It's all in the intention of both the photographer and the viewer.
Think medical imaging. It's clinical, very intimate and still not porn.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pornographic images are those that offer clinical views of intimate parts and are without artistic merit.
The teacher will inforce the rules of the said library.
Unless
http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories/2004/06/040621teacher.shtml
Steve Desjardins wrote:
A high school student is sitting at a PC in the library looking at this
photo. A teacher walks by. What do you think happens?
Chris Stoddart wrote:
UK: Teacher goes "tut, tut, tut" loudly and student says "Sorry Miss/Sir"
with a grin and flicks back to ebay.
UK, Oxford: Teacher is bothered by the cavofilter and asks to see the
original.
;-)
DagT wrote:
Now we are really into politics.
Yes, and Shel is rubbing his hands.
Steve Desjardins wrote:
My point is that the student in question would face
disciplinary action in most US schools for looking at Dario's photo on a
school computer, no matter what we think of as definitions of
pornography.
Then you have a problem there. Pornography is defined by intent, not
form
I was attracted by the "Nice holes" caption but got disappointed by the pic.
;-)
James wrote:
ahhh.
how about I add in the url...
http://www.moretondistricts.org.au/photos.php?Pagetype=2&album=46
james
P.s, who looks silly now?
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:46:03 +100
Also check this:
http://securitytracker.com/alerts/2004/Oct/1011758.html
mike wilson wrote:
http://www.viksoe.dk/code/gmail.htm
Planning to do some birthday cards ? Make sure you don't write "Happy
Birthday" on them:
http://en.ce.cn/Industries/Consumen-Industries/200410/17/t20041017_2008337.shtml
Hope it hits Anne Geddes.
Cotty wrote:
What a load of festering old bollocks.
I'm afraid that is trademarked too or at least you're infringing
someone's copyright.
(TM)
Grandpa does that from time to time. Give him a beer and he'll tell you
nice tales from the cave.
Jostein wrote:
A fur-clad guy just came out of the forest, up to my house, and
started banging on my door with his wooden club. His language was
rather archaic, but I could pick up something about de
Here:
http://www.shabbychic.com/
Now just trademark "Rachel Ashwell" and fight back.
If you want to know how she looks like:
http://interiordec.about.com/cs/designerinterview/a/ashwell.htm
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
It seems the phrase "SHABBY CHIC" has also become a company name --
when I tried to use
God, I just went through that. To put it politely: you can't blame *her*
for getting rich.
http://www.shabbychic.com/
Celine wasn't that bad when she started, what bothers is repetition
without innovation. Anne is way too "cute" (and repetitive too), but
again she fills nicely a ceratin market segment. I mean I know some
families for whom I *have* to buy an Anne card/book/poster, anything
else wouldn't be that
Hey, that's FLAGSHIP. F-L-A-G-S-H-I-P. Ask Paal.
Chris Brogden wrote:
Top Of the Line
Chris
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:48:34 -0700, Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TOL?
Take-Off Lens? Take Old Lenses? Tickle Old Leo? Transmission Oil Leak? What?
keith whaley
ts
factory seems to be the answer on this continent.
Now a serious question for the canucks. I'm still trying to find a
decent bed. One that won't crumble at the slightest movement (IKEA /
Fly) (hey I'm a caveman I'm hard on beds) and that doesn't look like the
"
You just remembered me that I have to change my car.
Rob Studdert wrote:
That's not fair, do you drive the same type of vehicle used by most
professional drivers (taxis) in the US?
Sorry Bob.
Otherwise I suspect that by now you got a pretty good idea of what this
"quetaine" word is about ;-)
Bob W wrote:
Please, in the future will you put some advisory warnings on
such links. Several times already I've nearly puked on my
keyboard.
tom wrote:
Guys, I think I'm done. I don't follow threads anymore, I don't contribute
much, and I just have no time.
The real problem is that you have no time. Once you'll have again some
we know you'll be back.
If anything ridiculously funny happens, let me know. :)
Yep. The fakezine team is wo
Cotty wrote:
I'm not sure of your issue with the Fuji RAW format, Albano.
Hey, I think I know. I've hit it with my "dinky little Canon". On short
it works like this: the in-camera and the PC RAW-to-jpg converter
supplied by Canon are producing quite different results from PS CS with
the defaul
Peter J. Alling wrote:
That's the way I see it, there's an amazing lack of detail in 6mp 8x10's
IMHO.
You can fix that:
http://tinyurl.com/5bqgz
Well, then you could always shoot film. It won't look as "sharp" as the
digital but the detail will be there.
Peter J. Alling wrote:
At the cost of my self respect, and a fairly large cash down payment...
No thanks.
Caveman wrote:
Peter J. Alling wrote:
That's the way
Kenneth Waller wrote:
Peter, it's a little too tightly framed for for me.
Yes, there's little editorial space there.
I suppose you are aware that every digicam has a lowpass filter between
the lens and the sensor. Unless the lens is so bad that there's no need
for one. They call that "sensor tuned lens".
Mishka wrote:
you forgot to add "at the same iso seting".
since you have mentioned dpreview, according to t
William Robb wrote:
gallons of latex paint
Perve !
;-)
What, no Velvia ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all.
Once again,thanks to those who suggested films to use on my annual hunt for the elusive
coloured
leave.
I now have all my film back,have given it the once/twice look over and then the final
I also suspect that there are about 36 frames on Frank's films all with
different subjects and light conditions.
So would you guys please refrain from over recommending this Ansel
thing. It was good for what it was designed for i.e. tuning individual
sheets of B&W film.
Peter J. Alling wrote:
I have to do this to Wheatfield some day ;-)
Mark Roberts wrote:
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Mark Roberts"
I got a phone call yesterday:
"Hi, I'm taking a photograph and I want to know what aperture I
should use."
The correct answer is f/8.
Believe me, I was tempted...
More
Yeah sure. Last time I went through B&W stuff it was APX 400 pushed to
1600, lighting 1 table lamp, subject indian complexion skin. What are
the Ansel rules for this combo ?
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Caveman"
Subject: Re: Proper Exposure ( wasRe: R
Lasse Karlsson wrote:
So, who of us had the longest hair, then?
The Caveman, of course.
ct 22, 2004, at 8:16 PM, Caveman wrote:
Yeah sure. Last time I went through B&W stuff it was APX 400 pushed to
1600, lighting 1 table lamp, subject indian complexion skin. What are
the Ansel rules for this combo ?
Since you have not included any link, I suspect you already had your
evening joint ;-)
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Okay, I'm in. This is me, circa 1973. I'm sitting on a tire carcass in
front of my race car. Since the car is together, I just finished an
eight to ten hour stretch of hard work. Judging
Exactly what I did, more or less (no spot on LX).
The simplified Cave zone system sez expose normally and develop for
mild negative if you had high contrast scenes.
Problem is that when you push to 1600 or more it's difficult to both
push and get mild contrast.
So there's no Ansel thing in that
Grandma developed some interesting selective hearing too. She hears only
what she wants to admit she heard.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The only time I see anything from Caveman is when his comments are posted
by others, in response to his messages.
Yes I was lucky and the skin turned out great. But the idea is that at
least when pushing film you can add little Ansel to that. Either you
push or you Ansel.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Normal development in this case for the ISO at which it was shot. I
would consult the film manufacturer's processi
This guy is exercising for Halloween:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/vdonisa/hw.html
BTW did you guys decorate around ?
No reasonable place for a tripod. However thinking retrospectively, I
think it would have allowed for some interesting poses if used as a prop.
Hm I have to give a phone call..
William Robb wrote:
The question that begs asking is why is he deliberately underexposing
the film, since h
Ansel always had a tripod.
Graywolf wrote:
Adjust your exposure and processing so that it will print on normal
grade paper. Which is exactly the same rule for photographing a mountain
with an 8x10 camera and Plus X.
However, Ansel would have known that he was not pushing the film but
moving zon
Seems there's plenty of them around the caves this night:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/vdonisa/hw2.html
Must be a meeting or something.
Now let's see some guesses on what these monsters are ;-)
William Robb wrote:
First, we'll have to presume that the Agfa film really is 400 speed in
practice.
ROFL. Now we got to defining ISO speed for B&W film. An interesting
exercise per se, since it's defined for a reference chemical soup,
concentration, temperature, agitation and time.
Since you'll
Now please tell us what is your definition of "resolution".
Herb Chong wrote:
yes, i'm asking because the ISO has nothing to do with resolution on any
digital camera. noise affects resolution, but not in the range that digital
camera sensors permit. you take a resolution chart and changing the ISO
William Robb wrote:
Does anyone really take pictures at 1000:1?
Yes, the guys shooting resolution targets.
Whats the resolution at 1.6:1?
We can only speculate. Last time we did it we nearly killed each other.
Dario Bonazza wrote:
A 100% detail:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/5004det.jpg
Guess shooting data?
On-camera flash.
I hope you guys realize that you're providing some great fakezine cover
material ?
;-) ;-) ;-)
The candles are distracting.
;-)
http://www3.sympatico.ca/vdonisa/hw3.html
;-)
Beat that:
http://tinyurl.com/odu5
With the camera connected to the computer:
1. Start Canon ZoomBrowser
2. Click "Camera & Memory Card"
3. Click "Upload images"
4. Select the images
5. Click "Open Camera Window"
Ann Sanfedele mused:
That is,
can I download stuff from my memory card in my
digicam, edit the files,
saving in jpg and
It's the place where Dr. Lecter gets his lunch.
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
popcorn? sizzling steaks? rice krispys?
lol...
Oysters snapping shut?
Meow'ing of cracking sausages?
Bubbling french fries? Or donuts?
Okay, I'll succumb. The fabulous sounds of coffee-making. .
the cracking of the ice as it hi
Jostein wrote:
http://www.oksne.net/paw/coltsfoot.html
Comments?
Critisim?
Please? :-)
No. Nyah nyah nyah !
;-)
You may also take a look at the 90mm macro lenses out there.
Jon M wrote:
I've been looking for a while at getting a portrait
lens in the 70-85 range. The A85/1.4 is prohibitively
expensive, the K85/1.8 is also out there, and even the
"lowly" M85/2 tends to go for more than I can swing at
this poin
Do you folks realise that your multi-thousand dollar DSLR "systems" have
about the same megapixels number as a cell phone ?
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04102001samsung_schs250.asp
;-) ;-) ;-)
For those that were not aware of the "b-wagon" denomination:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/25/nj.suv.drownings.ap/index.html
Now you'll understand why many people panic when noticing they're
tailgated by one. Especially when the gals are obviously looking in the
vanity mirror while talking on
Hey, I put about three smileys there.
John Francis wrote:
I don't see why anybody is surprised by the 5MP cellphone camera, anyway.
No way cavemen would brush teeth while driving, they're too busy
watching DVDs, reading PDML on the laptop, tailgating the punk with the
riced Civic and making signs to the blonde on the next lane.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, well, I noticed in my rear-view mirror one day that the *male* driv
It's more rewarding to carry a snowmobile instead
William Robb wrote:
http://www.smart.com/
I am pretty sure I could carry one in the back of my truck.
If you also take into account the mileage, they're not that bad.
frank theriault wrote:
There are a lot of reasons that North America and the USA have bad
accident statistics,
Keith Whaley wrote:
>>> Or worse - a woman using an electric shaver
Now that would probably cause accidents among the observant males in
the vicinity
Depends on what she was shaving, doesn't it...
Depends if the male is using lipstick.
The model ?
;-)
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Dario,
Not to be rude, but aren't you the guy who said the image quality on
the *istD was terrible. And didn't you just recently show and rave
about the detail you got in a *istD photo (eye of model). So what
made you change your opinion?
Regards, Bob S.
Keith Whaley wrote:
Guiness Draught Stout,
Yuck. Sick.
Halloween deco:
http://www.webaperture.com/gallery/photos/50301
Mark Roberts wrote:
(For once it's *not* cloudy in
Pittsburgh! Who'da thunk?)
Something's wrong. RUN !
Now rotate it 90 degrees, dress it with a nice Halloween hat, paste a
cat somewhere and give us a nice fakezine ;-)
Mark Roberts wrote:
Quick 'n dirty:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/red_moon.jpg
Cropped a bit.
"medium format vs.
35mm" discussion in both digital and film flavours, "what about large
format", "Pentax needs a flagship camera", and, around Xmas, we'll count
the survivors.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1098912717.html
I still wonder where you focused. Or didn't you ? Oh these lazy
youngsters.
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Which just go's to show how bad it is technically, since the dog was a
relatively small Cocker Spaniel...
Keith Whaley wrote:
Awww, that's precious!
The big ol' Poodle saw the sign, and realiz
I have no complaints on LX + 280T combo, including for macro distances
(if I remember to add a diffuser, that is).
William Robb wrote:
It's typical Pentax TTL flash control, just worse.
NASA sez it's at the 238,855 miles mark.
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
actually, I THink when you are using big glass it ISNT at infinity - but I know it
sounds odd.
Film is declining, now digital too. Maybe people just got bored of
taking pics. What's the fad now ?
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04102801camera_production.asp
technology/3955063.stm>
On 10/28/04 13:11, Caveman wrote:
Film is declining, now digital too. Maybe people just got bored of
taking pics. What's the fad now ?
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04102801camera_production.asp
But mostly out of the frame
;-)
Peter J. Alling wrote:
The dog is nice and sharp...
Caveman wrote:
I still wonder where you focused. Or didn't you ? Oh these lazy
youngsters.
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Which just go's to show how bad it is technically, since the dog was
a relati
Hey kids stop it. Time to post this again:
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
Lasse Karlsson wrote:
From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: F24-50
I knew that I had to stop before raising all this nonsense agai
Absolutely boring. No novel subject, no interesting framing, point of
view, lighting or postprocessing whatsoever.
The only interesting part is that you are attracted to do this every so
often.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/b-in-b.html
Oh the mighty Chong.
Herb Chong wrote:
a couple here on the list have.
I don't have the $5000.
Wanna bet ? A case of Quebec beer ?
William Robb wrote:
> , i think 10% of today's volume would be about where Kodak and
Fuji may well decide to exit the market entirely.
Fuji will exit the market as soon as they deem it to be not profitable
enough.
Where that profit % lies is anyone's guess.
We're all in awe.
Herb Chong wrote:
i spent the money on the A* 400/2.8.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Tokina AT-X 80-200 2.8 manual focus with 2X te
It is most evident now that you post these pics here with the purpose of
starting social/political debates and not artistical/technical ones
related to photography. May I suggest some other controversial subjects
like guns/abortion/religion. This would help make the list perfectly
unreadable.
William Robb wrote:
Wanna bet ? A case of Quebec beer ?
Are you going to deliver it?
Yep DHL first class.
Look at Fuji's marketing strategy over the past couple of decades.
They don't service any part of the industry that is not volume/ high
profit.
When film hits their predefined profit wall, th
Decorate his livingroom ?
Joseph Tainter wrote:
This is good by itself, but strongest in combination with your other
photos.
What are you going to do with these? An exhibition? A book? A magazine
spread?
I hope you'll do something with them.
Joe
frank theriault wrote:
Rules are one camera, one lens, one roll of film, and 30 minutes
with the model.
I guess that's why they were using film cameras...
Exactly.
frank theriault wrote:
Whatever you think of Shel's photo, that's all it is: a photo.
I objected to his social/political rant, not to him taking photos.
I don't understand why it is that Shel is accused of starting debates,
or having political motives, or of having an agenda. Why is it that
no o
frank theriault wrote:
> Caveman,
If Wheatfield wins, send him the beer. Just make sure you send it UPS...
ROFL. "Sounds painful!"
May I suppose they'll also make some film for them until then ?
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Medium Format still rules! (in some circles)
Sobering text (2002?) from the Fujifilm site:
"Although Fujifilm professional camera bodies will be discon
William Robb wrote:
Check out:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/PDMLtemp/IMGP5434.jpg
Caution, partially clothed girl in sensual pose alert.
LOL. I just love it on TV. They put that "The following movie contains
scenes of violence, nudity, adult matters, coarse language etc etc."
disclaimer first
Except when we want to post here:
http://tinyurl.com/2j58
William Robb wrote:
In our world, the sun is always over our right shoulder, and there are
nice fluffy clouds, dancing and playing at making interesting shapes.
The girls are always wholesome and beautiful, the boys are manly and
heroic.
I
Looking for some fisting, Jerry ?
I have *very* large hands.
Jerry Todd wrote:
May I humbly suggest you put on
a pair of proctologist's gloves.
something about them and I
think this is the right place to discuss it.
Jerry Todd wrote:
What about my other points, Caveman? I was just having a little fun and
attempting to provoke you, as you've been doing here with Shel and others
for quite some time.
Oh, s**t, it's already done:
http://www.toiletmuseum.com/
Nothing new under the sun, eh ?
Jerry Todd wrote:
I, for one, will be looking for your essay.
Say Jerry, interesting coincidence, both you and Shel are using the same
ISP ? And the e-mail originating IP address is 4.243.x.x too ? Or might
it be that
Jerry Todd wrote:
OK, you guys convinced me. Now just let me know, who is better, Bush or
Kerry ?
Tom, I've told ya I'm reading pdml while driving
Tom Reese wrote:
look extremely close and try to find 3 differences between the
two pictures... I only found 2!! where is the third??
http://members.home.nl/saen/Special/zoeken.html
Tom Reese
I'd say that the Pentax will do a great job for 4x6 prints.
Jens Bladt wrote:
http://gallery37564.fotopic.net/c97627.html
Comments are welcome
Like in the PDML FAQ, Graywolf ?
Graywolf wrote:
If we say no one should show cat
photos, or talk about guns, we are trying to force our political agenda
on the list. Usually very loudly.
Cool !
I can't post mine, it's taken with a hmmm.. errr... Canon.
Mark Roberts wrote:
Here's mine:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/red.jpg
HAR ! Alan Chan is not alone ! ;-)
Don Sanderson wrote:
The rearmost element, which has just a slightly different
curvature on the front than the back.. was reversed!
I'll second that ! Nice one !
Cotty wrote:
On 31/10/04, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=8&pos=0
Christian
Sweet!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
___
Right, I think they're a démodé concept
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Cavo don't need no stinkin' SLRs...
Cotty wrote:
On 31/10/04, Caveman, discombobulated, unleashed:
I can't post mine, it's taken with a hmmm.. errr... Canon.
Hey Cavo, I might have an EOS-K50mm
On 1 Nov 2004 at 11:01, Joseph Tainter wrote:
Of what is it composed?
Marketinium.
Seems that I need to repost my 4 pixels pic that can be printed stadium
size, all with perfect sharp edges.
;-)
Mishka wrote:
something doesn't add up -- "great" 11x14 prints and 30 lpmm system resolution
cannot be true at the same time.
The votes are not that important, what's really important is how you
count them. Bush knows. Bwahahahaha.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
It's looking like slightly less than half.
On Nov 2, 2004, at 11:29 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote:
You see about 1/2 of the US population would agree with them.
William Robb
Bwahahahaha ! Did you do that yourself or is it the new "Limited"
concept at work ?
Alan Chan wrote:
Am I luck or what? LOL!!!
http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/fa77.jpg
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
CNN has mapped the rednecks:
http://tinyurl.com/3vt65
;-)
1 - 100 of 910 matches
Mail list logo
