Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Positive discrimination. (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t953683-positive-discrimination.html)

DanP 10-21-2012 06:28 AM

Positive discrimination.
 
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/...acks-a-mirror/

DanP

philo 10-21-2012 12:17 PM

Re: Positive discrimination.
 
On 10/21/2012 01:28 AM, DanP wrote:
> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/...acks-a-mirror/
>
> DanP
>




Incredible.

On a different note I recall the time I went to a performance where
cameras were banned...but they added that "point and shoot" cameras were
Ok though. I really laughed as most recent "point and shoot" cameras are
probably better than many older DSLR in many ways

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

Robert Coe 10-21-2012 01:26 PM

Re: Positive discrimination.
 
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:28:04 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre@hotmail.com> wrote:
: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/...acks-a-mirror/

The real danger in that canyon is to be caught in a flash flood and have to
get out (or get up the wall to a safe perch) quickly. The bigger and heavier
your equipment is, the harder that is to do.

Bob

Robert Coe 10-21-2012 01:36 PM

Re: Positive discrimination.
 
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 07:17:47 -0500, philo <philo@none.inv> wrote:
: On 10/21/2012 01:28 AM, DanP wrote:
: > http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/...acks-a-mirror/
: >
: > DanP
: >
:
:
:
: Incredible.
:
: On a different note I recall the time I went to a performance where
: cameras were banned...but they added that "point and shoot" cameras were
: Ok though. I really laughed as most recent "point and shoot" cameras are
: probably better than many older DSLR in many ways

It's an interesting, and comparatively recent, phenomenon that you can tell a
serious photographer because his cameras are bigger and heavier than those of
a newbie. Back when most newspaper and magazine photographers, along with many
serious amateurs, had adopted 35mm Leicas or Nikons and many newbies still
used big box cameras, it was the other way around.

Bob

Robert Coe 10-21-2012 01:48 PM

Re: Positive discrimination.
 
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:28:04 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre@hotmail.com> wrote:
: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/...acks-a-mirror/

Just for the record, that crackpot regulation wasn't thought up by the
National Park Service or the State of Arizona. The canyon is a Navaho tribal
park and is operated by a private contractor.

Bob

tony cooper 10-21-2012 07:23 PM

Re: Positive discrimination.
 
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:31:02 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2012.10.21 02:28 , DanP wrote:
>> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/...acks-a-mirror/
>>
>> DanP

>
>
>Seems to me their criteria is out of date (and not very good to begin with).



While I agree that the "rule" is rather silly, I also sympathize with
the writers of the "rules". They have to propose a rule that a guard
can follow, and a guard that is not expected to be knowledgeable about
all the different types of cameras.

Let's say you own a large china shop and you have experienced a large
number of losses caused by visitors accidently knocking fragile
objects off the shelves by cameras and other things swinging on
straps. You want to reduce your losses.

Write a rule that allows a guard to quickly and easily decide what
strap-hung things are not allowed in the shop. You can't expect the
guard to weigh or measure all strap-hung things, so the rule has to
give him the ability to make a decision based on a quick observation.

So, the rule-writers come up with some silly differences, like this
one, to try to make it easy for the guard.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Robert Coe 10-21-2012 07:41 PM

Re: Positive discrimination.
 
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:23:45 -0400, tony cooper <tony.cooper214@gmail.com>
wrote:
: On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:31:02 -0400, Alan Browne
: <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
:
: >On 2012.10.21 02:28 , DanP wrote:
: >> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/...acks-a-mirror/
: >>
: >> DanP
: >
: >
: >Seems to me their criteria is out of date (and not very good to begin with).
:
:
: While I agree that the "rule" is rather silly, I also sympathize with
: the writers of the "rules". They have to propose a rule that a guard
: can follow, and a guard that is not expected to be knowledgeable about
: all the different types of cameras.
:
: Let's say you own a large china shop and you have experienced a large
: number of losses caused by visitors accidently knocking fragile
: objects off the shelves by cameras and other things swinging on
: straps. You want to reduce your losses.
:
: Write a rule that allows a guard to quickly and easily decide what
: strap-hung things are not allowed in the shop. You can't expect the
: guard to weigh or measure all strap-hung things, so the rule has to
: give him the ability to make a decision based on a quick observation.
:
: So, the rule-writers come up with some silly differences, like this
: one, to try to make it easy for the guard.

The canyon isn't a china shop, and the regulation is absurd.

Bob

Usenet Account 10-21-2012 07:56 PM

Re: Positive discrimination.
 
On 21/10/2012 2:28 AM, DanP wrote:
> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/...acks-a-mirror/
>
> DanP
>


I wonder what they would do if I showed up with a Linhof Tecknika Master
V...

--


tony cooper 10-21-2012 08:21 PM

Re: Positive discrimination.
 
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:41:54 -0400, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:23:45 -0400, tony cooper <tony.cooper214@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>: On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:31:02 -0400, Alan Browne
>: <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>:
>: >On 2012.10.21 02:28 , DanP wrote:
>: >> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/...acks-a-mirror/
>: >>
>: >> DanP
>: >
>: >
>: >Seems to me their criteria is out of date (and not very good to begin with).
>:
>:
>: While I agree that the "rule" is rather silly, I also sympathize with
>: the writers of the "rules". They have to propose a rule that a guard
>: can follow, and a guard that is not expected to be knowledgeable about
>: all the different types of cameras.
>:
>: Let's say you own a large china shop and you have experienced a large
>: number of losses caused by visitors accidently knocking fragile
>: objects off the shelves by cameras and other things swinging on
>: straps. You want to reduce your losses.
>:
>: Write a rule that allows a guard to quickly and easily decide what
>: strap-hung things are not allowed in the shop. You can't expect the
>: guard to weigh or measure all strap-hung things, so the rule has to
>: give him the ability to make a decision based on a quick observation.
>:
>: So, the rule-writers come up with some silly differences, like this
>: one, to try to make it easy for the guard.
>
>The canyon isn't a china shop, and the regulation is absurd.


No, but my point was one about the difficulty in formulating a "rule"
that can be easily followed by guards who are not expected to know the
differences between one type of specific object and another. And, I
did agree that this rule is silly.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Usenet Account 10-22-2012 05:38 AM

Re: Positive discrimination.
 
On 21/10/2012 11:20 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-10-20 23:28:04 -0700, DanP <dan.petre@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/...acks-a-mirror/
>>

>
> DanP
>
> ...and
>>

> all he had to do was lie, and say that the camera had a mirror.
>
>


Go to the $Dollar store, buy a plastic mirror and leave it in the camera
bag. Here is the camera, and here is the mirror.

--


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.