On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, John Francis wrote:
> So far (touch wood) I've had no problem with the Memorex
> 8x or 10x I use. They might cost a couple of cents more
> per gigabyte, but they're still dirt cheap - I remember
> when CD-R media cost a couple of bucks each.
When I recorded my first CD-R dis
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
> > Odd, I have CD-Rs that were burned nearly 6 years ago and are still
> > readable by my computers. Surely shome mishtake?
> Me too. I have some CD-Rs with my company's archives that are older than
> even 7 years. One thing: they are all from well known brands (Philips,
Mark Roberts wrote:
> Well it is going to a good hope. A friend of mine who likes Pentax
> cameras and wants a classic, manual focus camera with manual exposure
> capability.
The K2 is about as good as it gets, despite being a little loud and a bit
hefty (its the heaviest of all the K-mount bodi
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> It seems that some USB 2 cards are not pushing pixels as fast as they
> should be. Some are designated as USB 2 only to indicate that they are
> "compatible" with that format. So, if you're looking to buy a USB 2 card
> reader, be sure that it's high speed USB 2, and that
>
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, John Francis wrote:
>
> > So far (touch wood) I've had no problem with the Memorex
> > 8x or 10x I use. They might cost a couple of cents more
> > per gigabyte, but they're still dirt cheap - I remember
> > when CD-R media cost a couple of bucks each.
>
> When I recorde
The subject says it all, but here's why! I just got a Pentax A70-210/4 zoom
in excellent condition (for A$110), except for the mount, which has some
rough patches where various people have abused it. What are the pitfalls
(and is it practical) in taking off the lens mount and replacing it with on
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Going to the site you posted, I got this:
>
>The area you wish to access is behind registration.
Oh! I'm not registered either, I don't think? I certainly didn't log on
and I haven't a clue what my username and password might be if I was.
> Oh
>
> > Not that I'm too bothered if the transfer takes half an hour. The only
> > time I'm likely to care about speed is if I'm out in the field, when I
> > will probably be loading onto my laptop using a PCMCIA adapter, which
> > should be able to transfer a little faster.
>
> Actually if you wa
Hi,
Friday, November 21, 2003, 4:41:29 AM, you wrote:
[...]
> A friend of mine is a Dr of Music.
> According to him, anyone over the age of 50 who figures they can still
> appreciate the joys of an expensive sound system are fooling themselves. We
> lose much ability to discern subtle tonal varia
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> Just bought this off ebay:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2962277257&category=29982&rd=1
Damn. It arrived today. *Fantastic* balance and handling of a huge
lens on the miniscule MZ-5n. Screwing the Jessops UV gives you a
After lng negotiations with my wife (now I know why corruption
statistics in Poland are so bad ;-), I can finally go *istD too. Just before
I go and buy it, I would like to ask some questions to *istD brotherhood, as
I noticed some strange things testing *istD:
1. It had misaligned superimp
B&H lowered price too - now it is 1499$.
--
Best Regards
Sylwek
on 20.11.03 17:46, Bill Owens at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One of the members of our church asked for a copy of this. The first sale
> of one of my images. Little Brown Church in the Vale:
>
> http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=47
Congratulations Bill!
Very suprisingly, I bought mine from the local store here for $1490.
Not very often that they are cheaper than the NY mail order houses.
I'm guessing B&H and Adorama are only lowering prices when they have
to.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Friday, November 21, 2003, 2:06:14 AM, you wrote:
SP> B&H lo
at wrok at about 1990, we had one of the Yamaha ones that sold for about
$15,000 that was the size of s small desk. CD-ROM software and CD-ROMs in
general were just coming out then. i still have a few commercial CD-ROMs,
just sitting there, including Microsoft's Multimedia Beethoven's 9th.
Herb...
have you compared battery life versus CompactFlash cards? i see that the 4GB
MicroDrive card draws 310mA when writing while most CF cards are in the 65mA
range. i'm right now using a 1GB CF card and it holds only 70 RAW images.
the alternative is to spend more and get a 2GB CF card instead.
Herb..
Pentax and Carl Zeiss go back a way. Multicoating lenses was a joint
development of theirs. SMC and T* have the same roots. They may have
diverged a bit over the years but they are both very effective.
I think Rollei may have licensed their HFT from CZ, as well.
Len
---
* There's no place lik
I think it would be a mistake to sell off those great lenses. Keep them and
wait until you have money enough to buy the *ist D.
Len
---
* Wherever you go, that's where you'll be. 127.0.0.1
From: "David Madsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Pentax Discuss List" <[EMAIL PR
Kodak gold CD-R disks were excellent. Unfortunately, they don't make them
anymore. Has anyone had any experience with TDK black? I can't find them
around here but have heard they are very good.
Len
---
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
From: "David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL
There's something to be said for not putting all your eggs (images) in one
basket. Why not buy two more 1GB CF cards? Just yesterday all you could
shoot on a roll of film was 36 pictures. Changing CF cards every 70 (or
even every 35) shots is not that time consuming or tiring. If you ever ha
Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark Roberts wrote:
>
>> Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Mark, it may be the colors that are the problem, not the font size
>> >In Netscape there is a lot of royal blue on black - looks pretty but hard to
>> >read.
>>
>> Which version
"John Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The subject says it all, but here's why! I just got a Pentax A70-210/4 zoom
>in excellent condition (for A$110), except for the mount, which has some
>rough patches where various people have abused it. What are the pitfalls
>(and is it practical) in takin
Chris Brogden wrote:
[. . .]
> > > You can't tell me that most ISO 100 films, or a Nikon F5, or a Canon 1Ds,
> > > or most f2.8 zooms are mediocre.
> > In my mind a 2.8 zoom is mediocre, even if it makes great photos. It's
> > big, it's slow to use, it's heavy, it's not unobtrusive, it's not a
Hello Folks
I am selling quite a bit of stuff on commission on eBay.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=29982&item=2965531641
..amongst others.
Kind regards from sunny Brighton
Peter
As I got no interest so far, it seemed to me that I buried my question
under the thread. Let me try again.
The Kiron 70-210/4 I bought off ebay arrived today. I had a look at
the front element(s) and I see a reflection like a small splash on the
back of the front element or on the second element
... when a modern Pentax body starts overlapping frames?
Is there a clutch in the take-up that begins to slip
or is it gears?
Just curious.
CRB
- Original Message -
From: "Collin Brendemuehl"
Subject: So what happens ...
> ... when a modern Pentax body starts overlapping frames?
> Is there a clutch in the take-up that begins to slip
> or is it gears?
> Just curious.
It's indicative of the death of the little mice that you hear
- Original Message -
From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis"
Subject: Re: Is this a Vivitar?
> However, I had a look at the front element(s) and I see a reflection
> like a small splash on the back of the front element or on the second
> element or sth like that. Is that Mr Mushroom? Is that a go
- Original Message -
From: "Sylwester Pietrzyk"
Subject: and now me - 011101100... + Q
> After lng negotiations with my wife (now I know why corruption
> statistics in Poland are so bad ;-), I can finally go *istD too. Just
before
> I go and buy it, I would like to ask some ques
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Sylwester Pietrzyk"
> Subject: and now me - 011101100... + Q
>
> > 4. Some of my flash (with AF360) shots were alightly underexposed. Should
> it
> > work this way?
>
> I've found that my camera tenns to over exp
All auctions close on Sunday. Thanks in advance for your interest!
Pentax ZX-5 QD w/35-70 PK-F Zoom, other accessories (Item #2966059206)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2966059206
Pentax Super Program w/50mm lens, other accessories (Item #2966061505)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBa
It sounds like a fungus. A good camera repair shop should be able to
disassemble the lens and clean it. If it's as minor as it sounds, the
repair should be 100% successful. I've had it done on a couple of lenses,
and all have remained clean.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> As I got no interest so f
Hi gang,
Notice I said "taking," for this photo wasn't offered, and the shutter
was tripped surreptitiously. The woman had no idea that I was going to
take this picture of her.
I have mixed feelings about this shot. On the one hand it seemingly
reflects an aspect of American culture, yet, on the
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> It sounds like a fungus. A good camera repair shop should be able to
> disassemble the lens and clean it. If it's as minor as it sounds, the
> repair should be 100% successful. I've had it done on a couple of lenses,
> and all have remained clean.
Than
> when a modern Pentax body starts overlapping frames?
> Is there a clutch in the take-up that begins to slip
> or is it gears?
> Just curious.
>
> CRB
>
How modern?
My ZX-5n started doing this when I'd had it about 13 months. (I had the
extended warranty. Back to Pentax it went for repair
On Friday, Nov 21, 2003, at 03:10 America/New_York, David Mann wrote:
I seem to recall that one of the slower USB versions was renamed to USB
2.0 or something like that to make it more marketable when the higher
speed USB 2 came out. I think one is called "fast USB2" and the other
"high-speed USB
Quite honestly Shel, as much as I've respected you over the years, I am
repulsed by this photograph. Not by the subject, framing, or technical
details, but by the very fact that this sort of photography is akin to
voyeurism.
If you told us that she gave you permission to photograph her, I wouldn'
This is social documentary.
Totally acceptable, in the right context even highly commendable.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think you missed the point. I didn't judge her, but, rather, looked at the
various possibilities that may have existed in her life, and in mine, as well. It
was musing, not judging ... exploring possibilities.
I believe we can all agree that a photograph should make the viewer think. Should
i
>
> But, coming back to this picture, is it the unflattering portrayal that
> bothers you the most, or that the photo was taken without permission? Had
> this photo been of a beautiful woman, in a more flattering situation, but
> still taken in the same manner, would you feel the same way?
How w
Mark Roberts writes:
>It's very easy to do: Only 5 screws. But if you use the mount from an
>M50/1.7 (or any other K/M lens) you'll lose matrix metering due to the
>lack of aperture contacts. With a bit of modification you can work
>around that, though.
I wrote:
>Being an 'A' lens, there are non
Hey Shel, welcome back!
I think the best argument for taking this picture is that you generally
cannot go back and recreate a missed opportunity. "Shoot first, ask
questions later".Even if the questions are only to yourself regarding
not only technical aspects but personal/moral aspects abou
Hi,
In the case of the MZ-S, I understand that it was the software.
m
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>
> ... when a modern Pentax body starts overlapping frames?
> Is there a clutch in the take-up that begins to slip
> or is it gears?
> Just curious.
>
> CRB
Graywolf wrote:
>We would hate the lack of tonality in digital prints. We would
hate the over sharpened look of digital prints. Funny thing is most of us on
this list think all those things I just listed are positive rather than
negative
features. Well they do say beauty (quality) is in the eye
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Good points, Christian ... but let me ask this: Is it a more honest
> portrayal of
> a subject when they know they are going to be photographed and start
> "performing" for the camera? I suppose it could be in some situat
> The funny thing here is I think we old folks need a better sound system then the
> younger folks. Why? Well, I at least have a far harder time separating noise, so
> the less noise the better the sound to my ears. Current consumer sound is: 1.
> loud. 2. excessively bassy. 3. noisy.
Current
The instruction list was good.
I'll just add some additional thoughts and concerns:
1. Move the lens OFF the "A" position.
Otherwise you risk having the "A" pin fly away.
2. The yellow Stanley set available @ your local Wal-Mart
hardware department has one Philips that's a perfect fit for the
s
> -Original Message-
> From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Many of us don't use over-saturated films (e.g. shooting
> Provia, not Velvia).
> And while the tonal qualities of a digital black-and-white
> print aren't a match
> for even a reasonable-quality chemical print, it's
Do all "portraits" have to be attractive to be good portraits?
Most certainly not. The portrait is entirely what the photographer wants
it to be.
The classic example that I use is Richard Avedon's portraits of his
father. As one critic described it, he "murdered his own father with the
camera."
Hi,
Your comments are quite helpful and well thought out.
Actually, there is no "title" to the photo other than the "working" title so I
could recognize it on the hard disk. Had I been completely comfortable with
the photograph, and my taking it, it would have probably had a real title, and
been
Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure some will ... but:
I thought it was okay to take pictures in a public place and use them in
publications without any permission from the subject. Of course MacChicken
or Captain's Cook, or wherever it was, is not a public place, or is it? To
take pictures in a
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>My question to the list: Should this photo have been taken? Do you
>think it is overly critical of the subject or sympathetic, or perhaps
>judgmental? Maybe I'm being critical of myself, using the photo to work
>through or better understand my own situ
It's a great shot. An interesting composition and compelling subject
matter. However, I would be afraid of angering and hurting the subject. if
I was caught taking it surreptitiously. I doubt if I would have the nerve
to ask her to pose. She almost surely would say no. If I thought I could
shoot i
Hi John ...
My purpose for showing this photograph here and at this time is to work through
some issues about the purpose of my photography as well as some personal
issues. However, when the photograph presented itself to me, those thoughts did
not cross my mind. I saw something in the scene tha
1. It is never immoral and should never be illegal to freeze an instant (any
instant) in time of any one or thing seen in a public place. There is
clearly no expectation of privacy in the public arena.
2. The presentation of truth clearly available to the public is never
immoral. It is s
>
>
> Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Thanks Paul. Would you remember what you paid for it?
> >
> >
I believe it was $60 the last time I had it done. This was on a Vivitar Series 1
90/2.5 macro.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure some will ... but:
>
> I thought it was okay to take pictures in a public place and use them in
> publications without any permission from the subject. Of course MacChicken
> or Captain's Cook, or wherever it was, is not a public place, or is it? To
> take
I love it when Bob wakes up.
tv
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> 1.It is never immoral and should never be illegal to
> freeze an instant (any
> instant) in time of any one or thing seen in a public
> place. There is
> clearly no expectation
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> My question to the list: Should this photo have been taken?
Yes. At least there's nothing to prevent you from taking it. I
personally have no issue with sneaked shots. It's been done as long as
there have been c
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>Social commentary as Raimo said. Perfectly acceptable. I find it an
>interesting photograph. I am not repulsed. I am not repulsed by fatties,
Marnie you *fatist* !!! LOL.
>I've always wondered about that, actually, how does a photographer track
down
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>The subject says it all, but here's why! I just got a Pentax A70-210/4 zoom
>in excellent condition (for A$110), except for the mount, which has some
>rough patches where various people have abused it. What are the pitfalls
>(and is it practical) in tak
Bob Blakely wrote:
9.I bet that's a diet drink she has there - or perhaps a new prescription for her glasses.
"May I take your order, miss?"
"Yes, I'll have a double cheeseburger, a large fry, with a diet coke."
"Would you like that order "value sized"?
"Sure, why not..."
Only in the good o
Hallo,
on the www.photozone.de Alexander gave a link to the german pentax side with
a flash overview:
http://www.pentax.de/mediapool/attachments/photo/100/106/97229/Blitzuebersic
ht.pdf
There it was shown, that the AF360FGZ will work in TTL-mode with the LX,
Super A and 645
I tested it and now
So, if y'want to publish a photo from years before, and y'can't find the
subject, and a release is required, whadday do? Fake the release?
Cotty wrote:
>
> >I've always wondered about that, actually, how does a photographer track
> down
> >people they may have shot years ago?
>
> You can't.
>
>
While I wasn't right out in the open, she did see me photographing the
area while she was ordering her meal. In fact, we even spoke briefly ...
nothing of any consequence, just a few words about ordering at the
window. So, while I didn't ask permission to take the shot, and I didn't
stick the cam
On 21/11/03, "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>(including airline travel; my cameras go in checked baggage).
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>Art isn't always beautiful. But it should always make you think...
>
>-Mat
Couldn't have put it better!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Ma
A good photograph always reveals something about the photographer.
A REALLY good photograph reveals it without the photographer, or
sometimes even the viewer, realizing it.
-Mat
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
After viewing the photograph I realized that I was also confronting some of my
own demons and lo
FYI, the TSA has made a change in the regs:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1248.xml
--
Thomas Van Veen Photography
www.thomasvanveen.com
301-758-3085
You don't use a photo without release for any commercial purpose. You can lose
your happy home. The stock house I work with won't accept any people shots
without detailed releases. And in special cases, such as with shots that
depict alcohol or tobacco use, the release has to specify how the person
På 21. nov. 2003 kl. 19.57 skrev Dr E D F Williams:
Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure some will ... but:
I thought it was okay to take pictures in a public place and use them
in
publications without any permission from the subject. Of course
MacChicken
or Captain's Cook, or wherever it was,
Cotty wrote:
>Marnie you *fatist* !!! LOL.
I'm overweight myself, so how could I be. ;-)
Not way overweight, but in mine own eyes I am fat.
Marnie aka Doe
Shel wrote:
>Ann Sanfedele and I have been having that discussion for a year or so
And, of course, how does one qualify or quantify what's attractive?
eXactly. Just relabel it from "big eater" to something else, because big
eater is a value judgment and an assumption on your part. In her own w
Well, it is a good street shot. It has atmosphere. It says something about
contemporary life. It in itself is not derogatory of the subject. The viewer's
personal biases are not the photographer's concern (except the photographer's
personal biases to himself, in this particular case).
--
Shel
Years ago I overheard this comment while passing a couple of people talking in the
street:
"There was no such thing as ugly until people tried to become beautiful."
shel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And, of course, how does one qualify or quantify what's attractive?
>
> In her own way she is
If you replace the A mount with the M mount
the A pin will have to be removed.
To do that ...
1. put the lens on "A"
2. Remove the mount slowly.
3. You should be able to pick up the pin assembly with a magnet
and place it into a ziplock for storage until regaining your senses.
CRB
From: Mat Maessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The classic example that I use is Richard Avedon's portraits of his father.
As one critic described it, he "murdered his own father with the camera."
Then it is apparent that the 'critic' didn't read the text that went with
the photographs.
Lewis
___
John Francis wrote:
>Many of us don't use over-saturated films (e.g. shooting Provia, not Velvia).
And while the tonal qualities of a digital black-and-white print aren't a
match
for even a reasonable-quality chemical print, it's a lot closer for colour;
the
price of a top-quality colour print is
So now we're cheap because we choose not to spend $20K on a sound system?
Ok, this is where I bow out of this thread.
chris
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> You guys need to go listen to some vinyl on a $20K
> system. If you cant hear the difference between
> that and a $2K syste
Hi Boris
The exposure was good, it was in focus with no motion blur. It did strike me
as being a little too static for my tastes. It almost looked like the game
was over and everyone was trying to decide where to go for a beer. I would
try to catch more of a sense of action, If you time it for pea
>
> On 21/11/03, "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>
> >(including airline travel; my cameras go in checked baggage).
>
> ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
>
>
>
> You sir, are completely bonkers.
You try getting a 70-lb camera bag into carry-on sometime.
Heck, that's above the weight limit f
None of the above. A photograph cannot be critical or subjective or
judgmental. Only the viewer harbours those abilities.
Cheers,
Cotty
Exactly. The photograph is an image. The image invokes a viewer response.
Ignoring any legal question, morality is in the mind of the viewer.
Should Shel hav
I don't have a problem with the photo's being taken. Shoot now, edit
later. It does come across as judgmental to me because of the context.
Had you shot a thin woman in a diner, or a fat woman playing with her kids
or petting a dog, it would be different. Juxtaposing a grossly overweight
person
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>So, how did you sneak it? Did you actually hide the camera or did you
>do the old "I'm just checking the dials, oops, I shot off a frame, I
>wish I knew how this thing worked" routine?
Damn, I thought i was the only one.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
I think the photo itself is fine, the thing that urks me is the title
"Big Eater" i think this degrades both the photo and subject.
>
> FYI, the TSA has made a change in the regs:
>
> http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1248.xml
Well, yes. But the additional bag still has to comply with the
weight and size restrictions for carry-on baggage. It's rather
hard for me to carry my 250-600 that way. So my choi
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>So, if y'want to publish a photo from years before, and y'can't find the
>subject, and a release is required, whadday do? Fake the release?
When is a release required?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
My 2¢ worth
I'm uncomfortable with it, it begs too many questions. The coke bottle
eyeglasses makes me wonder if there is an underlying medical problem, or
possibly a mental problem.
This also brings up the whole question: is street photography "art" and if
so does that give the photographer the
All this talk of beef stew made me want some. I've got the beef simmering
now. Anybody else making stew this week ?
Butch
Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself.
Hermann Hesse (Demian)
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>You don't use a photo without release for any commercial purpose. You
can lose
>your happy home. The stock house I work with won't accept any people shots
>without detailed releases. And in special cases, such as with shots that
>depict alcohol or tobacco
> -Original Message-
> From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> All this talk of beef stew made me want some. I've got the
> beef simmering
> now. Anybody else making stew this week ?
>
> Butch
>
I'm doing chicken and dumplings sunday.
tv
I think, taken in context, that the critic's comment was more intended
to convey the mood that Avedon made in the portraits, which made no
pretense that his father was, quite literally, wasting away. Definitely
an unflattering portrayal of the subject, but still a portrait, nonetheless.
-Mat (g
> >So, if y'want to publish a photo from years before, and y'can't find the
> >subject, and a release is required, whadday do? Fake the release?
If you publish and get sued it's bad enough! If you fake the release, you
may well have committed fraud and wind up behing bars even!
John Francis wrote:
>
> >
> > FYI, the TSA has made a change in the regs:
> >
> > http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1248.xml
>
> Well, yes. But the additional bag still has to comply with the
> weight and size restrictions for carry-on baggage. It's rather
> hard for me t
A release is required when the photo is used for commercial purposes.
The most common example would be for advertising use. If you intend to
capitalize on someone's image, you must have their permission.
On Friday, November 21, 2003, at 04:31 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disg
Street photography is most certainly art. The street photographer must
recognize a worthy image in a matter of seconds and act immediately.
I've blown so many great photos, it makes me cry. I don't think there's
any greater measure of photographic skill than that of capturing the
moment as it h
And what might the thickness of one's glasses have to do with a person's mental
state? If thick glasses may indicate mental problems, perhaps a blind person
should be institutionalized or given a lobotomy, as their mental problems may be
far greater, and people wearing contact lenses might just ne
Graywolf posted:
> What bothers me, Shel is the judgments you expressed about the woman. Without
> them it is just a photo of her. With them it is a serious put down. This is
the
> thing one has to watch for using such photos editorially. If you imply, much
> less say something (in this case th
Keith Whaley wrote:
John Francis wrote:
FYI, the TSA has made a change in the regs:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1248.xml
Well, yes. But the additional bag still has to comply with the
weight and size restrictions for carry-on baggage. It's rather
hard for
On 21/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>You try getting a 70-lb camera bag into carry-on sometime.
>
>Heck, that's above the weight limit for *checked* baggage on
>some airlines - I've had to pay excess baggage a few times.
>
>These things are tools, not pets. They have a nice Pelican
>case to
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
