Digital photography, changing the world
Nov 26th 2004, 12:50 pm
#211
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to [email protected]
>>I assumed we bought these things because they were going cheap,
>>and morons will watch any old crap?
>There are too many TV channels, and not enough material.
exactly right, much input into satellite tech flat screens, home
cinema etc but that does not increase the meager amount of watch
able programming.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>>I assumed we bought these things because they were going cheap,
>>and morons will watch any old crap?
>There are too many TV channels, and not enough material.
exactly right, much input into satellite tech flat screens, home
cinema etc but that does not increase the meager amount of watch
able programming.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Nov 26th 2004, 12:50 pm
#212
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to [email protected]
>>how do you know if its focused where you want it?
>because you see the same image in the optical view finder as you would
>through an SLR. You can inspect the image after taking the photo and
>zoom in on the bit you wanted to focus the image on. The software in
>the camera provides a lot of options, on which part of the image is to
>be in focus.
This is all very well but currently I carry a pretty much manual
only body. It has one tiny battery and is small and light and I
have a set of three lenses 17mm-210mm. All fits into a small
camera bag. All these digital models coming out have auto this
and auto that, are twice the size of my camera and more
vulnerable to water/snow. They also need much heavier lenses when
not full frame, as most arent. also more battery power. There
doesn't seem to be a digital equivalent of a simple but quality
SLR. I can see me being eventually forced into buying a camera
and lenses I don't really like if slide film dies out completely.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>>how do you know if its focused where you want it?
>because you see the same image in the optical view finder as you would
>through an SLR. You can inspect the image after taking the photo and
>zoom in on the bit you wanted to focus the image on. The software in
>the camera provides a lot of options, on which part of the image is to
>be in focus.
This is all very well but currently I carry a pretty much manual
only body. It has one tiny battery and is small and light and I
have a set of three lenses 17mm-210mm. All fits into a small
camera bag. All these digital models coming out have auto this
and auto that, are twice the size of my camera and more
vulnerable to water/snow. They also need much heavier lenses when
not full frame, as most arent. also more battery power. There
doesn't seem to be a digital equivalent of a simple but quality
SLR. I can see me being eventually forced into buying a camera
and lenses I don't really like if slide film dies out completely.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Nov 26th 2004, 12:50 pm
#213
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to [email protected]
>>My sales this month are in double figures, 11.
>>that's binary BTW :-)
>Twice as many as I thought, I suppose business picks up at Xmas :-)
Twice? 1.5?
One was for a calendar, which is cutting it fine! One I suspect
an Xmas present, the other non seasonal. The thing is its good
business as the costs of a website and sending out a photo tend
to be small, so any income is profit, given that I take the pics
anyway.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>>My sales this month are in double figures, 11.
>>that's binary BTW :-)
>Twice as many as I thought, I suppose business picks up at Xmas :-)
Twice? 1.5?
One was for a calendar, which is cutting it fine! One I suspect
an Xmas present, the other non seasonal. The thing is its good
business as the costs of a website and sending out a photo tend
to be small, so any income is profit, given that I take the pics
anyway.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Nov 26th 2004, 12:58 pm
#214
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:43:14 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
> In an SLR, this is available in the viewfinder.
Nearly all SLRs have exposure values in the viewfinder whether digital or
film.
You're comparing a film SLR with regular viewfinder digital cameras. as I
said, this info is often available in the viewfinder of non SLR digital
cameras. It is available in the place where the normal user would need it -
film:in the viewfinder, digital: on the display. It depends on the model of
course.
The comparison is not a totally valid one, as many digital photographers
don't use the viewfinder - all the information they need would be available
on the display. All the SLR viewfinder's information has been moved to the
display. Some digital cameras (and not only the cheapest) don't even have a
viewfinder.
--
Tim C.
> In an SLR, this is available in the viewfinder.
Nearly all SLRs have exposure values in the viewfinder whether digital or
film.
You're comparing a film SLR with regular viewfinder digital cameras. as I
said, this info is often available in the viewfinder of non SLR digital
cameras. It is available in the place where the normal user would need it -
film:in the viewfinder, digital: on the display. It depends on the model of
course.
The comparison is not a totally valid one, as many digital photographers
don't use the viewfinder - all the information they need would be available
on the display. All the SLR viewfinder's information has been moved to the
display. Some digital cameras (and not only the cheapest) don't even have a
viewfinder.
--
Tim C.
Nov 26th 2004, 1:18 pm
#215
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:50:17 +0000, The Reids wrote:
> Following up to [email protected]
>
>>>how do you know if its focused where you want it?
>>because you see the same image in the optical view finder as you would
>>through an SLR. You can inspect the image after taking the photo and
>>zoom in on the bit you wanted to focus the image on. The software in
>>the camera provides a lot of options, on which part of the image is to
>>be in focus.
>
> This is all very well but currently I carry a pretty much manual
> only body. ...
You are the exception rather than the rule. When that body packs in, what
would you replace it with? You'll have a hard time finding anything that
doesn't have electronic everything nowadays.
> ...It has one tiny battery ...
I know what you mean. That's one of the two major drawbacks I find with
digital cameras. The amount of farting around with batteries all the time,
and the delay between pressing the shutter and it recording the scene. But
that's getting better. I don't see much of an improvement on the battery
front in sight though.
> ... and is small and light and I
> have a set of three lenses 17mm-210mm.
The 'hybrid' digital cameras have a pretty wide range of zoom built in -
sure you can't replace it with another objective, but they're getting quite
impressive. 10x zoom range is becoming normal. The downside is that they
have pretty slow apertures.
> All fits into a small
> camera bag. All these digital models coming out have auto this
> and auto that, ..
They also have manual this and that too. At least the ones that might
interest you do.
>... are twice the size of my camera and more
> vulnerable to water/snow. They also need much heavier lenses when
> not full frame, as most arent. also more battery power. There
> doesn't seem to be a digital equivalent of a simple but quality
> SLR.
True. I'm waiting. Digital SLRs are horribly expensive. Give it time.
Hopefully we'll be able to get decent replacements.
> I can see me being eventually forced into buying a camera
> and lenses I don't really like if slide film dies out completely.
By then there's be a totally different range and quality available.
But you'd probably have the same problem if you were satisfied with your
old kit, and you tried to replace it all with new (film) gear. (say it got
nicked, or w.h.y. )
--
Tim C.
> Following up to [email protected]
>
>>>how do you know if its focused where you want it?
>>because you see the same image in the optical view finder as you would
>>through an SLR. You can inspect the image after taking the photo and
>>zoom in on the bit you wanted to focus the image on. The software in
>>the camera provides a lot of options, on which part of the image is to
>>be in focus.
>
> This is all very well but currently I carry a pretty much manual
> only body. ...
You are the exception rather than the rule. When that body packs in, what
would you replace it with? You'll have a hard time finding anything that
doesn't have electronic everything nowadays.
> ...It has one tiny battery ...
I know what you mean. That's one of the two major drawbacks I find with
digital cameras. The amount of farting around with batteries all the time,
and the delay between pressing the shutter and it recording the scene. But
that's getting better. I don't see much of an improvement on the battery
front in sight though.
> ... and is small and light and I
> have a set of three lenses 17mm-210mm.
The 'hybrid' digital cameras have a pretty wide range of zoom built in -
sure you can't replace it with another objective, but they're getting quite
impressive. 10x zoom range is becoming normal. The downside is that they
have pretty slow apertures.
> All fits into a small
> camera bag. All these digital models coming out have auto this
> and auto that, ..
They also have manual this and that too. At least the ones that might
interest you do.
>... are twice the size of my camera and more
> vulnerable to water/snow. They also need much heavier lenses when
> not full frame, as most arent. also more battery power. There
> doesn't seem to be a digital equivalent of a simple but quality
> SLR.
True. I'm waiting. Digital SLRs are horribly expensive. Give it time.
Hopefully we'll be able to get decent replacements.
> I can see me being eventually forced into buying a camera
> and lenses I don't really like if slide film dies out completely.
By then there's be a totally different range and quality available.
But you'd probably have the same problem if you were satisfied with your
old kit, and you tried to replace it all with new (film) gear. (say it got
nicked, or w.h.y. )
--
Tim C.
Nov 26th 2004, 1:33 pm
#216
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:50:10 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Following up to [email protected]
>>>I assumed we bought these things because they were going cheap,
>>>and morons will watch any old crap?
>>There are too many TV channels, and not enough material.
>exactly right, much input into satellite tech flat screens, home
>cinema etc but that does not increase the meager amount of watch
>able programming.
We are making do with a 1987 state of the art Sony TV until the
programs improve.
I hope it doesn't finally die of old age in the meantime.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Following up to [email protected]
>>>I assumed we bought these things because they were going cheap,
>>>and morons will watch any old crap?
>>There are too many TV channels, and not enough material.
>exactly right, much input into satellite tech flat screens, home
>cinema etc but that does not increase the meager amount of watch
>able programming.
We are making do with a 1987 state of the art Sony TV until the
programs improve.
I hope it doesn't finally die of old age in the meantime.
--
Martin
Nov 26th 2004, 1:40 pm
#217
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:50:17 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Following up to [email protected]
>>>how do you know if its focused where you want it?
>>because you see the same image in the optical view finder as you would
>>through an SLR. You can inspect the image after taking the photo and
>>zoom in on the bit you wanted to focus the image on. The software in
>>the camera provides a lot of options, on which part of the image is to
>>be in focus.
>This is all very well but currently I carry a pretty much manual
>only body. It has one tiny battery and is small and light and I
>have a set of three lenses 17mm-210mm. All fits into a small
>camera bag. All these digital models coming out have auto this
>and auto that, are twice the size of my camera and more
>vulnerable to water/snow.
I doubt it. Most Digital Cameras allow you to do your own manual
settings and don't force you to use any of their dozen or so preset
automatic modes.
I don't know which cameras you have been looking at, but my 2002 Nikon
Digital camera will fit into a jacket pocket and my son's end of 2003
Pentax digital camera will easily fit into a shirt pocket. Both have
zoom lenses.
>They also need much heavier lenses when
>not full frame, as most arent. also more battery power. There
>doesn't seem to be a digital equivalent of a simple but quality
>SLR.
???
Have you looked here?
http://www.dpreview.com/
> I can see me being eventually forced into buying a camera
>and lenses I don't really like if slide film dies out completely.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Following up to [email protected]
>>>how do you know if its focused where you want it?
>>because you see the same image in the optical view finder as you would
>>through an SLR. You can inspect the image after taking the photo and
>>zoom in on the bit you wanted to focus the image on. The software in
>>the camera provides a lot of options, on which part of the image is to
>>be in focus.
>This is all very well but currently I carry a pretty much manual
>only body. It has one tiny battery and is small and light and I
>have a set of three lenses 17mm-210mm. All fits into a small
>camera bag. All these digital models coming out have auto this
>and auto that, are twice the size of my camera and more
>vulnerable to water/snow.
I doubt it. Most Digital Cameras allow you to do your own manual
settings and don't force you to use any of their dozen or so preset
automatic modes.
I don't know which cameras you have been looking at, but my 2002 Nikon
Digital camera will fit into a jacket pocket and my son's end of 2003
Pentax digital camera will easily fit into a shirt pocket. Both have
zoom lenses.
>They also need much heavier lenses when
>not full frame, as most arent. also more battery power. There
>doesn't seem to be a digital equivalent of a simple but quality
>SLR.
???
Have you looked here?
http://www.dpreview.com/
> I can see me being eventually forced into buying a camera
>and lenses I don't really like if slide film dies out completely.
--
Martin
Nov 26th 2004, 1:42 pm
#218
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:50:18 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Following up to [email protected]
>>>My sales this month are in double figures, 11.
>>>that's binary BTW :-)
>>Twice as many as I thought, I suppose business picks up at Xmas :-)
>Twice? 1.5?
I was allowing for the person who had difficulty making up her mind,
if she wanted yet another sunset to brighten her dull life :-)
Somebody told me once that he could sell more by labeling them as
sunrise.
>One was for a calendar, which is cutting it fine! One I suspect
>an Xmas present, the other non seasonal. The thing is its good
>business as the costs of a website and sending out a photo tend
>to be small, so any income is profit, given that I take the pics
>anyway.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Following up to [email protected]
>>>My sales this month are in double figures, 11.
>>>that's binary BTW :-)
>>Twice as many as I thought, I suppose business picks up at Xmas :-)
>Twice? 1.5?
I was allowing for the person who had difficulty making up her mind,
if she wanted yet another sunset to brighten her dull life :-)
Somebody told me once that he could sell more by labeling them as
sunrise.
>One was for a calendar, which is cutting it fine! One I suspect
>an Xmas present, the other non seasonal. The thing is its good
>business as the costs of a website and sending out a photo tend
>to be small, so any income is profit, given that I take the pics
>anyway.
--
Martin
Nov 26th 2004, 1:58 pm
#219
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:18:34 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't see much of an improvement on the battery
>front in sight though.
Other than that they are getting tinier and tinier and quicker to
charge?
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't see much of an improvement on the battery
>front in sight though.
Other than that they are getting tinier and tinier and quicker to
charge?
--
Martin
Nov 26th 2004, 2:03 pm
#220
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:42:48 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] arranged some
electrons, so they looked like this :
... On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:50:18 +0000, The Reids
... <[email protected]> wrote:
...
... >Following up to [email protected]
... >
... >>>My sales this month are in double figures, 11.
... >>>
... >>>that's binary BTW :-)
... >>
... >>Twice as many as I thought, I suppose business picks up at Xmas :-)
... >
... >Twice? 1.5?
...
... I was allowing for the person who had difficulty making up her mind,
... if she wanted yet another sunset to brighten her dull life :-)
... Somebody told me once that he could sell more by labeling them as
... sunrise.
Last year I saw a postcard of a beautiful sunset in Paris - beautiful oranges and reds,
bridges over the Seine in contre-jour and so on, but something was very wrong with it.
When I "placed" the landscape I realised it was actually a sunrise.
Maybe it works both ways.
electrons, so they looked like this :
... On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:50:18 +0000, The Reids
... <[email protected]> wrote:
...
... >Following up to [email protected]
... >
... >>>My sales this month are in double figures, 11.
... >>>
... >>>that's binary BTW :-)
... >>
... >>Twice as many as I thought, I suppose business picks up at Xmas :-)
... >
... >Twice? 1.5?
...
... I was allowing for the person who had difficulty making up her mind,
... if she wanted yet another sunset to brighten her dull life :-)
... Somebody told me once that he could sell more by labeling them as
... sunrise.
Last year I saw a postcard of a beautiful sunset in Paris - beautiful oranges and reds,
bridges over the Seine in contre-jour and so on, but something was very wrong with it.
When I "placed" the landscape I realised it was actually a sunrise.
Maybe it works both ways.
Nov 26th 2004, 2:06 pm
#221
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:13:18 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:58:47 +0000, The Reids
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Following up to Tim Challenger
>> >
>> >>> Checking focus is extremely difficult in the field.
>> >>
>> >>True but it can cut out some of the major cock-ups. Many cameras have a
>> >>"lens" effect to zoom in on the parts you want on the display - it helps,
>> >>its not perfect, but it's more than you get from most 35mm SLRs.
>> >
>> >My SLR allows you to look through the lens, that's largely the
>> >point of the system. Mine have a fine focus gadget in the middle
>> >of the screen to make sure focus is perfect. How is that going to
>> >be improved on in a digital? Do they have optical or digital
>> >viewfinders?
>>
>> My Nikon digital camera optical view finder shows exactly, what is on
>> the image. Just like on an SLR.
>Do you have exposure info in the digital viewfinder ?
Yes.
--
Martin
>In article <[email protected]>,
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:58:47 +0000, The Reids
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Following up to Tim Challenger
>> >
>> >>> Checking focus is extremely difficult in the field.
>> >>
>> >>True but it can cut out some of the major cock-ups. Many cameras have a
>> >>"lens" effect to zoom in on the parts you want on the display - it helps,
>> >>its not perfect, but it's more than you get from most 35mm SLRs.
>> >
>> >My SLR allows you to look through the lens, that's largely the
>> >point of the system. Mine have a fine focus gadget in the middle
>> >of the screen to make sure focus is perfect. How is that going to
>> >be improved on in a digital? Do they have optical or digital
>> >viewfinders?
>>
>> My Nikon digital camera optical view finder shows exactly, what is on
>> the image. Just like on an SLR.
>Do you have exposure info in the digital viewfinder ?
Yes.
--
Martin
Nov 26th 2004, 2:08 pm
#222
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:43:14 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <1101472423.IBaRi3vDva+1diu6K1L6FQ@teranews>, Tim Challenger
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:13:18 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:58:47 +0000, The Reids
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Following up to Tim Challenger
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Checking focus is extremely difficult in the field.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>True but it can cut out some of the major cock-ups. Many cameras have a
>> >>>>"lens" effect to zoom in on the parts you want on the display - it helps,
>> >>>>its not perfect, but it's more than you get from most 35mm SLRs.
>> >>>
>> >>>My SLR allows you to look through the lens, that's largely the
>> >>>point of the system. Mine have a fine focus gadget in the middle
>> >>>of the screen to make sure focus is perfect. How is that going to
>> >>>be improved on in a digital? Do they have optical or digital
>> >>>viewfinders?
>> >>
>> >> My Nikon digital camera optical view finder shows exactly, what is on
>> >> the image. Just like on an SLR.
>> >
>> > Do you have exposure info in the digital viewfinder ?
>>
>>
>> It's available in the digital screen on most but the low/mid range cameras.
>> Shutter speed/aperture, and any compensation. Depending on camera, just as
>> with normal film cameras. The lower idownn the model range, the less
>> options you get.
>In an SLR, this is available in the viewfinder.
On some digital cameras there is no optical view finder, it's why you
see people waving digital cameras around at arms length, when taking
photos.
--
Martin
>In article <1101472423.IBaRi3vDva+1diu6K1L6FQ@teranews>, Tim Challenger
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:13:18 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:58:47 +0000, The Reids
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Following up to Tim Challenger
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Checking focus is extremely difficult in the field.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>True but it can cut out some of the major cock-ups. Many cameras have a
>> >>>>"lens" effect to zoom in on the parts you want on the display - it helps,
>> >>>>its not perfect, but it's more than you get from most 35mm SLRs.
>> >>>
>> >>>My SLR allows you to look through the lens, that's largely the
>> >>>point of the system. Mine have a fine focus gadget in the middle
>> >>>of the screen to make sure focus is perfect. How is that going to
>> >>>be improved on in a digital? Do they have optical or digital
>> >>>viewfinders?
>> >>
>> >> My Nikon digital camera optical view finder shows exactly, what is on
>> >> the image. Just like on an SLR.
>> >
>> > Do you have exposure info in the digital viewfinder ?
>>
>>
>> It's available in the digital screen on most but the low/mid range cameras.
>> Shutter speed/aperture, and any compensation. Depending on camera, just as
>> with normal film cameras. The lower idownn the model range, the less
>> options you get.
>In an SLR, this is available in the viewfinder.
On some digital cameras there is no optical view finder, it's why you
see people waving digital cameras around at arms length, when taking
photos.
--
Martin
Nov 26th 2004, 2:22 pm
#223
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:03:12 +0100, Magda
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:42:48 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] arranged some
>electrons, so they looked like this :
> ... On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:50:18 +0000, The Reids
> ... <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> ... >Following up to [email protected]
> ... >
> ... >>>My sales this month are in double figures, 11.
> ... >>>
> ... >>>that's binary BTW :-)
> ... >>
> ... >>Twice as many as I thought, I suppose business picks up at Xmas :-)
> ... >
> ... >Twice? 1.5?
> ...
> ... I was allowing for the person who had difficulty making up her mind,
> ... if she wanted yet another sunset to brighten her dull life :-)
> ... Somebody told me once that he could sell more by labeling them as
> ... sunrise.
>Last year I saw a postcard of a beautiful sunset in Paris - beautiful oranges and reds,
>bridges over the Seine in contre-jour and so on, but something was very wrong with it.
>When I "placed" the landscape I realised it was actually a sunrise.
>Maybe it works both ways.
Better stop Mixi getting up at dawn, quick!
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:42:48 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] arranged some
>electrons, so they looked like this :
> ... On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:50:18 +0000, The Reids
> ... <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> ... >Following up to [email protected]
> ... >
> ... >>>My sales this month are in double figures, 11.
> ... >>>
> ... >>>that's binary BTW :-)
> ... >>
> ... >>Twice as many as I thought, I suppose business picks up at Xmas :-)
> ... >
> ... >Twice? 1.5?
> ...
> ... I was allowing for the person who had difficulty making up her mind,
> ... if she wanted yet another sunset to brighten her dull life :-)
> ... Somebody told me once that he could sell more by labeling them as
> ... sunrise.
>Last year I saw a postcard of a beautiful sunset in Paris - beautiful oranges and reds,
>bridges over the Seine in contre-jour and so on, but something was very wrong with it.
>When I "placed" the landscape I realised it was actually a sunrise.
>Maybe it works both ways.
Better stop Mixi getting up at dawn, quick!
--
Martin
Nov 26th 2004, 2:44 pm
#224
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
The Reids wrote:
> Following up to [email protected]
>
>
>>I'm thinking of things like 6 Feet Under, The
>>>>Sopranos, NYPD Blue,
>>>"The Young and the Restless," "Beverly Hills 90210," "Wheel of Fortune,"
>>>"Dallas," "Dynasty" ... the list goes on and on.
>>Yeah, they were all crap ...
>
>
> I assumed we bought these things because they were going cheap,
> and morons will watch any old crap?
Alas, that says more about you than about him.
> Following up to [email protected]
>
>
>>I'm thinking of things like 6 Feet Under, The
>>>>Sopranos, NYPD Blue,
>>>"The Young and the Restless," "Beverly Hills 90210," "Wheel of Fortune,"
>>>"Dallas," "Dynasty" ... the list goes on and on.
>>Yeah, they were all crap ...
>
>
> I assumed we bought these things because they were going cheap,
> and morons will watch any old crap?
Alas, that says more about you than about him.
Nov 26th 2004, 2:46 pm
#225
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:44:46 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The Reids wrote:
>> Following up to [email protected]
>>
>>
>>>I'm thinking of things like 6 Feet Under, The
>>>>>Sopranos, NYPD Blue,
>>>>"The Young and the Restless," "Beverly Hills 90210," "Wheel of Fortune,"
>>>>"Dallas," "Dynasty" ... the list goes on and on.
>>>Yeah, they were all crap ...
>>
>>
>> I assumed we bought these things because they were going cheap,
>> and morons will watch any old crap?
>Alas, that says more about you than about him.
which him?
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The Reids wrote:
>> Following up to [email protected]
>>
>>
>>>I'm thinking of things like 6 Feet Under, The
>>>>>Sopranos, NYPD Blue,
>>>>"The Young and the Restless," "Beverly Hills 90210," "Wheel of Fortune,"
>>>>"Dallas," "Dynasty" ... the list goes on and on.
>>>Yeah, they were all crap ...
>>
>>
>> I assumed we bought these things because they were going cheap,
>> and morons will watch any old crap?
>Alas, that says more about you than about him.
which him?
--
Martin