Digital photography, changing the world
Dec 16th 2004, 12:49 am
#1126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Tim Challenger writes:
> A bit late by then isn't it.
That depends on the circumstances.
> No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
Resetting the balance has no effect on the response of the sensor.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> A bit late by then isn't it.
That depends on the circumstances.
> No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
Resetting the balance has no effect on the response of the sensor.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 16th 2004, 12:50 am
#1127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
[email protected] writes:
> $8000 ?
For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> $8000 ?
For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 16th 2004, 12:51 am
#1128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Tim Challenger writes:
> Why mention it then?
In the hope that those engaging in the attacks might see the error of
their ways and return to the nominal topic of the thread.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Why mention it then?
In the hope that those engaging in the attacks might see the error of
their ways and return to the nominal topic of the thread.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 16th 2004, 12:51 am
#1129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Tim Challenger writes:
> I could say "you", and you could define the word to mean "someone but not
> me" if you like.
That is already one of its definitions.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> I could say "you", and you could define the word to mean "someone but not
> me" if you like.
That is already one of its definitions.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 16th 2004, 12:57 am
#1130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:49:15 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> There's no evidence of lurkers ...
>That's why they are called "lurkers."
If I were you, I wouldn't assume that they read every word you type.
--
Martin
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> There's no evidence of lurkers ...
>That's why they are called "lurkers."
If I were you, I wouldn't assume that they read every word you type.
--
Martin
Dec 16th 2004, 12:57 am
#1131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>> There's no evidence of lurkers ...
> That's why they are called "lurkers."
There's no evidence of Leprechauns...
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
> [email protected] writes:
>> There's no evidence of lurkers ...
> That's why they are called "lurkers."
There's no evidence of Leprechauns...
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Dec 16th 2004, 12:58 am
#1132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:50:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
Define decent film SLR.
--
Martin
wrote:
>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
Define decent film SLR.
--
Martin
Dec 16th 2004, 1:10 am
#1133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:50:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
> Define decent film SLR.
He will probably claim that your testosterone levels prevent him from doing
that.
JohnT
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:50:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
> Define decent film SLR.
He will probably claim that your testosterone levels prevent him from doing
that.
JohnT
Dec 16th 2004, 1:12 am
#1134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:57:50 -0600, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:
>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>>> There's no evidence of lurkers ...
>> That's why they are called "lurkers."
>There's no evidence of Leprechauns...
... with filters.
Only the pedantic one :-)
--
Martin
wrote:
>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>>> There's no evidence of lurkers ...
>> That's why they are called "lurkers."
>There's no evidence of Leprechauns...
... with filters.
Only the pedantic one :-)
--
Martin
Dec 16th 2004, 1:21 am
#1135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:10:27 -0000, "JohnT"
<[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:50:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
>> Define decent film SLR.
>He will probably claim that your testosterone levels prevent him from doing
>that.
Black body is probably involved
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:50:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
>> Define decent film SLR.
>He will probably claim that your testosterone levels prevent him from doing
>that.
Black body is probably involved
--
Martin
Dec 16th 2004, 1:41 am
#1136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:10:27 -0000, "JohnT"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:50:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
>>> Define decent film SLR.
>>He will probably claim that your testosterone levels prevent him from
>>doing
>>that.
> Black body is probably involved
> --
And a 'natural' low pressure sodium lamp.
Keith
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:10:27 -0000, "JohnT"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:50:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
>>> Define decent film SLR.
>>He will probably claim that your testosterone levels prevent him from
>>doing
>>that.
> Black body is probably involved
> --
And a 'natural' low pressure sodium lamp.
Keith
Dec 16th 2004, 1:46 am
#1137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:41:29 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
<[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:10:27 -0000, "JohnT"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected] ...
>>>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:50:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
>>>> Define decent film SLR.
>>>He will probably claim that your testosterone levels prevent him from
>>>doing
>>>that.
>> Black body is probably involved
>> --
>And a 'natural' low pressure sodium lamp.
not to mention a black body where the sun don't shine.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:10:27 -0000, "JohnT"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected] ...
>>>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:50:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
>>>> Define decent film SLR.
>>>He will probably claim that your testosterone levels prevent him from
>>>doing
>>>that.
>> Black body is probably involved
>> --
>And a 'natural' low pressure sodium lamp.
not to mention a black body where the sun don't shine.
--
Martin
Dec 16th 2004, 2:47 am
#1138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:21:18 +0100, nitram wrote:
> Black body is probably involved
Politically incorrect.
African-American?
> Black body is probably involved
Politically incorrect.
African-American?
Dec 16th 2004, 2:48 am
#1139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:54:54 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:05:19 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>
>>> We're all over-emotional.
>>
>> I'm not.
>
> I was being sarcastic. But then you wouldn't know about that. My bad.
Why oh why don't you let Anthony show his emotions? Can't you see how
badly he needs to?
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:05:19 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>
>>> We're all over-emotional.
>>
>> I'm not.
>
> I was being sarcastic. But then you wouldn't know about that. My bad.
Why oh why don't you let Anthony show his emotions? Can't you see how
badly he needs to?
Dec 16th 2004, 2:57 am
#1140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:47:36 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:21:18 +0100, nitram wrote:
>> Black body is probably involved
>Politically incorrect.
>African-American?
Afro-American object?
--
Martin
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:21:18 +0100, nitram wrote:
>> Black body is probably involved
>Politically incorrect.
>African-American?
Afro-American object?
--
Martin
