Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 2 Nov 2009 02:10 "Ghett Rheel" <grheel(a)someisp.net> wrote in message news:iqtse5pv5h0up6dto6o1pnfgsd55fuviob(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" > <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >> >>"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >>news:88ednR2uerbL7HPXnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:011120091453097799%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >>>> In article <4aOdnX8PTJisR3DXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >>>> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used >>>>> > during >>>>> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases >>>>> > of >>>>> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital >>>>> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room >>>>> > and so >>>>> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body. >>>>> >>>>> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take >>>>> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to >>>>> take >>>>> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when >>>>> the >>>>> door >>>>> is open. No one has ever objected yet. >>>> >>>> all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but >>>> some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't have >>>> a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put in >>>> checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out. >>> >>> That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline >>> flying >>> as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using a >>> different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different. >>> >> >>During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly >>concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter. >> >>For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP >>IPAQ, >>which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I can't >>use it during the flight. >> >>But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying patiently, >>or of scenic shots out the window. > > You can't even properly frame nor see your dog that's laying right next to > your feet while sitting at a table in the mall. Even when you are using > the > full-screen of a laptop as your viewfinder. Please explain to everyone how > you can compose (with intent) any scene out of a window? > > Even more funny are your recent posts about photographing and driving > cars. > I.e. Ford Exec says, "Let's humor the foolish blind man or we'll look bad > in PR. We'll just have a full safety-team stand by at thousands of dollars > of our cost so we don't look bad." Nothing like using your blindness to > manipulate all others to get what you want, eh? At everyone else's > expense, > of course. Or using gels on flash units. As if that's ever going to help > with your compositions that you can't see nor focus on in the first place. > > <major eye-roll> > > Grow up, and ... > > Ghett Rheel > Jealous? :) You might be surprised at what is going to be posted on my site over the next few months. Perhaps, once you realize that others can appreciate the unusual and the unorthodox, you might get an inkling as to how limited is your understanding of the human condition. Perhaps one of your relatives told Hellen Keller she should just give up? FYI, Ford's decision came after I provided company execs with detailed info as to the demographics of my site visitors, and statistics about usage. I provided a rather comprehensive summary of who visits my site, why they visit it, and what they are looking for. The interesting thing about the internet is that users are tired of the same old, same old. Why do you think traditional newspapers are dying? Television stations are closing? And, why do you think that bazaar internet sites are flurishing? If a web master can produce a product which connects to a definable demographic, and if a more traditional company can use that connection to highlight its products, its way of doing business and its corporate philosophy, is it not good business for it to do exactly that? Ford seems to think I'll make them more than I'll cost 'em. Get Real, get with the times... Take Care, Dudley
From: Dudley Hanks on 2 Nov 2009 02:15 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:Fs-dnYVuyast5nPXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Ghett Rheel" <grheel(a)someisp.net> wrote in message > news:iqtse5pv5h0up6dto6o1pnfgsd55fuviob(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" >> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >> > > Dudley, don't even bother answering this jerk. It's just our resident > pest, the dingleberry. He changes names several times a day, but you can > always recognize him by his dingleberry attitude. > Oh, it's alright. Get Real and I go back quite a ways, now. I love him like a brother, and scrap with him almost as much... The fact that he hasn't been able to stop my steady progress must really be eating away at him, now, after about 2 years of wasted effort on his part. Take Care, Dudley
From: Dudley Hanks on 2 Nov 2009 02:25 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:l4ydnTzAg9Lt53PXnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message > news:5CuHm.51192$PH1.1085(a)edtnps82... >> >> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >> news:88ednR2uerbL7HPXnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:011120091453097799%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >>>> In article <4aOdnX8PTJisR3DXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >>>> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used >>>>> > during >>>>> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases >>>>> > of >>>>> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital >>>>> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room >>>>> > and so >>>>> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body. >>>>> >>>>> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take >>>>> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to >>>>> take >>>>> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when >>>>> the door >>>>> is open. No one has ever objected yet. >>>> >>>> all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but >>>> some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't have >>>> a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put in >>>> checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out. >>> >>> That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline >>> flying as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be >>> using a different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different. >>> >> >> During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly >> concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter. > > Yes, that I can understand. > >> >> For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP >> IPAQ, which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so >> I can't use it during the flight. >> >> But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying >> patiently, or of scenic shots out the window. >> >> But, during take-offs and landings, requests to turn off all electronics >> still seem to be the norm. >> >> I don't know if all airlines have adopted these practices, but I wouldn't >> be surprised. >> >> Take Care, >> Dudley > > I can't see how an ordinary digital camera could pose any sort of problem, > unless it were one of the very few that have WiFi built in. I wonder how > literally "all electronics" is taken. Surely they don't ban the use of > digital watches or hearing aids, for example. > As was pointed out in another post, some airlines are charging for wireless connections, so it's just going to get muddier. How many of you remember those signs that announced a restaurant had a microwave on its premises? Back in those days, it was feared the radiation from the microwave could kill somebody with a pacemaker who might be dining on the far side of the building. Advances in technology have eliminated that problem, and I'm sure the day will come when we'll all be telecommuting and downloading with one hand and snapping digital pics with the other as we land at whatever airport we happen to be arriving at. The only thing certain is change... Take Care, Dudley
From: Ray Fischer on 2 Nov 2009 02:27 Dudley Hanks <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >> In article <5CuHm.51192$PH1.1085(a)edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks >> >>> I don't know if all airlines have adopted these practices, but I wouldn't >>> be >>> surprised. >> >> you aren't supposed to use electronics during takeoff or landing, but >> during cruise it's fine. some airlines prohibit photography of airline >> staff but allow pics out the window or of people you're traveling with. >> >> >> what i find amusing is that since there is now inflight wifi internet >> for a fee, wireless transmitters are suddenly safe. > >Isn't that the way it generally works? In the early days of commercial air >travel, bringing food on board was probably taboo -- at least until they >found a way to charge for it, or to work it into the price of the ticket... And now? Some discount airlines disallow bringing your own food and require that you buy their (overpriced) food at the gate before boarding. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ghett Rheel on 2 Nov 2009 02:31
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:10:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >"Ghett Rheel" <grheel(a)someisp.net> wrote in message >news:iqtse5pv5h0up6dto6o1pnfgsd55fuviob(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" >> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >>>news:88ednR2uerbL7HPXnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> >>>> "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:011120091453097799%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >>>>> In article <4aOdnX8PTJisR3DXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil >>>>> Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used >>>>>> > during >>>>>> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases >>>>>> > of >>>>>> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital >>>>>> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room >>>>>> > and so >>>>>> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body. >>>>>> >>>>>> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take >>>>>> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to >>>>>> take >>>>>> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when >>>>>> the >>>>>> door >>>>>> is open. No one has ever objected yet. >>>>> >>>>> all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but >>>>> some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't have >>>>> a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put in >>>>> checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out. >>>> >>>> That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline >>>> flying >>>> as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using a >>>> different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different. >>>> >>> >>>During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly >>>concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter. >>> >>>For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP >>>IPAQ, >>>which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I can't >>>use it during the flight. >>> >>>But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying patiently, >>>or of scenic shots out the window. >> >> You can't even properly frame nor see your dog that's laying right next to >> your feet while sitting at a table in the mall. Even when you are using >> the >> full-screen of a laptop as your viewfinder. Please explain to everyone how >> you can compose (with intent) any scene out of a window? >> >> Even more funny are your recent posts about photographing and driving >> cars. >> I.e. Ford Exec says, "Let's humor the foolish blind man or we'll look bad >> in PR. We'll just have a full safety-team stand by at thousands of dollars >> of our cost so we don't look bad." Nothing like using your blindness to >> manipulate all others to get what you want, eh? At everyone else's >> expense, >> of course. Or using gels on flash units. As if that's ever going to help >> with your compositions that you can't see nor focus on in the first place. >> >> <major eye-roll> >> >> Grow up, and ... >> >> Ghett Rheel >> > >Jealous? :) > >You might be surprised at what is going to be posted on my site over the >next few months. Perhaps, once you realize that others can appreciate the >unusual and the unorthodox, you might get an inkling as to how limited is >your understanding of the human condition. > >Perhaps one of your relatives told Hellen Keller she should just give up? > >FYI, Ford's decision came after I provided company execs with detailed info >as to the demographics of my site visitors, and statistics about usage. I >provided a rather comprehensive summary of who visits my site, why they >visit it, and what they are looking for. > >The interesting thing about the internet is that users are tired of the same >old, same old. > >Why do you think traditional newspapers are dying? Television stations are >closing? And, why do you think that bazaar internet sites are flurishing? > >If a web master can produce a product which connects to a definable >demographic, and if a more traditional company can use that connection to >highlight its products, its way of doing business and its corporate >philosophy, is it not good business for it to do exactly that? > >Ford seems to think I'll make them more than I'll cost 'em. > >Get Real, get with the times... > >Take Care, >Dudley > Web-master? You can't even post images on your web-space properly because you can't read the html code in its entirety. Everyone with an internet connection today is a "web master". But I applaud you on your inventive side-stepping. You didn't answer the question. Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can see the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to market their cars to blind people." Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from all tax-payers will bail them out again. And we'll only have you to blame for pity-manipulating a few Ford execs because of your misplaced desperate need for attention. It always all starts with one idiot with skewed self-serving intentions. Why should you be any different in the course of history. |