have the right to 
express displeasure as they please. We just have to put up with that, I'm 
afraid. However they don't have the right to stop us or take our images or 
equipment away from us.

Cheers,
frank

--- Original Message ---

From: John Sessoms 
Sent: December 31, 2011 12/31/11
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Fwd: Photos of Children

I either missed the original message or am getting the list back to 
front today. Both occasionally occurs with the digests.

There's A LOT of context missing here, but whoever took the photos 
apparently is close enough to the original Google+ poster to know who 
he/she is (I'm guessing she) and invite him/her to look at them. So my 
first reaction, in the face of total lack of any information even 
hinting at wrongdoing, is he/she is over-reacting A WHOLE LOT.

But, I find the "however ... especially if" portion of the response very 
disturbing in the assumptions it makes on absolutely no evidence 
whatsoever that the "photographer" (assuming it was actually a 
photographer, and not just someone with a digital camera & Google+) must 
be serving up kiddie non-porn for the edification of pedophiles.

What about the (REAL) photographer's right to not be hassled by every 
ASSHOLE in the entire universe because he wants to take a photograph of 
something in a public place, just because there are parents who won't 
properly supervise their own children?

If you don't want your children photographed in public places, lock them 
in the basement where they belong!


From: "knarftheria...@gmail.com"

> That's kind of creepy.
>
> Not seeing the photos, I don't know if the photographer had the right to take 
> them. If the kids were in a public place, a place where there is no 
> reasonable expectation of privacy, then there's nothing legally wrong with 
> doing so.
>
> Same with publishing them. Both the photographer and Google+ would have the 
> right to publish them as long as their images aren't being used for a 
> commercial purpose.
>
> However just because it's legal doesn't mean it may not be in very poor 
> taste, especially if the gallery is one of these sick things filled with pix 
> of kiddies (not porn but still for the gratification of pedophile pervs).
>
> If it is one of those collections and the photographer refuses to remove 
> dad's kids then Google+ should. They own the site and they have no obligation 
> to allow this guy to publish anything he wants to on their site.
>
> Cheers,
> frank
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: Eric Weir 
> Sent: December 30, 2011 12/30/11
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Subject: Fwd: Photos of Children
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures" 
>> 
>> Date: December 30, 2011 5:29:15 AM EST
>> To: google-plus-disc...@googleproductforums.com
>> Subject: Photos of Children
>> Reply-To: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures" 
>> 
>>
>> I have been invited to view an album of photos on Google+ featuring my 
>> children (both under 13).  I did not give permission for the photos to be 
>> used online (or in fact for the photos to be taken in the first place). Is 
>> it possible to get them removed from Google+? I have asked the owner but 
>> they are refusing.
> As should be clear, this was posted to the Google+ discussion list.
>
> Am I correct in understanding that permission was not required in either 
> case--in taking the photos or posting them?


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[John Francis]

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 06:11:54AM +, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:
> I didn't assume anything John, I was giving a worst case scenario, an extreme 
> example to prove my point, which was that there's a difference between 
> legally right (and wrong) and morally right (and wrong).
 
I wasn't intentionally singling you out, Frank.  You could have been the first 
poster to put "kiddy porn" into play, but there were several other later posts 
that took that possibility and ran with it.

> I wasn't making any connection between photographers who point their cameras 
> at children and pornographers. Hell I would guess I take as many photos of 
> children without the permission of their parents as anyone on this list.
> 
> I guess that being the naive guy that I am I could not understand this parent 
> getting upset enough to contact Google if this was all innocent. 
> 
> I should have known better.
> 
> Cheers, 
> frank

Maybe you're lucky (or maybe you're a less conspicuous photographer than those 
of us who do less 'street' photography).
I hardly ever take shots with identifiable members of the public in them, but 
several times I've had people object (although I've probably had about the same 
number ask me if I could send them a copy of the picture). Most of the time the 
objectors have been parents (except for the shop owner who thought I was 
photographing the front of her restaurant as a guide for terrorists, or 
something).


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fwd: Photos of Children

[John Sessoms]

I either missed the original message or am getting the list back to 
front today. Both occasionally occurs with the digests.


There's A LOT of context missing here, but whoever took the photos 
apparently is close enough to the original Google+ poster to know who 
he/she is (I'm guessing she) and invite him/her to look at them. So my 
first reaction, in the face of total lack of any information even 
hinting at wrongdoing, is he/she is over-reacting A WHOLE LOT.


But, I find the "however ... especially if" portion of the response very 
disturbing in the assumptions it makes on absolutely no evidence 
whatsoever that the "photographer" (assuming it was actually a 
photographer, and not just someone with a digital camera & Google+) must 
be serving up kiddie non-porn for the edification of pedophiles.


What about the (REAL) photographer's right to not be hassled by every 
ASSHOLE in the entire universe because he wants to take a photograph of 
something in a public place, just because there are parents who won't 
properly supervise their own children?


If you don't want your children photographed in public places, lock them 
in the basement where they belong!



From: "knarftheria...@gmail.com"


That's kind of creepy.

Not seeing the photos, I don't know if the photographer had the right to take 
them. If the kids were in a public place, a place where there is no reasonable 
expectation of privacy, then there's nothing legally wrong with doing so.

Same with publishing them. Both the photographer and Google+ would have the 
right to publish them as long as their images aren't being used for a 
commercial purpose.

However just because it's legal doesn't mean it may not be in very poor taste, 
especially if the gallery is one of these sick things filled with pix of 
kiddies (not porn but still for the gratification of pedophile pervs).

If it is one of those collections and the photographer refuses to remove dad's 
kids then Google+ should. They own the site and they have no obligation to 
allow this guy to publish anything he wants to on their site.

Cheers,
frank

--- Original Message ---

From: Eric Weir 
Sent: December 30, 2011 12/30/11
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Subject: Fwd: Photos of Children


Begin forwarded message:


From: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures" 

Date: December 30, 2011 5:29:15 AM EST
To: google-plus-disc...@googleproductforums.com
Subject: Photos of Children
Reply-To: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures" 


I have been invited to view an album of photos on Google+ featuring my children 
(both under 13).  I did not give permission for the photos to be used online 
(or in fact for the photos to be taken in the first place). Is it possible to 
get them removed from Google+? I have asked the owner but they are refusing.

As should be clear, this was posted to the Google+ discussion list.

Am I correct in understanding that permission was not required in either 
case--in taking the photos or posting them?



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[knarftheria...@gmail.com]

I didn't assume anything John, I was giving a worst case scenario, an extreme 
example to prove my point, which was that there's a difference between legally 
right (and wrong) and morally right (and wrong).

I wasn't making any connection between photographers who point their cameras at 
children and pornographers. Hell I would guess I take as many photos of 
children without the permission of their parents as anyone on this list.

I guess that being the naive guy that I am I could not understand this parent 
getting upset enough to contact Google if this was all innocent. 

I should have known better.

Cheers, 
frank

--- Original Message ---

From: John Francis 
Sent: December 30, 2011 12/30/11
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Subject: Re: Photos of Children

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 01:42:27PM -0500, David Parsons wrote:
> People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn.  You
> really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side.

Oh, it doesn't have top be their own spawn. There's knee-jerk reaction
to the combination of children and photographers.  That's even apparent
here, amongst folk who should know better.

We don't have any information about what the photographs in question are,
where they were taken, or anything of the kind.  And yet there are posts
here all too ready to assume that these are "kiddy porn" galleries, and
that the photographer must be some kind of sick pervert.

Absent evidence to the contrary, I'd just assume that said photographs were
taken at some public event, quite possibly by somebody known to the family.
Were the kids showing off, dressed up in costumes, participating in an event,
or in some way being presented as anything other than just random children?
Does the gallery provide any additional information to identify them?


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[Igor Roshchin]

Fri Dec 30 21:16:07 EST 2011
Ann Sanfedele wrote:

> > So, when I get to photograph other children, I often ask the parents
> > if they mind that.
> > But then sometimes it's just not practical, say as in this case:
> > http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8543.html
> Well in this case (above) you'd be safe because you can't see their
> full faces
> > or this one:
> > http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8918.html .
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Igor
> >
> so I guess that's your wife?  or a friend?
> 
> ann

None of the above. Just a well grown-up kid :-)
(actually, one of the DJs at a tango festival.).
... who didn't mind being photographed, and her parents were not 
available for questioning.

Igor


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[Ann Sanfedele]

On 12/30/2011 17:59, Igor Roshchin wrote:



Ironically, recently, I had a dancer who stopped in the middle of a
social dance (tango), walked to me across the floor (to the edge of
the dance floor), and asked not to take any more pictures of her.
(This happened after I had taken a few within the previous couple
minutes.) I was surprised by the way it was done, but stopped taking
her photos.
When I posted the photos I took (including the photos of that person
taken prior to this request), - she contacted me asking if she can get
some prints. She also apologized for her reaction explaining it by
the fact that she did not like photos of her that other people had
taken before.  After she's got her prints from me, she came to me
at the next dance event and told me that in the future,
I may take as many photos of her as I want.


I like that story :-)




Now, with the children, I understand that the situation can be a bit more
sensitive. Being a father of a little girl, I understand why parents
can be [over]protective.
But I think a lot of present paranoia is due to the media.
I don't think that in general people's behavior has drastically changed
recently, but rather people became more aware of what happens.
So, when I get to photograph other children, I often ask the parents
if they mind that.
But then sometimes it's just not practical, say as in this case:
http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8543.html

Well in this case (above) you'd be safe because you can't see their
full faces

or this one:
http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8918.html .

:-)

Igor


so I guess that's your wife?  or a friend?

ann




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[Igor Roshchin]

Ann,

Several years ago, I brought an album with photos taken at a music festival
to the next one, so that people can see the photos.
Several people said: "Great album, all wonderful photos, except for my 
photograph, could you please remove it?" 
A similar situation repeated the next time... 
If I removed all the photos as requested, the album would have been 
half-empty. 

I usually do respect when people indicate to me that they don't want to
get their photos taken. However, most of the time I ignore requests like
those described above, unless there is a good reason that I hadn't thought
about while selecting photos for printing/inclusion to the gallery.

Ironically, recently, I had a dancer who stopped in the middle of a
social dance (tango), walked to me across the floor (to the edge of 
the dance floor), and asked not to take any more pictures of her. 
(This happened after I had taken a few within the previous couple 
minutes.) I was surprised by the way it was done, but stopped taking 
her photos.
When I posted the photos I took (including the photos of that person
taken prior to this request), - she contacted me asking if she can get 
some prints. She also apologized for her reaction explaining it by
the fact that she did not like photos of her that other people had 
taken before.  After she's got her prints from me, she came to me 
at the next dance event and told me that in the future, 
I may take as many photos of her as I want.


Now, with the children, I understand that the situation can be a bit more
sensitive. Being a father of a little girl, I understand why parents
can be [over]protective.
But I think a lot of present paranoia is due to the media. 
I don't think that in general people's behavior has drastically changed 
recently, but rather people became more aware of what happens.
So, when I get to photograph other children, I often ask the parents
if they mind that. 
But then sometimes it's just not practical, say as in this case:
http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8543.html
or this one:
http://42graphy.org/tango/denvermem-2010/_IR_8918.html .

:-)

Igor




Fri Dec 30 14:54:04 EST 2011
Ann Sanfedele wrote:

> I don't think it is psycho of a parent to ask that photos of his or her 
> children be taken down from a website - if they are reconizeable as 
> individuals, certainly.  had I been the photograpehr I would have 
> respected the parents wishes as I would anyone whose photo I took
> who disliked it... at least in areas where one's removing the
> photos actually does get it removed.

> And that goes for any of you guys - even if I like the photo
> I'd remove it.





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[Eric Weir]

On Dec 30, 2011, at 3:58 PM, John Francis wrote:

> We don't have any information about what the photographs in question are,
> where they were taken, or anything of the kind.  And yet there are posts
> here all too ready to assume that these are "kiddy porn" galleries, and
> that the photographer must be some kind of sick pervert.
> 
> Absent evidence to the contrary, I'd just assume that said photographs were
> taken at some public event, quite possibly by somebody known to the family.
> Were the kids showing off, dressed up in costumes, participating in an event,
> or in some way being presented as anything other than just random children?
> Does the gallery provide any additional information to identify them?

Yeah, it's kind of hard to imagine a porn photographer inviting a parent to 
view shots of his or her children on the site, as the author of the post I 
forwarded said he had been.

--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA
eew...@bellsouth.net

"A writer is a person for whom writing is more difficult 
than it is for other people." 

- Thomas Mann







-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Fwd: Photos of Children

[Eric Weir]

Begin forwarded message:

> That's kind of creepy.
> 
> Not seeing the photos, I don't know if the photographer had the right to take 
> them. If the kids were in a public place, a place where there is no 
> reasonable expectation of privacy, then there's nothing legally wrong with 
> doing so.
> 
> Same with publishing them. Both the photographer and Google+ would have the 
> right to publish them as long as their images aren't being used for a 
> commercial purpose.

I mainly just wanted to clarify this. It was my understanding and I wanted to 
make sure. [I was hassled a few months ago--as it happens by a parent--while 
shooting at the practice of an older youth soccer team. My guess is they were 
all in their late teens or early twenties. In this case I finessed it by saying 
that I was an amateur and that I just wanted to get better at shooting soccer. 
At the time I didn't think I was doing anything illegal, but I wasn't sure.

I don't know whether there's any creepiness to this situation or not. Nothing 
was said about the nature of the site on which the photos have been 
posted--e.g., whether it features primarily photos of kids or the photos of the 
kids appear among photos of a range of subject types.

> However just because it's legal doesn't mean it may not be in very poor 
> taste, especially if the gallery is one of these sick things filled with pix 
> of kiddies (not porn but still for the gratification of pedophile pervs).
> 
> If it is one of those collections and the photographer refuses to remove 
> dad's kids then Google+ should. They own the site and they have no obligation 
> to allow this guy to publish anything he wants to on their site.

Again, nothing was said about the character of the site, but my sense from a 
couple of responses to the post I forwarded is that Google is on the case.

Regards,
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA  USA
eew...@bellsouth.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[Ann Sanfedele]

I agree with many of you that the concern about the kiddy porn stuff is 
a bit over the top...


My point is that anyone whose photo has been taken should be asked if 
they mind being published if it is possible to do so and certainly if 
you take a photo straight on.   And if you can get a models release, do it.


It's shooting for stock that got me in the habit of never taking photos
of people facing me that I didn't know personally and knew they wouldnt 
mind or getting a model's release.


And I try never to show anyone to disadvantage, looking silly, homely, 
or whatever.


that TV show Candid Camera always upset me - don't like people being 
made to look rediculous.


ok - off soapbox
ann


On 12/30/2011 17:01, Stan Halpin wrote:

This reminds me of a story I saw recently about the early days of HIV/AIDS - 
some kid in Virginia was required to wear a bubble to school to protect the 
other kids. Today it is photographers who are dangerous and many want to put a 
bubble around us to protect themselves and their kids.
I think the "protection" of kids is way over the top and reflects a media which thrives 
on drama and scary stuff. The overwhelming majority of child abductions are about parental custody 
disputes, not about weird strangers. Same story with sexual assault - mostly a within-family issue. 
And the concept of parents "protecting" their children from vaccines!?! Giving everyone a 
trophy whether they win lose or draw? Driving kids to school when there are perfectly good streets 
to bicycle on and sidewalks to walk on? Jeesh! All part of a pattern which reflects what seems to 
me to be extreme overprotection.

I was browsing through Christine's summary of her 2011 PAW and noticed this 
shot:
http://www.caguila.com/pawyear2011/content/pawweek43halloweenmaid_large.html
As I recall her comment when first posting this, and based on the caption, I am 
quite sure she did not know this child, nor did she ask permission of the 
parents to take the shot and to post it. I would have done the same without a 
second thought, and I would not honor a request by a parent to take the image 
down once posted.

stan

On Dec 30, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:


I don't think it is psycho of a parent to ask that photos of his or her 
children be taken down from a website - if they are reconizeable as 
individuals, certainly.  had I been the photograpehr I would have respected the 
parents wishes as I would anyone whose photo I took
who disliked it... at least in areas where one's removing the
photos actually does get it removed.

And that goes for any of you guys - even if I like the photo
I'd remove it.

As of pics of me, I wouldn't ask that of anyone myself unless
it were truly gross and I was identified.

I had to laugh , tho, when we did PDML boston and no one took
a photo of me facing the camera - I think someone overstated
my dislike of certain photos in the past (more my dislike of hte photographer) 
(and it wasnt Christine or David).

But it is a bit scary out there these days for kids - too many
nasty things.

ann

On 12/30/2011 13:56, Igor Roshchin wrote:


Some people get a special kind of psycho. Period.

After one of the public dance events, my wife posted the photos of
the people she took to facebook. As a part of the event, there was
a dress-up, semi-formal sit-down dinner.
Some guy (unknown before and after) contacted her asking to remove a
particular photo. The funny part that it wasn't a photo of him, but
of somebody else, who wasn't even his friend or anything like that.
The explanation was that it is not good to post
pictures of people while they are eating. (The guy on the photo
had either a fork with food in his hand, or something like that, -
and the guy looked just fine, - not that he had crambles in his beard,
or pieces of meat falling out of his mouth...)
The inquiry was awknowledged but ignored.

Igor


Fri Dec 30 13:42:27 EST 2011
David Parsons wrote:



People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn.  You
really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[Stan Halpin]

This reminds me of a story I saw recently about the early days of HIV/AIDS - 
some kid in Virginia was required to wear a bubble to school to protect the 
other kids. Today it is photographers who are dangerous and many want to put a 
bubble around us to protect themselves and their kids.
I think the "protection" of kids is way over the top and reflects a media which 
thrives on drama and scary stuff. The overwhelming majority of child abductions 
are about parental custody disputes, not about weird strangers. Same story with 
sexual assault - mostly a within-family issue. And the concept of parents 
"protecting" their children from vaccines!?! Giving everyone a trophy whether 
they win lose or draw? Driving kids to school when there are perfectly good 
streets to bicycle on and sidewalks to walk on? Jeesh! All part of a pattern 
which reflects what seems to me to be extreme overprotection.

I was browsing through Christine's summary of her 2011 PAW and noticed this 
shot:
http://www.caguila.com/pawyear2011/content/pawweek43halloweenmaid_large.html
As I recall her comment when first posting this, and based on the caption, I am 
quite sure she did not know this child, nor did she ask permission of the 
parents to take the shot and to post it. I would have done the same without a 
second thought, and I would not honor a request by a parent to take the image 
down once posted.

stan

On Dec 30, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

> I don't think it is psycho of a parent to ask that photos of his or her 
> children be taken down from a website - if they are reconizeable as 
> individuals, certainly.  had I been the photograpehr I would have respected 
> the parents wishes as I would anyone whose photo I took
> who disliked it... at least in areas where one's removing the
> photos actually does get it removed.
> 
> And that goes for any of you guys - even if I like the photo
> I'd remove it.
> 
> As of pics of me, I wouldn't ask that of anyone myself unless
> it were truly gross and I was identified.
> 
> I had to laugh , tho, when we did PDML boston and no one took
> a photo of me facing the camera - I think someone overstated
> my dislike of certain photos in the past (more my dislike of hte 
> photographer) (and it wasnt Christine or David).
> 
> But it is a bit scary out there these days for kids - too many
> nasty things.
> 
> ann
> 
> On 12/30/2011 13:56, Igor Roshchin wrote:
>> 
>> Some people get a special kind of psycho. Period.
>> 
>> After one of the public dance events, my wife posted the photos of
>> the people she took to facebook. As a part of the event, there was
>> a dress-up, semi-formal sit-down dinner.
>> Some guy (unknown before and after) contacted her asking to remove a
>> particular photo. The funny part that it wasn't a photo of him, but
>> of somebody else, who wasn't even his friend or anything like that.
>> The explanation was that it is not good to post
>> pictures of people while they are eating. (The guy on the photo
>> had either a fork with food in his hand, or something like that, -
>> and the guy looked just fine, - not that he had crambles in his beard,
>> or pieces of meat falling out of his mouth...)
>> The inquiry was awknowledged but ignored.
>> 
>> Igor
>> 
>> 
>> Fri Dec 30 13:42:27 EST 2011
>> David Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn.  You
>>> really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side.
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[Tim Bray]

As a matter of policy, we don't publish identifiable pictures of our
children, or their names. They're not hidden very deep, someone
aggressive and knowledgeable with search engines could dig it out.
Partly because I'm a semi-public figure and reasonably paranoid.
Partly because we believe strongly that people have the right to
construct and control their own online identity, within reason.  Every
school year we have to mark up the "information release form" telling
the school not to publish pictures with names online.

If someone took pictures of them and published them *with their
identity* I'd go after them pretty hard with whatever legal/PR clubs I
could find.  I'm not sure I'd have much legal standing, but I'd try
hard anyhow. -T

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Christine Nielsen  wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, John Francis  wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Absent evidence to the contrary, I'd just assume that said photographs were
>> taken at some public event, quite possibly by somebody known to the family.
>> Were the kids showing off, dressed up in costumes, participating in an event,
>> or in some way being presented as anything other than just random children?
>> Does the gallery provide any additional information to identify them?
>>
>>
> Also... that an "invitation" to view the images was issued might
> indicate that the gallery isn't entirely public... only to be seen by
> select folks?  Slightly tangential to the point, but perhaps a
> mitigating factor...
>
> :)
> -c
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[Christine Nielsen]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, John Francis  wrote:


>
> Absent evidence to the contrary, I'd just assume that said photographs were
> taken at some public event, quite possibly by somebody known to the family.
> Were the kids showing off, dressed up in costumes, participating in an event,
> or in some way being presented as anything other than just random children?
> Does the gallery provide any additional information to identify them?
>
>
Also... that an "invitation" to view the images was issued might
indicate that the gallery isn't entirely public... only to be seen by
select folks?  Slightly tangential to the point, but perhaps a
mitigating factor...

:)
-c

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[John Francis]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 01:42:27PM -0500, David Parsons wrote:
> People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn.  You
> really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side.

Oh, it doesn't have top be their own spawn. There's knee-jerk reaction
to the combination of children and photographers.  That's even apparent
here, amongst folk who should know better.

We don't have any information about what the photographs in question are,
where they were taken, or anything of the kind.  And yet there are posts
here all too ready to assume that these are "kiddy porn" galleries, and
that the photographer must be some kind of sick pervert.

Absent evidence to the contrary, I'd just assume that said photographs were
taken at some public event, quite possibly by somebody known to the family.
Were the kids showing off, dressed up in costumes, participating in an event,
or in some way being presented as anything other than just random children?
Does the gallery provide any additional information to identify them?


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[Ann Sanfedele]

I don't think it is psycho of a parent to ask that photos of his or her 
children be taken down from a website - if they are reconizeable as 
individuals, certainly.  had I been the photograpehr I would have 
respected the parents wishes as I would anyone whose photo I took

who disliked it... at least in areas where one's removing the
photos actually does get it removed.

And that goes for any of you guys - even if I like the photo
I'd remove it.

As of pics of me, I wouldn't ask that of anyone myself unless
it were truly gross and I was identified.

I had to laugh , tho, when we did PDML boston and no one took
a photo of me facing the camera - I think someone overstated
my dislike of certain photos in the past (more my dislike of hte 
photographer) (and it wasnt Christine or David).


But it is a bit scary out there these days for kids - too many
nasty things.

ann

On 12/30/2011 13:56, Igor Roshchin wrote:


Some people get a special kind of psycho. Period.

After one of the public dance events, my wife posted the photos of
the people she took to facebook. As a part of the event, there was
a dress-up, semi-formal sit-down dinner.
Some guy (unknown before and after) contacted her asking to remove a
particular photo. The funny part that it wasn't a photo of him, but
of somebody else, who wasn't even his friend or anything like that.
The explanation was that it is not good to post
pictures of people while they are eating. (The guy on the photo
had either a fork with food in his hand, or something like that, -
and the guy looked just fine, - not that he had crambles in his beard,
or pieces of meat falling out of his mouth...)
The inquiry was awknowledged but ignored.

Igor


Fri Dec 30 13:42:27 EST 2011
David Parsons wrote:



People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn.  You
really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[Igor Roshchin]

Some people get a special kind of psycho. Period.

After one of the public dance events, my wife posted the photos of 
the people she took to facebook. As a part of the event, there was
a dress-up, semi-formal sit-down dinner.
Some guy (unknown before and after) contacted her asking to remove a
particular photo. The funny part that it wasn't a photo of him, but
of somebody else, who wasn't even his friend or anything like that. 
The explanation was that it is not good to post
pictures of people while they are eating. (The guy on the photo
had either a fork with food in his hand, or something like that, - 
and the guy looked just fine, - not that he had crambles in his beard,
or pieces of meat falling out of his mouth...) 
The inquiry was awknowledged but ignored.

Igor


Fri Dec 30 13:42:27 EST 2011
David Parsons wrote:


> People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn.  You
> really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photos of Children

[David Parsons]

People get a special kind of psycho when it's their own spawn.  You
really can't reason with them, even when the law is on your side.

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Eric Weir  wrote:
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures" 
>> 
>> Date: December 30, 2011 5:29:15 AM EST
>> To: google-plus-disc...@googleproductforums.com
>> Subject: Photos of Children
>> Reply-To: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures" 
>> 
>>
>> I have been invited to view an album of photos on Google+ featuring my 
>> children (both under 13).  I did not give permission for the photos to be 
>> used online (or in fact for the photos to be taken in the first place). Is 
>> it possible to get them removed from Google+? I have asked the owner but 
>> they are refusing.
>
> As should be clear, this was posted to the Google+ discussion list.
>
> Am I correct in understanding that permission was not required in either 
> case--in taking the photos or posting them?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Eric Weir
> Decatur, GA
> eew...@bellsouth.net
>
> "A man should be in the world as though he were not in it
> so that it will be no worse because of his life."
>
> - Wendell Berry
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
David Parsons Photography
http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com

Aloha Photographer Photoblog
http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fwd: Photos of Children

[P. J. Alling]

On 12/30/2011 11:02 AM, Eric Weir wrote:

Begin forwarded message:


From: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of 
sausagefeatures"
Date: December 30, 2011 5:29:15 AM EST
To: google-plus-disc...@googleproductforums.com
Subject: Photos of Children
Reply-To: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of 
sausagefeatures"

I have been invited to view an album of photos on Google+ featuring my children 
(both under 13).  I did not give permission for the photos to be used online 
(or in fact for the photos to be taken in the first place). Is it possible to 
get them removed from Google+? I have asked the owner but they are refusing.

As should be clear, this was posted to the Google+ discussion list.

Am I correct in understanding that permission was not required in either 
case--in taking the photos or posting them?

Regards,
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA
eew...@bellsouth.net

"A man should be in the world as though he were not in it
so that it will be no worse because of his life."

- Wendell Berry


Under the law as I understand it, no, neither required permission if the 
photographs were taken in a location where privacy could not be 
assumed.  If the photos were used for commercial purposes, i.e. 
advertising and no model release was signed, then there would cause for 
civil action.  if the photos could be construed as child pornography 
then there would be a case for a criminal complaint.  I haven't seen the 
photos but I assume neither is the case.  Good manners would dictate 
that the photographer at least give some weight to the parent's request, 
but the photographer is pretty much within his rights if he chooses to 
ignore it.


--
Don't lose heart!  They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a 
lengthily search.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fwd: Photos of Children

[knarftheria...@gmail.com]

That's kind of creepy.

Not seeing the photos, I don't know if the photographer had the right to take 
them. If the kids were in a public place, a place where there is no reasonable 
expectation of privacy, then there's nothing legally wrong with doing so.

Same with publishing them. Both the photographer and Google+ would have the 
right to publish them as long as their images aren't being used for a 
commercial purpose.

However just because it's legal doesn't mean it may not be in very poor taste, 
especially if the gallery is one of these sick things filled with pix of 
kiddies (not porn but still for the gratification of pedophile pervs).

If it is one of those collections and the photographer refuses to remove dad's 
kids then Google+ should. They own the site and they have no obligation to 
allow this guy to publish anything he wants to on their site.

Cheers,
frank

--- Original Message ---

From: Eric Weir 
Sent: December 30, 2011 12/30/11
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Subject: Fwd: Photos of Children


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures" 
> 
> Date: December 30, 2011 5:29:15 AM EST
> To: google-plus-disc...@googleproductforums.com
> Subject: Photos of Children
> Reply-To: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures" 
> 
> 
> I have been invited to view an album of photos on Google+ featuring my 
> children (both under 13).  I did not give permission for the photos to be 
> used online (or in fact for the photos to be taken in the first place). Is it 
> possible to get them removed from Google+? I have asked the owner but they 
> are refusing.

As should be clear, this was posted to the Google+ discussion list.

Am I correct in understanding that permission was not required in either 
case--in taking the photos or posting them?

Regards,
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA
eew...@bellsouth.net

"A man should be in the world as though he were not in it 
so that it will be no worse because of his life." 

- Wendell Berry 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Fwd: Photos of Children

[Eric Weir]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures" 
> 
> Date: December 30, 2011 5:29:15 AM EST
> To: google-plus-disc...@googleproductforums.com
> Subject: Photos of Children
> Reply-To: "Google+ Discuss on behalf of sausagefeatures" 
> 
> 
> I have been invited to view an album of photos on Google+ featuring my 
> children (both under 13).  I did not give permission for the photos to be 
> used online (or in fact for the photos to be taken in the first place). Is it 
> possible to get them removed from Google+? I have asked the owner but they 
> are refusing.

As should be clear, this was posted to the Google+ discussion list.

Am I correct in understanding that permission was not required in either 
case--in taking the photos or posting them?

Regards,
--
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA
eew...@bellsouth.net

"A man should be in the world as though he were not in it 
so that it will be no worse because of his life." 

- Wendell Berry 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

interesting short piece on photographing children

[Larry Colen]

http://www.elizabethhalford.com/2011/02/24/9-ways-i-get-meaningful-expressions-in-child-portraits/

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Festival for children

[frank theriault]

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A couple of days before the end of Ramadan there is a special festival
> for children. The girls in particular are dressed up in new clothes,
> given new henna tattoos, paraded around in miniature bridal chairs,
> and made a big fuss of. It's very appealing, and the people of Fez are
> crazy about children:
>
> http://www.web-options.com/Fezfest/
>

Very compelling photos.

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Festival for children

[Christine Aguila]

This one's a doosey!
http://www.web-options.com/Fezfest/content/P9289005_large.html

This one's nice also
http://www.web-options.com/Fezfest/content/_9289080_large.html

Cheers, Christine


- Original Message - 
From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 11:35 AM
Subject: Festival for children



A couple of days before the end of Ramadan there is a special festival
for children. The girls in particular are dressed up in new clothes,
given new henna tattoos, paraded around in miniature bridal chairs,
and made a big fuss of. It's very appealing, and the people of Fez are
crazy about children:

http://www.web-options.com/Fezfest/

Bob


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Festival for children

[David J Brooks]

Great set Bob, very colourful

I like this one.

http://www.web-options.com/Fezfest/content/_9289080_large.html

Dave

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A couple of days before the end of Ramadan there is a special festival
> for children. The girls in particular are dressed up in new clothes,
> given new henna tattoos, paraded around in miniature bridal chairs,
> and made a big fuss of. It's very appealing, and the people of Fez are
> crazy about children:
>
> http://www.web-options.com/Fezfest/
>
> Bob
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
Equine Photography
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
Ontario Canada

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Festival for children

[Carlos Royo]

Bob W escribió:

A couple of days before the end of Ramadan there is a special festival
for children. The girls in particular are dressed up in new clothes,
given new henna tattoos, paraded around in miniature bridal chairs,
and made a big fuss of. It's very appealing, and the people of Fez are
crazy about children:

http://www.web-options.com/Fezfest/



I like them a lot, Bob. They're all very interesting.

Carlos

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Festival for children

[Bob W]

A couple of days before the end of Ramadan there is a special festival
for children. The girls in particular are dressed up in new clothes,
given new henna tattoos, paraded around in miniature bridal chairs,
and made a big fuss of. It's very appealing, and the people of Fez are
crazy about children:

http://www.web-options.com/Fezfest/

Bob


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re:PESO - Children! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[Gaëtan Beauchamp]

Hello everyone! Here is some photos of my wife's grandchildren, Mateo  
and Adelie.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7161172
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7161160&size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7161170&size=lg
Taken with a Pentax K20D, Pentax 100mm Macro lens.
Comments are welcome and appreciated.
Is there someone on the list who knows Pragua for photos?
Thank you all.
Gaetan Beauchamp

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: PESO: Children and tulips! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[Gaetan Beauchamp]

Hello everyone!
Thank you all for your suggestions on my problem with posting to the  
list. It was Mail on a Mac the cause, interpreting my post as a HTML.  
So now I am using Thunderbird for the list.
Here is a post with 3 photos of children  and 2 of tulips.
Mateo spoonful! http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7161160&size=lg
Adelie on her one year birthday with such a smile! 
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7161170&size=lg
Mateo, my wife's grandchilld, soft like a peach 
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7161172&size=lg
Tulips near a window, on a table : 
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7161178&size=lg 
; http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7161182&size=lg
All taken with a K20D, Pentax 100mm macro lens.
Comments are welcome and appreciated.

Is there someone on the list who know Pragua, or Brno? What would be  
your must for photos and do you suggest hotels? My wife and I are  
going there in July, happy are we!

Gaetan Beauchamp
http://gaetanbeauchamp.ca


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: My wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[Gaëtan Beauchamp]

Hello everybody! Thank you all for your comments and suggestions.

Thanks Mister Paul Stenquist for your appreciation of the children's  
photo, the heron's photos and the lake's photo.

Thanks to Mister Bill Lawlor. It seems that RA-4 color prints is not  
very usual these days. It's been very interesting to read about your  
experience Bill and one of these days I'll give a try to a good inkjet  
printer. I have a thermal-dye printer for now because I didn't want to  
be an inkjet cartridge buyer. I can do 20X24 on my CPP2, which is  
pretty big for me. I would like to do the same with an inkjet printer  
but it is pretty expensive. And what about a digital DeVere enlarger!  
That would be the summit but my wallet can't afford it. I do  
experience some problems with the correct filtration but it depends a  
lot of the paper used. I get satisfactory results with Crystal Archive  
Super C.

Thanks to Mister J.P.Alling for his comment on the heron flying away  
from us.

Thanks to Mister Sullivan for his comments on the children's photos. I  
did try to soften the background of the children's photo but with no  
success right now. I'll give it another try.

Thanks to Mister William Robb for his comments on the heron and the  
lake. Perhaps the heron have been over-saturated indeed. I was  
experiencing with Raw file at that time and I didn't realize that it  
is advisable not to alter too much the file in sharpness which can  
alter the colour also.

Thanks to Mister Kenneth Waller for the Pentax K20D slideshow  
possibilities. Thanks to Mister Jack Davis on the same subject and the  
comments on the hummingbird's photos. Thanks to Mister J.P.Alling.  
Pentax has indeed provide us with a silent movie camera reminding  
Chaplin and McClaren (The Neighbours).

And finally, thanks to Mister  Daniel J. Matyola for his suggestion to  
submit my children's photos to the April PUG on the theme Portraits,  
which I did. I don't know what they will do with it.

Sorry everyone for this long answer. But all those comments are really  
appreciated. When you're alone in your basement making prints and  
you've got only one person to show the results of your works, it's a  
real pleasure to read some comments on your photos. By the way, I'll  
do a short exhibition of 11 photos May the first on the theme REEDS.  
What don't you come say goodbye in Abitibi, Quebec, Canada?

For hummingbirds, heron, lake, childrens, tulips:

http://gaetanbeauchamp.ca/


For iPod Touch without Java: http://gaetanbeauchamp.ca/photos

Some more to come on Juncos.

Gaëtan Beauchamp


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: My wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[Daniel J. Matyola]

They should be in the April PUG -- isn't the theme "Portraits"?

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Gaëtan Beauchamp
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>  Here is some photos of my wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo.
>  Taken with a Pentax K10D.
>
>  http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7119937
>  http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7119958
>
>  Comments are welcome and appreciated as usual.
>
>  Gaetan Beauchamp
>
>  --
>  PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>  PDML@pdml.net
>  http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>  to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> follow the directions.
>
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: My wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The photos are good.
> Both could be improved with a lighter background.
> Grand-children are a pleasure.
> I borrow a former neighbor's.

Mark!


-
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: My wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[pnstenquist]

The shot of the boy is excellent. I like the little girl's pic as well, 
although it appears to be a bit soft. Good work here.
Paul
> 
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Gaëtan Beauchamp
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello everyone!
> > Here is some photos of my wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo.
> > Taken with a Pentax K10D.
> >
> > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7119937
> > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7119958
> >
> > Comments are welcome and appreciated as usual.
> >
> > Gaetan Beauchamp
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> > follow 
> the directions.
> >
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: My wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[Bob Sullivan]

The photos are good.
Both could be improved with a lighter background.
Grand-children are a pleasure.
I borrow a former neighbor's.
Regards,  Bob S.

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Gaëtan Beauchamp
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> Here is some photos of my wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo.
> Taken with a Pentax K10D.
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7119937
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7119958
>
> Comments are welcome and appreciated as usual.
>
> Gaetan Beauchamp
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: My wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[P. J. Alling]

Gaëtan Beauchamp wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> Here is some photos of my wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo.  
> Taken with a Pentax K10D.
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7119937
>   
I love this one.  Just a great goofy kid shot.

> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7119958
>
> Comments are welcome and appreciated as usual.
>
> Gaetan Beauchamp
>
>   


-- 
Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil...
   -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

PESO: My wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[Gaëtan Beauchamp]

Hello everyone!
Here is some photos of my wife's grand-children, Lea-Mei and Mateo.  
Taken with a Pentax K10D.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7119937
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7119958

Comments are welcome and appreciated as usual.

Gaetan Beauchamp

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

OT: GVS (RE: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Bob W]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> It all started with the Great Vowel Shift...
> 
> -frank
> ==
> Okay, I'll bite. What the heck is the Great Vowel Shift?
>  
> Marnie aka who has a lot of vowels
> 

it is the name given to the changes in pronunciation of English vowels
that took place from the 15th to 18th centuries. To some extent it is
still taking place. It's the reason why some old poems have so-called
half-rhymes (ie they don't rhyme) - they did at the time - and one of
the reasons why English spelling can seem illogical. Spelling was
codified at a particular time and place along the line of the GVS, and
more or less accurately represents the pronunciation of the time &
place, but the pronunciation has since shifted.

Listen to some of the recordings here:
http://facweb.furman.edu/~mmenzer/gvs/what.htm

There is a distinct vowel shift taking place even now in the northern
cities of the USA among middle-class white people.

You may have fewer vowels than you think! In English a lot of spelt
vowels are just pronounced as schwa (the 2nd vowel in 'butter'), or as
diphthongs (and sometimes even triphthongs) depending on the variety
of English, rather than as vowels.

Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[David Mann]

On Oct 6, 2006, at 2:07 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:

> I just had a look at it and it's effing brilliant! (If American
> television commercials were like that I'd probably consider getting a
> television.)

Bear in mind that the ad in question hasn't been aired here for years.

- Dave (hates annoying ads with a passion, and seems to find 90% of  
ads annoying, and the other 10% boring)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 10/5/2006 1:28:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It all started with the Great Vowel Shift...

-frank
==
Okay, I'll bite. What the heck is the Great Vowel Shift?

Marnie aka who has a lot of vowels

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[frank theriault]

On 10/5/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Yup. That's the modern way. It's all going down.
>

It all started with the Great Vowel Shift...

-frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Bob W]

> 
> On 10/4/06, Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Another pun thread...  I'm gonna gag.
> 
> I've thought long and hard about it, and I don't think these are
puns.
> 

Yup. That's the modern way. It's all going down.

Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[frank theriault]

On 10/4/06, Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Another pun thread...  I'm gonna gag.

I've thought long and hard about it, and I don't think these are puns.

-frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Mark Roberts]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:57:24 +1300, you wrote:

>On Oct 5, 2006, at 12:29 AM, David Savage wrote:
>
>> It's pretty mild language here. I tend to utter it when something  
>> stuffs up.
>>
>> An ad campaign a few years ago for Toyota New Zealand featured it  
>> quite heavily:
>>
>> 
>>
>>> From what I've read it received 100+ official complaints in NZ and  
>>> 1 here in Oz.
>>
>> I guess there are more prudes in New Zealand ;-)
>
>The Broadcasting Standards Authority allowed it to air despite the  
>mountains of complaints.

I just had a look at it and it's effing brilliant! (If American
television commercials were like that I'd probably consider getting a
television.)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/10/05 Thu AM 10:44:04 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> Subject: Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?
> 
> 
> On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:30 AM, mike wilson wrote:
> 
> > Name of an Andelusian dog!  That requires satisfaction!  Name your  
> > weapons!  (If we're using digital, can you hang on for a minute  
> > while my batteries finish charging?)
> 
> 
> I choose Polish sausages at 25 paces.
> 

Damn! Only half a Wieska in the fridge.  I'm just popping out to Costco for a 
pack of Kabanos.


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[David Savage]

Like I said no offence intended ;-)

Dave

On 10/5/06, Jostein Øksne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From www.onelook.com:
> "Quick definitions (pom)
> noun:   a disparaging term for English immigrants to Australia or New Zealand"
>
> Sooo... er...
>
> Thanks, I guess...
>
> hm.
>
> Jostein :-)
>
> On 10/4/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If it wasn't for the fact I know better (that, and I don't want to
> > offend him) I would swear he was a pom from the way he writes.
> >
> > :-)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[David Savage]

Ha!

I'd not seen that one.

Dave (Also easily ammused ;-)


On 10/5/06, Mitch Conant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David:
>
> >An ad campaign a few years ago for Toyota New Zealand featured it quite 
> >heavily:
> >
>
> Now, that's funny!!! Hey I'll admit I'm not part of the PC (politically
> correct) crowd . It is almost as funny as this one (I think it was
> Aussie):
>
> http://www.mme-ia.com/humor/video/lv03.mpg
>
> Easily entertained...
> Mitch

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, mike wilson wrote:

> Name of an Andelusian dog!  That requires satisfaction!  Name your weapons!  
> (If we're using digital, can you hang on for a minute while my batteries 
> finish charging?)



Here, have some AA Lithiums!



Kostas (beat that, my silly-form-factor-recheargeable hearties!)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Bob Shell]

On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:30 AM, mike wilson wrote:

> Name of an Andelusian dog!  That requires satisfaction!  Name your  
> weapons!  (If we're using digital, can you hang on for a minute  
> while my batteries finish charging?)


I choose Polish sausages at 25 paces.

Bob

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/10/05 Thu AM 10:10:31 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> Subject: Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?
> 
> 
> On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
> 
> > In english, almost all rude slang is either scatological or sexual.  
> > Damn
> > and its variants are the major exception. Unlike say french, where  
> > much
> > rude slang is blasphmemous.
> 
> Sacre bleu!!
> 
Name of an Andelusian dog!  That requires satisfaction!  Name your weapons!  
(If we're using digital, can you hang on for a minute while my batteries finish 
charging?)


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Bob Shell]

On Oct 4, 2006, at 2:06 PM, John Francis wrote:

> Quite.  I'm often amused when a TV character with a British accent
> (such as Spike, in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer") says "Bugger off",
> or the like - it appears to be a loophole in the great American
> puritanical broadcast TV vocabulary rules.

Yes, because most Americans don't know the meaning, I suppose.  In  
the recent movie Pirates of the Caribbean:Dead Man's Chest you will  
hear Captain Jack Sparrow use "bugger" frequently.  It didn't even  
get the movie an R rating.

Bob

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Bob Shell]

On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Adam Maas wrote:

> In english, almost all rude slang is either scatological or sexual.  
> Damn
> and its variants are the major exception. Unlike say french, where  
> much
> rude slang is blasphmemous.

Sacre bleu!!

Bob

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[David Mann]

On Oct 5, 2006, at 12:29 AM, David Savage wrote:

> It's pretty mild language here. I tend to utter it when something  
> stuffs up.
>
> An ad campaign a few years ago for Toyota New Zealand featured it  
> quite heavily:
>
> 
>
>> From what I've read it received 100+ official complaints in NZ and  
>> 1 here in Oz.
>
> I guess there are more prudes in New Zealand ;-)

The Broadcasting Standards Authority allowed it to air despite the  
mountains of complaints.

Bloody good too.  If there are any prudes in this country, I  
certainly don't know them.

- Dave (who tends to say much worse things than that)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[David Mann]

On Oct 5, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote:

>> From www.onelook.com:
> "Quick definitions (pom)
> noun:   a disparaging term for English immigrants to Australia or  
> New Zealand"

I wouldnt say it's disparaging, unless we're using the term "whinging  
pom" (very rare these days).  If what I see in the local news is  
anything to go by, the "whinging kiwi" is far more common :/

- Dave



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Kenneth Waller]

Monica, where are you when we need you ?

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?


>> 
>> 
>> >> Note, too, the difference in meaning of "sodomize".  In British
>> >> English sodomy is pretty much synonomous with buggery; in
> American
>> >> usage it means just about any variation on sexual activity apart
>> >> from the most rudimentary forms.  Oral sex, for example, is often
>> >> described as sodomy (especially in American news reporting).
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >
>> >I bet that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
>> 
>> Oh come now.
>> 
> 
> I meant it tongue-in-cheek
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[P. J. Alling]

Same thing is true of Punk.

Paul Stenquist wrote:

>While "sodomize" has retained much of its original meaning, "sod" has  
>been watered down over time. It originally meant a sodomizer and was  
>also used as a derogatory term for homosexual. In modern parlance, it  
>has come to mean chap or guy in some contexts and kid or brat in others.
>Paul
>On Oct 4, 2006, at 9:11 PM, David Savage wrote:
>
>  
>
>>At 02:06 AM 5/10/2006, John Francis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:52:20AM +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>>  
>>>
I don't know what the issue is other than prudishness.

To bugger someone means to have anal intercourse with them. Seems to
be this parlance that is more British English than American English,


>>>Quite.  I'm often amused when a TV character with a British accent
>>>(such as Spike, in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer") says "Bugger off",
>>>or the like - it appears to be a loophole in the great American
>>>puritanical broadcast TV vocabulary rules.
>>>
>>>. . .
>>>
>>>  
>>>
I was curious so I looked up the word in the OED:

bugger


>>>  . . .
>>>  
>>>
penetrate the anus of (someone) during sexual intercourse; sodomize.


>>>Note, too, the difference in meaning of "sodomize".  In British
>>>English sodomy is pretty much synonomous with buggery; in American
>>>usage it means just about any variation on sexual activity apart
>>>from the most rudimentary forms.  Oral sex, for example, is often
>>>described as sodomy (especially in American news reporting).
>>>  
>>>
>>So calling someone a "miserable sod", for example, is the same as  
>>calling
>>them a "miserable bugger".
>>
>>I hadn't given the word "sod" much thought until now.
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>PDML@pdml.net
>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Paul Stenquist]

While "sodomize" has retained much of its original meaning, "sod" has  
been watered down over time. It originally meant a sodomizer and was  
also used as a derogatory term for homosexual. In modern parlance, it  
has come to mean chap or guy in some contexts and kid or brat in others.
Paul
On Oct 4, 2006, at 9:11 PM, David Savage wrote:

> At 02:06 AM 5/10/2006, John Francis wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:52:20AM +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>> I don't know what the issue is other than prudishness.
>>>
>>> To bugger someone means to have anal intercourse with them. Seems to
>>> be this parlance that is more British English than American English,
>>
>> Quite.  I'm often amused when a TV character with a British accent
>> (such as Spike, in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer") says "Bugger off",
>> or the like - it appears to be a loophole in the great American
>> puritanical broadcast TV vocabulary rules.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>>> I was curious so I looked up the word in the OED:
>>> 
>>> bugger
>>   . . .
>>> penetrate the anus of (someone) during sexual intercourse; sodomize.
>>
>> Note, too, the difference in meaning of "sodomize".  In British
>> English sodomy is pretty much synonomous with buggery; in American
>> usage it means just about any variation on sexual activity apart
>> from the most rudimentary forms.  Oral sex, for example, is often
>> described as sodomy (especially in American news reporting).
>
>
> So calling someone a "miserable sod", for example, is the same as  
> calling
> them a "miserable bugger".
>
> I hadn't given the word "sod" much thought until now.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[David Savage]

At 06:22 AM 5/10/2006, you wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Note, too, the difference in meaning of "sodomize".  In British
> > >> English sodomy is pretty much synonomous with buggery; in
>American
> > >> usage it means just about any variation on sexual activity apart
> > >> from the most rudimentary forms.  Oral sex, for example, is often
> > >> described as sodomy (especially in American news reporting).
> > >
> > >I bet that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
> >
> > Oh come now.
>
>I meant it tongue-in-cheek

Are you sure it was a tongue?

Dave ;-)



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[keith_w]

David Savage wrote:
> At 02:06 AM 5/10/2006, John Francis wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:52:20AM +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>> I don't know what the issue is other than prudishness.
>>>
>>> To bugger someone means to have anal intercourse with them. Seems to
>>> be this parlance that is more British English than American English,
>> Quite.  I'm often amused when a TV character with a British accent
>> (such as Spike, in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer") says "Bugger off",
>> or the like - it appears to be a loophole in the great American
>> puritanical broadcast TV vocabulary rules.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>>> I was curious so I looked up the word in the OED:
>>> 
>>> bugger
>>   . . .
>>> penetrate the anus of (someone) during sexual intercourse; sodomize.
>> Note, too, the difference in meaning of "sodomize".  In British
>> English sodomy is pretty much synonomous with buggery; in American
>> usage it means just about any variation on sexual activity apart
>>from the most rudimentary forms.  Oral sex, for example, is often
>> described as sodomy (especially in American news reporting).

> So calling someone a "miserable sod", for example, is the same as calling 
> them a "miserable bugger".

I don't think so.
Not in the U.S. anyhow.

keith whaley

> I hadn't given the word "sod" much thought until now.
> 
> Dave 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[David Savage]

At 02:06 AM 5/10/2006, John Francis wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:52:20AM +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> > I don't know what the issue is other than prudishness.
> >
> > To bugger someone means to have anal intercourse with them. Seems to
> > be this parlance that is more British English than American English,
>
>Quite.  I'm often amused when a TV character with a British accent
>(such as Spike, in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer") says "Bugger off",
>or the like - it appears to be a loophole in the great American
>puritanical broadcast TV vocabulary rules.
>
>. . .
>
> > I was curious so I looked up the word in the OED:
> > 
> > bugger
>   . . .
> > penetrate the anus of (someone) during sexual intercourse; sodomize.
>
>Note, too, the difference in meaning of "sodomize".  In British
>English sodomy is pretty much synonomous with buggery; in American
>usage it means just about any variation on sexual activity apart
>from the most rudimentary forms.  Oral sex, for example, is often
>described as sodomy (especially in American news reporting).


So calling someone a "miserable sod", for example, is the same as calling 
them a "miserable bugger".

I hadn't given the word "sod" much thought until now.

Dave 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Digital Image Studio]

On 05/10/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> Note, too, the difference in meaning of "sodomize".  In British
> >> >> English sodomy is pretty much synonomous with buggery; in
> >American
> >> >> usage it means just about any variation on sexual activity apart
> >> >> from the most rudimentary forms.  Oral sex, for example, is often
> >> >> described as sodomy (especially in American news reporting).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I bet that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
> >>
> >> Oh come now.
> >>
> >
> >I meant it tongue-in-cheek
>
> Cunning!

Linguistics!

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

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Christian]

Cotty wrote:
> 
>Oral sex, for example, is often
>described as sodomy (especially in American news reporting).
>
>

I bet that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
>>>
>>>Oh come now.
>>>
>>
>>I meant it tongue-in-cheek
> 
> 
> Cunning!
> 
> 
Another pun thread...  I'm gonna gag.


-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Cotty]

>> >> Note, too, the difference in meaning of "sodomize".  In British
>> >> English sodomy is pretty much synonomous with buggery; in
>American
>> >> usage it means just about any variation on sexual activity apart
>> >> from the most rudimentary forms.  Oral sex, for example, is often
>> >> described as sodomy (especially in American news reporting).
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >
>> >I bet that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
>> 
>> Oh come now.
>> 
>
>I meant it tongue-in-cheek

Cunning!


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Need help: Photoshop molested children portraits?

[Mark Roberts]

Cotty wrote:

>>> Note, too, the difference in meaning of "sodomize".  In British
>>> English sodomy is pretty much synonomous with buggery; in American
>>> usage it means just about any variation on sexual activity apart
>>> from the most rudimentary forms.  Oral sex, for example, is often
>>> described as sodomy (especially in American news reporting).
>>
>>I bet that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
>
>Oh come now.

It's *really* painful to laugh hard with a face full if stitches...
 
-- 
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net