«

Ron Hunter wrote:

> I have always enjoyed cats, and have had one around for most of my
> life, often more than one, but I never have gotten emotionally
> attached to one. They are so independent, and self-sufficient, that
> I don't mourn them when they die. Dogs, on the other hand, are a
> completely different story. I haven't had a dog in over 20 years,
> and don't intend to again as having to put the last one down almost
> killed me.

Yep, it was very hard on us when we put Rex down. I see your point about
cats, but I think it is more of an individual personality thing than
anything. Max has been raised with dogs and really acts like one. Only
thing he does differently is use a litter box. His personality is such that
we love him as much as we love our dogs.





Rita

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:05:31 +0000, Tony Polson <> wrote:
: Robert Coe <> wrote:
: >
: >But I would
: >point out that most of the memorable pictures that have defined the history of
: >photography have been taken from at or near eye level.
:
: And the evidence for this is where, exactly?

In the pictures themselves. (I'm tempted to follow that with "obviously", but
I don't really want to be argumentative.) I won't even try to choose them for
you. Pick a dozen or two of your favorites from the recognized canon (no pun
intended) and examine them. I suspect you'll see my point.

Bob

Robert Coe <> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:05:31 +0000, Tony Polson <> wrote:
>: Robert Coe <> wrote:
>: >
>: >But I would
>: >point out that most of the memorable pictures that have defined the history of
>: >photography have been taken from at or near eye level.
>:
>: And the evidence for this is where, exactly?
>
>In the pictures themselves. (I'm tempted to follow that with "obviously", but
>I don't really want to be argumentative.) I won't even try to choose them for
>you. Pick a dozen or two of your favorites from the recognized canon (no pun
>intended) and examine them. I suspect you'll see my point.


The choice of "the memorable pictures that have defined the history of
photography" is of course highly subjective.

If you had said that "most pictures have been taken from at or near
eye level" I could not argue, because the vast majority of images
taken are snapshots.

In rec.photo.digital Robert Coe <> wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2008 10:40:54 GMT, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
> : I did a lot of crouching and climbing in my film SLR days. I also
> : sometimes wanted to take a photograph from a position I couldn't get
> : my head into, such over the heads of a crowd, or with the camera
> : jammed into the corner of a room, or held out of a train window at
> : arm's length. The problem with those positions was not being able to
> : compose the image, so having to aom and shoot blind and wide, and hope
> : that cropping would be able to find a fair approximation of what
> : imagination had hoped for.
> :
> : I have found having a swivellable live-view LCD so liberating in the
> : extra range of positions from which I can compose a shot that I now
> : won't ever go back to a camera which I have to squint through in order
> : to compose my images.

> I keep my Canon G-5 for exactly that reason. But I get much better pictures
> with my DSLR.

Which is why swivellable live view LCDs will start appearing in the
more sophisticated DSLRs.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In rec.photo.digital Robert Coe <> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:29:47 +0000, Tony Polson <> wrote:

> : The vast majority of camera owners, and the majority of DSLR owners,
> : just take snapshots. They are recording family events, vacations,
> : weekend trips or just normal life where they live. They see all this
> : from eye level so they snap it from eye level.
> :
> : On the other hand, a photographer will look for a viewpoint that gives
> : the right emphasis to a subject, or optimises the available light, or
> : places it in the right context with its surroundings, or the
> : background, or a secondary subject. In order to do this to best
> : advantage, he/she needs to be prepared to walk, run, climb, stretch,
> : crouch, kneel, lie on the ground and (above all, sometimes) wait for
> : the right light or content to present itself, or any combination of
> : these.
> :
> : And the determination to do any or all of these is what separates a
> : photographer from a snapshooter.

> I don't disagree, partly because I don't think your definition of the
> derogatory term "snapshot" is precise enough to take issue with. But I would
> point out that most of the memorable pictures that have defined the history of
> photography have been taken from at or near eye level.

Except those taken with the medium format reflex cameras which were
once very popular with photographers, and whose photographs (and
snapshots) were very rarely taken from near eye level because the eye
level viewfinder was usually crap.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On 1/27/08 5:36 PM, in article , "Rita
Berkowitz" <> wrote:

> George Kerby wrote:
>
>>> I highly suspect that isn't either version of the 85/1.2L since the
>>> bokeh and DoF is way too shitty. Don't get me wrong, the 85/1.2L
>>> has crappy bokeh, but this is more on par with a 24-105 or 24-70 on
>>> a good day.
>>>
>> "Rita", you wouldn't know what a good photograph with excellent bokeh
>> would be if it hit you in your massive boxcar of an ass. You have
>> proven that by your posted examples. Simple enough.
>
> In other words, George, simply put, you feel so inadequate and as impotent
> as ever after posting a shitty kitty pic taken with a shitty lens and
> getting busted for trying to pass it off as being taken with a mediocre
> lens. What a poser!
>
The only thing that has been busted here is you. Your fat ass allowed you to
bounce the bust. You would not know a shitty Sigma from a superior
Summicron. Simply, being stupid is not an excuse for being a "brand whore",
bitch.

On 1/27/08 5:38 PM, in article , "Rita
Berkowitz" <> wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> I have always enjoyed cats, and have had one around for most of my
>> life, often more than one, but I never have gotten emotionally
>> attached to one. They are so independent, and self-sufficient, that
>> I don't mourn them when they die. Dogs, on the other hand, are a
>> completely different story. I haven't had a dog in over 20 years,
>> and don't intend to again as having to put the last one down almost
>> killed me.
>
> Yep, it was very hard on us when we put Rex down. I see your point about
> cats, but I think it is more of an individual personality thing than
> anything. Max has been raised with dogs and really acts like one. Only
> thing he does differently is use a litter box. His personality is such that
> we love him as much as we love our dogs.
>
Sorry for your loss, I didn't know that the kitty was no longer with you. I
understand now why you lashed out about the "ear" thing. We had to put down
our dog of almost 13 years last Sunday.

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Robert Coe <> wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 2008 10:40:54 GMT, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
>> : I did a lot of crouching and climbing in my film SLR days. I also
>> : sometimes wanted to take a photograph from a position I couldn't get
>> : my head into, such over the heads of a crowd, or with the camera
>> : jammed into the corner of a room, or held out of a train window at
>> : arm's length. The problem with those positions was not being able to
>> : compose the image, so having to aom and shoot blind and wide, and hope
>> : that cropping would be able to find a fair approximation of what
>> : imagination had hoped for.
>> :
>> : I have found having a swivellable live-view LCD so liberating in the
>> : extra range of positions from which I can compose a shot that I now
>> : won't ever go back to a camera which I have to squint through in order
>> : to compose my images.
>
>> I keep my Canon G-5 for exactly that reason. But I get much better pictures
>> with my DSLR.
>
> Which is why swivellable live view LCDs will start appearing in the
> more sophisticated DSLRs.
>

Swiveling, yes, live view.... Maybe.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:04:48 GMT, Harry Lockwood couldn't resist
writing:

>> Rumor has it that yours is the only ass visible from orbit.
>
> Do you ever post a comment about Rita without mentioning the size
> of her ass? You seem possessed.

Lecturing Kinon is futile. He has been assimilated.

Ron Hunter <> wrote:
>
>Swiveling, yes, live view.... Maybe.


I think you have that the wrong way around.

Live View is becoming an essential feature on DSLRs, whereas the
swivelling LCD is not. With the Nikon D3 and D300 both having live
view, plus all Olympus DSLRs having the feature, it is only a matter
of time before it is a must-have feature on every DSLR.