Pixure I took in NY

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by philo, Sep 3, 2009.

  1. philo

    philo Guest

    http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG


    This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn /Manhattan

    My GF told me to have a look at the sunset.


    I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window...
    but knew it would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to
    be glare/reflection from the glass...

    plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.

    As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
    hey, shoot through it and see what happens...

    so I got the result posted here.

    The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted


    (the link may be case sensitive)
     
    philo, Sep 3, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. philo

    Red Garnett Guest

    "philo" <> wrote in message
    news:h7pevc$3e5$-september.org...
    > http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
    >
    >
    > This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn /Manhattan
    >
    > My GF told me to have a look at the sunset.
    >
    >
    > I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window...
    > but knew it would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to be
    > glare/reflection from the glass...
    >
    > plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.
    >
    > As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
    > hey, shoot through it and see what happens...
    >
    > so I got the result posted here.
    >
    > The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted
    >
    >
    > (the link may be case sensitive)


    Good thing you took it with a digital camera. That way you didn't waste any
    film or have to pay for developing that dog. Best solution? Shift/Delete ;-)
     
    Red Garnett, Sep 4, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. philo

    Guest

    philo <> wrote:

    >http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
    >
    >This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn /Manhattan


    >I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window...
    >but knew it would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to
    >be glare/reflection from the glass...


    >plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.


    >As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
    >hey, shoot through it and see what happens...
    >
    >so I got the result posted here.
    >
    >The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted


    Showing once again, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    >(the link may be case sensitive)


    Nope that's not it, I viewed it large, small, and in between. It still
    looks the same. Or do you mean it's in a case and ones perception of
    the piece depends upon that case being open or closed?
    --

    Even schools have their moments
    http://nsharp.org/gallery/user-uploaded/65.jpg
     
    , Sep 4, 2009
    #3
  4. philo

    thanatoid Guest

    philo <> wrote in
    news:h7pevc$3e5$-september.org:

    > http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG


    <SNIP>

    > The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as
    > posted


    Why would anyone assume it was edited or manipulated? It looks
    completely normal, and a very nice image, too, congratulations.

    Although you REALLY should have done some image reduction. While
    under 200,000 KB (COULD be smaller but at least it's not 3 MB)
    3072x2048 pixels is a /little/ large, even for people with newer
    monitors, let alone 800x600 (me and apparently no one else in
    the world - I had to set the zoom to 20% [!] in Opera) or even
    1024x768 (most people in pre-LCD tyranny days).

    (Of the 3 browsers I am forced to use, none of them being IE,
    only Firefox 2.whatever scaled the image automatically. I don't
    know if IE does or doesn't.)

    And your other pix /are/ nice and small...


    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
     
    thanatoid, Sep 4, 2009
    #4
  5. philo

    OldGringo38 Guest

    , In The Beginning God Created The Heavens And Earth, Then I Added My
    Two Cents To The philo Post:
    > http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
    >
    >
    > This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn /Manhattan
    >
    > My GF told me to have a look at the sunset.
    >
    >
    > I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window...
    > but knew it would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to
    > be glare/reflection from the glass...
    >
    > plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.
    >
    > As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
    > hey, shoot through it and see what happens...
    >
    > so I got the result posted here.
    >
    > The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted
    >
    >
    > (the link may be case sensitive)

    I clicked the link and then came back and read the post. First
    impression was an Asteroid hitting Manhattan even though the link
    says Sunset. <g> I like it.

    --
    Old Gringo
    Just West Of Nowhere
    Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
    http://www.NuBoy-Industries.com
     
    OldGringo38, Sep 4, 2009
    #5
  6. philo

    OldGringo38 Guest

    , In The Beginning God Created The Heavens And Earth, Then I Added My
    Two Cents To The philo Post:
    > OldGringo38 wrote:
    >> , In The Beginning God Created The Heavens And Earth, Then I Added My
    >> Two Cents To The philo Post:
    >>> http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn /Manhattan
    >>>
    >>> My GF told me to have a look at the sunset.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window...
    >>> but knew it would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to
    >>> be glare/reflection from the glass...
    >>>
    >>> plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.
    >>>
    >>> As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
    >>> hey, shoot through it and see what happens...
    >>>
    >>> so I got the result posted here.
    >>>
    >>> The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> (the link may be case sensitive)

    >> I clicked the link and then came back and read the post. First
    >> impression was an Asteroid hitting Manhattan even though the link says
    >> Sunset. <g> I like it.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Glad you liked it...
    >
    > I took quite a few and some of them look like something larger than an
    > asteroid.
    >
    > Though the photo is quite a bit outside the scope of my usual
    > photography...I consider it an experiment in using impediments to one's
    > advantage.
    >

    Keep up the good work. Amazing what NY humidity and refrigerated air
    conditioning along with a little imagination can create. <g>

    --
    Old Gringo
    Just West Of Nowhere
    Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
    http://www.NuBoy-Industries.com
     
    OldGringo38, Sep 4, 2009
    #6
  7. philo

    joevan Guest

    joevan, Sep 4, 2009
    #7
  8. philo

    Aardvark Guest

    On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:11:50 -0500, philo wrote:

    > http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
    >
    >
    > This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn /Manhattan
    >
    > My GF told me to have a look at the sunset.
    >
    >
    > I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window... but knew it
    > would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to be
    > glare/reflection from the glass...
    >
    > plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.
    >
    > As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
    > hey, shoot through it and see what happens...
    >
    > so I got the result posted here.
    >
    > The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted
    >
    >
    > (the link may be case sensitive)


    Sort of connected: listening to the radio earlier, on the news there was
    an item about a New York with a novel idea to get itself noticed using
    life-sized photographs in the windows.

    < http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/front_page/newsid_10000000/
    newsid_10001300/10001347.stm >

    As usual, if the link breaks over two lines, copy everything between the
    carets and paste into the address bar of the browser of your choice.



    --
    “Every now and again the United States has to pick up a crappy little
    country and throw it against a wall just to prove we are serious.â€
    Michael Ledeen, an architect of the neocon program being implemented
    under the nose of the U.S people in the name of freedom and democracy.
     
    Aardvark, Sep 4, 2009
    #8
  9. philo

    philo Guest

    Aardvark wrote:
    > On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:11:50 -0500, philo wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
    >>
    >>
    >> This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn /Manhattan
    >>
    >> My GF told me to have a look at the sunset.
    >>
    >>
    >> I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window... but knew it
    >> would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to be
    >> glare/reflection from the glass...
    >>
    >> plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.
    >>
    >> As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
    >> hey, shoot through it and see what happens...
    >>
    >> so I got the result posted here.
    >>
    >> The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted
    >>
    >>
    >> (the link may be case sensitive)

    >
    > Sort of connected: listening to the radio earlier, on the news there was
    > an item about a New York with a novel idea to get itself noticed using
    > life-sized photographs in the windows.
    >
    > < http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/front_page/newsid_10000000/
    > newsid_10001300/10001347.stm >
    >
    > As usual, if the link breaks over two lines, copy everything between the
    > carets and paste into the address bar of the browser of your choice.
    >
    >
    >



    OMG!

    I just realized that when i went to the window and took the shots i was
    probably in my underwear...
    the entire city must have seen me and had a good laugh <G>




    reminds me of the joke about the old lady who called the cops because
    the neighbors were walking around in their house naked


    when the cops came over and looked out her window, they said they could
    not see anything.

    she handed then the binoculars and said: "Well you need these of course!"
     
    philo, Sep 4, 2009
    #9
  10. philo

    joevan Guest

    On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:40:21 -0500, philo <>
    wrote:

    >Aardvark wrote:
    >> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:11:50 -0500, philo wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn /Manhattan
    >>>
    >>> My GF told me to have a look at the sunset.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window... but knew it
    >>> would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to be
    >>> glare/reflection from the glass...
    >>>
    >>> plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.
    >>>
    >>> As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
    >>> hey, shoot through it and see what happens...
    >>>
    >>> so I got the result posted here.
    >>>
    >>> The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> (the link may be case sensitive)

    >>
    >> Sort of connected: listening to the radio earlier, on the news there was
    >> an item about a New York with a novel idea to get itself noticed using
    >> life-sized photographs in the windows.
    >>
    >> < http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/front_page/newsid_10000000/
    >> newsid_10001300/10001347.stm >
    >>
    >> As usual, if the link breaks over two lines, copy everything between the
    >> carets and paste into the address bar of the browser of your choice.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >OMG!
    >
    >I just realized that when i went to the window and took the shots i was
    >probably in my underwear...
    >the entire city must have seen me and had a good laugh <G>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >reminds me of the joke about the old lady who called the cops because
    >the neighbors were walking around in their house naked
    >
    >
    >when the cops came over and looked out her window, they said they could
    >not see anything.
    >
    >she handed then the binoculars and said: "Well you need these of course!"

    That was you in the pink underwear with the camera? Good knees.
    Interesting photo too.
     
    joevan, Sep 4, 2009
    #10
  11. philo

    philo Guest

    joevan wrote:
    > On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:40:21 -0500, philo <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Aardvark wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:11:50 -0500, philo wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn /Manhattan
    >>>>
    >>>> My GF told me to have a look at the sunset.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window... but knew it
    >>>> would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to be
    >>>> glare/reflection from the glass...
    >>>>
    >>>> plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.
    >>>>
    >>>> As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
    >>>> hey, shoot through it and see what happens...
    >>>>
    >>>> so I got the result posted here.
    >>>>
    >>>> The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> (the link may be case sensitive)
    >>> Sort of connected: listening to the radio earlier, on the news there was
    >>> an item about a New York with a novel idea to get itself noticed using
    >>> life-sized photographs in the windows.
    >>>
    >>> < http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/front_page/newsid_10000000/
    >>> newsid_10001300/10001347.stm >
    >>>
    >>> As usual, if the link breaks over two lines, copy everything between the
    >>> carets and paste into the address bar of the browser of your choice.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> OMG!
    >>
    >> I just realized that when i went to the window and took the shots i was
    >> probably in my underwear...
    >> the entire city must have seen me and had a good laugh <G>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> reminds me of the joke about the old lady who called the cops because
    >> the neighbors were walking around in their house naked
    >>
    >>
    >> when the cops came over and looked out her window, they said they could
    >> not see anything.
    >>
    >> she handed then the binoculars and said: "Well you need these of course!"

    > That was you in the pink underwear with the camera? Good knees.
    > Interesting photo too.




    >>>blush<<<<
     
    philo, Sep 4, 2009
    #11
  12. philo

    philo Guest

    Rôgêr wrote:
    > philo wrote:
    >> Aardvark wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:11:50 -0500, philo wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn
    >>>> /Manhattan
    >>>>
    >>>> My GF told me to have a look at the sunset.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window... but knew it
    >>>> would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to be
    >>>> glare/reflection from the glass...
    >>>>
    >>>> plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.
    >>>>
    >>>> As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
    >>>> hey, shoot through it and see what happens...
    >>>>
    >>>> so I got the result posted here.
    >>>>
    >>>> The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> (the link may be case sensitive)
    >>>
    >>> Sort of connected: listening to the radio earlier, on the news there
    >>> was an item about a New York with a novel idea to get itself noticed
    >>> using life-sized photographs in the windows.
    >>>
    >>> < http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/front_page/newsid_10000000/
    >>> newsid_10001300/10001347.stm >
    >>>
    >>> As usual, if the link breaks over two lines, copy everything between
    >>> the carets and paste into the address bar of the browser of your choice.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> OMG!
    >>
    >> I just realized that when i went to the window and took the shots i
    >> was probably in my underwear...
    >> the entire city must have seen me and had a good laugh <G>

    >
    > Tell me more. I'm getting more and more excited.
    >




    not too many folks get excited by a bald 60 year old man running around
    in his underwear..

    I bet that half the city of NY never even noticed me
     
    philo, Sep 4, 2009
    #12
  13. Hi!

    > Though a few of my experiments were successful.


    I've heard it said (at www.dansdata.com and at other places) that the secret
    to good photography is lots of bad photography. I think there is some truth
    to that.

    I do kind of like the way your picture turned out.

    William
     
    William R. Walsh, Sep 4, 2009
    #13
  14. philo

    chuckcar Guest

    philo <> wrote in
    news::

    > thanatoid wrote:
    >> philo <> wrote in
    >> news:h7pevc$3e5$-september.org:
    >>
    >>> http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG

    >>
    >> <SNIP>
    >>
    >>> The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as
    >>> posted

    >>
    >> Why would anyone assume it was edited or manipulated? It looks
    >> completely normal, and a very nice image, too, congratulations.
    >>
    >> Although you REALLY should have done some image reduction. While
    >> under 200,000 KB (COULD be smaller but at least it's not 3 MB)
    >> 3072x2048 pixels is a /little/ large, even for people with newer
    >> monitors, let alone 800x600 (me and apparently no one else in
    >> the world - I had to set the zoom to 20% [!] in Opera) or even
    >> 1024x768 (most people in pre-LCD tyranny days).
    >>
    >> (Of the 3 browsers I am forced to use, none of them being IE,
    >> only Firefox 2.whatever scaled the image automatically. I don't
    >> know if IE does or doesn't.)
    >>
    >> And your other pix /are/ nice and small...
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Glad you like it...
    >
    > it's only 175k so I figured no one would have trouble loading that and
    > when I specified image size it was 4" x 3" (I think)
    >

    Anything under 500K is a reasonable size. Any smaller and you would start
    to get too much visible pixelation IMHO.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Sep 5, 2009
    #14
  15. philo

    philo Guest

    William R. Walsh wrote:
    > Hi!
    >
    >> Though a few of my experiments were successful.

    >
    > I've heard it said (at www.dansdata.com and at other places) that the secret
    > to good photography is lots of bad photography. I think there is some truth
    > to that.
    >
    > I do kind of like the way your picture turned out.
    >
    > William
    >
    >




    Thanks for commenting.

    As I mentioned I'll be putting that in the show I'll be in next month

    I'll see what they say.


    Anyway it was fun
     
    philo, Sep 5, 2009
    #15
  16. philo

    philo Guest

    chuckcar wrote:
    > philo <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> thanatoid wrote:
    >>> philo <> wrote in
    >>> news:h7pevc$3e5$-september.org:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
    >>> <SNIP>
    >>>
    >>>> The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as
    >>>> posted
    >>> Why would anyone assume it was edited or manipulated? It looks
    >>> completely normal, and a very nice image, too, congratulations.
    >>>
    >>> Although you REALLY should have done some image reduction. While
    >>> under 200,000 KB (COULD be smaller but at least it's not 3 MB)
    >>> 3072x2048 pixels is a /little/ large, even for people with newer
    >>> monitors, let alone 800x600 (me and apparently no one else in
    >>> the world - I had to set the zoom to 20% [!] in Opera) or even
    >>> 1024x768 (most people in pre-LCD tyranny days).
    >>>
    >>> (Of the 3 browsers I am forced to use, none of them being IE,
    >>> only Firefox 2.whatever scaled the image automatically. I don't
    >>> know if IE does or doesn't.)
    >>>
    >>> And your other pix /are/ nice and small...
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Glad you like it...
    >>
    >> it's only 175k so I figured no one would have trouble loading that and
    >> when I specified image size it was 4" x 3" (I think)
    >>

    > Anything under 500K is a reasonable size. Any smaller and you would start
    > to get too much visible pixelation IMHO.
    >




    Believe it or not...some folks still use dial-up

    also:

    Most photographers don't publish hi-def images as then anyone could just
    steal them and print them out
     
    philo, Sep 5, 2009
    #16
  17. philo

    chuckcar Guest

    philo <> wrote in
    news:h7sans$l3u$-september.org:

    > chuckcar wrote:
    >> philo <> wrote in
    >> news::


    >
    > Believe it or not...some folks still use dial-up
    >

    Hmm 500KB at 56Kb/s. That's 89 seconds to load optimally or about 110
    seconds for a decent connection. So say 2 minutes. Yeah, that's a chunk of
    someones life, but surely flash pages take even longer - even if they're
    *not* youtube.

    > also:
    >
    > Most photographers don't publish hi-def images as then anyone could just
    > steal them and print them out
    >

    Or are given them as I believe the facts are: If your web page puts it on
    *my* computer, you gave me a copy period. Pretty hard to dispute. Your
    example would still be valid for this: you aren't giving me the same file
    as the original, So copyright is retained on the original image.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Sep 5, 2009
    #17
  18. philo

    philo Guest

    chuckcar wrote:
    > philo <> wrote in
    > news:h7sans$l3u$-september.org:
    >
    >> chuckcar wrote:
    >>> philo <> wrote in
    >>> news::

    >
    >> Believe it or not...some folks still use dial-up
    >>

    > Hmm 500KB at 56Kb/s. That's 89 seconds to load optimally or about 110
    > seconds for a decent connection. So say 2 minutes. Yeah, that's a chunk of
    > someones life, but surely flash pages take even longer - even if they're
    > *not* youtube.
    >
    >> also:
    >>
    >> Most photographers don't publish hi-def images as then anyone could just
    >> steal them and print them out
    >>

    > Or are given them as I believe the facts are: If your web page puts it on
    > *my* computer, you gave me a copy period. Pretty hard to dispute. Your
    > example would still be valid for this: you aren't giving me the same file
    > as the original, So copyright is retained on the original image.
    >




    Yeah, I figure that if I put an image up on my website...then if someone
    wants it they can just print it out...
    but if it's a small image, they won't be able to make a decent , large
    print from it.
     
    philo, Sep 5, 2009
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. hkjanss

    Trying to track a test I took

    hkjanss, Oct 31, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    383
    Tom Helms [MSFT]
    Oct 31, 2003
  2. Rick

    Just took exam, now what?

    Rick, Apr 4, 2004, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
  3. A. Vargas

    Took 71-282 Beta Today

    A. Vargas, Oct 4, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    422
    Brian Warren \(Home\)
    Oct 5, 2003
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    382
  5. Rowdy Yates

    who took 70-296?

    Rowdy Yates, Apr 20, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    422
Loading...

Share This Page