Digital photography, changing the world
Dec 14th 2004, 7:01 pm
#1006
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:32:20 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> And just how do they manage to be classified as natural ?
>
> You see them in scenes you photograph, and you photograph scenes lit by
> them.
That's not natural, that's either 'ambient' or 'common', or both, neither
of which imply a natural source.
> If you mean "not man-made," ...
How would *you* define "natural" in this context?
> ...about the only light source that comes to mind is sunlight.
You missed out bioluminescence, red-hot lava, lightning and arauras. Dear
me, you're not getting enough sleep are you?
--
Tim C.
>> And just how do they manage to be classified as natural ?
>
> You see them in scenes you photograph, and you photograph scenes lit by
> them.
That's not natural, that's either 'ambient' or 'common', or both, neither
of which imply a natural source.
> If you mean "not man-made," ...
How would *you* define "natural" in this context?
> ...about the only light source that comes to mind is sunlight.
You missed out bioluminescence, red-hot lava, lightning and arauras. Dear
me, you're not getting enough sleep are you?
--
Tim C.
Dec 14th 2004, 7:13 pm
#1007
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:52:23 +0100, Magda wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:49:42 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim Challenger
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> ... On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:56:00 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> ...
> ... > The Reids writes:
> ... >
> ... >> there is an internet convention of not typing in capitals, there
> ... >> is another of snipping for sense.
> ... >
> ... > I wasn't typing in capitals.
> ...
> ... What were your wearing then?
> ...
> ... (You typed "USENET".)
>
> A whole sentence/post in capitals is shouting. One word is emphasis.
> In my book, at least.
I know.
I never said he shouted. Mike did. Mixi said he didn't type in capitals,
but he did.
That's all.
--
Tim C.
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:49:42 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim Challenger
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> ... On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:56:00 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> ...
> ... > The Reids writes:
> ... >
> ... >> there is an internet convention of not typing in capitals, there
> ... >> is another of snipping for sense.
> ... >
> ... > I wasn't typing in capitals.
> ...
> ... What were your wearing then?
> ...
> ... (You typed "USENET".)
>
> A whole sentence/post in capitals is shouting. One word is emphasis.
> In my book, at least.
I know.
I never said he shouted. Mike did. Mixi said he didn't type in capitals,
but he did.
That's all.
--
Tim C.
Dec 14th 2004, 7:43 pm
#1008
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:13:14 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... I never said he shouted. Mike did. Mixi said he didn't type in capitals,
... but he did.
He is contradicting himself now ? There is no one left ?
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... I never said he shouted. Mike did. Mixi said he didn't type in capitals,
... but he did.
He is contradicting himself now ? There is no one left ?
Dec 14th 2004, 7:56 pm
#1009
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:43:24 +0100, Magda wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:13:14 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim Challenger
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> ... I never said he shouted. Mike did. Mixi said he didn't type in capitals,
> ... but he did.
>
> He is contradicting himself now ? There is no one left ?
It depends on hw you define "contradict". :-)
I'll get my coat.
--
Tim C.
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:13:14 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim Challenger
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
> ... I never said he shouted. Mike did. Mixi said he didn't type in capitals,
> ... but he did.
>
> He is contradicting himself now ? There is no one left ?
It depends on hw you define "contradict". :-)
I'll get my coat.
--
Tim C.
Dec 14th 2004, 7:57 pm
#1010
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Tim Challenger writes:
> You typed "USENET".
USENET is an acronym, customarily typied in uppercase letters, like
NORAD or USA.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> You typed "USENET".
USENET is an acronym, customarily typied in uppercase letters, like
NORAD or USA.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 14th 2004, 7:57 pm
#1011
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Magda writes:
> A whole sentence/post in capitals is shouting. One word is emphasis.
> In my book, at least.
In this case, it's just an acronym. USENET has traditionally been in
all uppercase, although there's a lot of variation these days.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> A whole sentence/post in capitals is shouting. One word is emphasis.
> In my book, at least.
In this case, it's just an acronym. USENET has traditionally been in
all uppercase, although there's a lot of variation these days.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 14th 2004, 7:58 pm
#1012
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:56:23 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:43:24 +0100, Magda wrote:
...
... > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:13:14 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim Challenger
... > <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... >
... > ... I never said he shouted. Mike did. Mixi said he didn't type in capitals,
... > ... but he did.
... >
... > He is contradicting himself now ? There is no one left ?
...
... It depends on hw you define "contradict". :-)
... I'll get my coat.
LOL
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:43:24 +0100, Magda wrote:
...
... > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:13:14 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Tim Challenger
... > <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... >
... > ... I never said he shouted. Mike did. Mixi said he didn't type in capitals,
... > ... but he did.
... >
... > He is contradicting himself now ? There is no one left ?
...
... It depends on hw you define "contradict". :-)
... I'll get my coat.
LOL
Dec 14th 2004, 7:59 pm
#1013
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Tim Challenger writes:
> That's not natural, that's either 'ambient' or 'common', or both, neither
> of which imply a natural source.
What's a "natural" source? Is sodium man-made? Is lightning a natural
source?
> How would *you* define "natural" in this context?
Something encountered in photography that doesn't use flash or other
artificial light designed specifically for taking photographs.
> You missed out bioluminescence, red-hot lava, lightning and arauras. Dear
> me, you're not getting enough sleep are you?
What are arauras?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> That's not natural, that's either 'ambient' or 'common', or both, neither
> of which imply a natural source.
What's a "natural" source? Is sodium man-made? Is lightning a natural
source?
> How would *you* define "natural" in this context?
Something encountered in photography that doesn't use flash or other
artificial light designed specifically for taking photographs.
> You missed out bioluminescence, red-hot lava, lightning and arauras. Dear
> me, you're not getting enough sleep are you?
What are arauras?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 14th 2004, 8:17 pm
#1014
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:57:06 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> You typed "USENET".
>
> USENET is an acronym, customarily typied in uppercase letters, like
> NORAD or USA.
I know. But you said you didn't type capitals, which you plainly did. Just
doing a Mixi.
USA isn't an acronym. I don't know many people that say "oosah".
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> You typed "USENET".
>
> USENET is an acronym, customarily typied in uppercase letters, like
> NORAD or USA.
I know. But you said you didn't type capitals, which you plainly did. Just
doing a Mixi.
USA isn't an acronym. I don't know many people that say "oosah".
--
Tim C.
Dec 14th 2004, 8:19 pm
#1015
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:59:54 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> That's not natural, that's either 'ambient' or 'common', or both, neither
>> of which imply a natural source.
>
> What's a "natural" source? Is sodium man-made? Is lightning a natural
> source?
>
>> How would *you* define "natural" in this context?
>
> Something encountered in photography that doesn't use flash or other
> artificial light designed specifically for taking photographs.
>
>> You missed out bioluminescence, red-hot lava, lightning and arauras. Dear
>> me, you're not getting enough sleep are you?
>
> What are arauras?
They're spelling mistakes that give off dim light in high northern and
southern latitudes.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> That's not natural, that's either 'ambient' or 'common', or both, neither
>> of which imply a natural source.
>
> What's a "natural" source? Is sodium man-made? Is lightning a natural
> source?
>
>> How would *you* define "natural" in this context?
>
> Something encountered in photography that doesn't use flash or other
> artificial light designed specifically for taking photographs.
>
>> You missed out bioluminescence, red-hot lava, lightning and arauras. Dear
>> me, you're not getting enough sleep are you?
>
> What are arauras?
They're spelling mistakes that give off dim light in high northern and
southern latitudes.
--
Tim C.
Dec 14th 2004, 8:22 pm
#1016
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Magda
> ... (You typed "USENET".)
>A whole sentence/post in capitals is shouting. One word is emphasis.
>In my book, at least.
The convention is *emphasis* or _emphasis_.
There is of course the possibility usenet is an acronym?
--
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
> ... (You typed "USENET".)
>A whole sentence/post in capitals is shouting. One word is emphasis.
>In my book, at least.
The convention is *emphasis* or _emphasis_.
There is of course the possibility usenet is an acronym?
--
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
Dec 14th 2004, 8:22 pm
#1017
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to [email protected]
>>but there is no parallel there to the continued use of b&w.
>Other than that B&W film and TVs are still in use. [red herring score
>99/100]
Yes, why should the rest of us not have cherry herrings?
--
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
>>but there is no parallel there to the continued use of b&w.
>Other than that B&W film and TVs are still in use. [red herring score
>99/100]
Yes, why should the rest of us not have cherry herrings?
--
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
Dec 14th 2004, 8:22 pm
#1018
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Mxsmanic
>> And just how do they manage to be classified as natural ?
>You see them in scenes you photograph, and you photograph scenes lit by
>them.
pretty poor definition of natural, a silicon implant would
qualify on that test.
>If you mean "not man-made," about the only light source that comes to
>mind is sunlight.
ever photographed a volcano or a forest fire?
--
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
>> And just how do they manage to be classified as natural ?
>You see them in scenes you photograph, and you photograph scenes lit by
>them.
pretty poor definition of natural, a silicon implant would
qualify on that test.
>If you mean "not man-made," about the only light source that comes to
>mind is sunlight.
ever photographed a volcano or a forest fire?
--
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
Dec 14th 2004, 8:22 pm
#1019
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to [email protected]
>> Andrew who?
> MsxManic = Andrew
Tell us more.
--
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
>> Andrew who?
> MsxManic = Andrew
Tell us more.
--
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
Dec 14th 2004, 8:42 pm
#1020
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:32:20 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Keith Willshaw writes:
>> And just how do they manage to be classified as natural ?
>You see them in scenes you photograph, and you photograph scenes lit by
>them.
>If you mean "not man-made," about the only light source that comes to
>mind is sunlight.
Sunlight is monochrome?
--
Martin
wrote:
>Keith Willshaw writes:
>> And just how do they manage to be classified as natural ?
>You see them in scenes you photograph, and you photograph scenes lit by
>them.
>If you mean "not man-made," about the only light source that comes to
>mind is sunlight.
Sunlight is monochrome?
--
Martin
