Positive discrimination.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by DanP, Oct 21, 2012.

  1. DanP

    DanP Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. DanP

    philo Guest

    philo, Oct 21, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. DanP

    Robert Coe Guest

    Robert Coe, Oct 21, 2012
    #3
  4. DanP

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 07:17:47 -0500, philo <> wrote:
    : On 10/21/2012 01:28 AM, DanP wrote:
    : > http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20...because-his-mirrorless-camera-lacks-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, Oct 21, 2012
    #4
  5. DanP

    Robert Coe Guest

    Robert Coe, Oct 21, 2012
    #5
  6. DanP

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:31:02 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012.10.21 02:28 , DanP wrote:
    >> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20...because-his-mirrorless-camera-lacks-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Seems to me their criteria is out of date (and not very good to begin with).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
     
    tony cooper, Oct 21, 2012
    #6
  7. DanP

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:23:45 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:31:02 -0400, Alan Browne
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >On 2012.10.21 02:28 , DanP wrote:
    : >> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20...because-his-mirrorless-camera-lacks-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
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 21, 2012
    #7
  8. Usenet Account, Oct 21, 2012
    #8
  9. DanP

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:41:54 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:23:45 -0400, tony cooper <>
    >wrote:
    >: On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:31:02 -0400, Alan Browne
    >: <> wrote:
    >:
    >: >On 2012.10.21 02:28 , DanP wrote:
    >: >> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20...because-his-mirrorless-camera-lacks-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
     
    tony cooper, Oct 21, 2012
    #9
  10. Usenet Account, Oct 22, 2012
    #10
  11. DanP

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Sunday, October 21, 2012 8:23:54 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 10:31:02 -0400, Alan Browne
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On 2012.10.21 02:28 , DanP wrote:

    >
    > >> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20...because-his-mirrorless-camera-lacks-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".


    Silly writers make silly 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.


    So why make him pick and choose ?

    >
    >
    >
    > 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.


    No, well in the UK you put up a sign saying "breakages must be paid for".
    Then it doesn't matter whether it's a large DSLR or a women/mans handbag, what is the difference ?

    >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.


    If it's a sensible rule it should be quick to employ.

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


    get rid of the rule-writers and emply people with brains instead.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    Whisky-dave, Oct 22, 2012
    #11
  12. DanP

    otter Guest

    On Oct 21, 10:20 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    > On 2012-10-20 23:28:04 -0700, DanP <> said:
    >
    > >http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/photog-denied-park-permit-because...

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


    I've been there. The people in charge are actually pretty savvy about
    cameras. He knew the answer before he asked the question. These guys
    make a business out of giving photo tours everyday, so they know all
    about various kinds of cameras. The guy giving my tour showed me some
    tricks with my camera, then helped the Nikon guy with his, etc. etc.
    Do that multiple times each day for several years and pretty soon you
    know all the cameras inside-out.

    I'm not sure why they have a bias against mirrorless cameras and point-
    and-shoots, but they probably figure a professional wouldn't really be
    using one of those. Of course, if he is willing to pay for a private
    guide, then he really is a pro, after all.

    It is a great place, but I don't see myself going back. Ended up
    getting my new 5D2 completely covered with sand. They shovel sand up
    in the air to illuminate the shafts of light, so the air is full of
    sand. Sand, sand, everywhere. Took me awhile to get all the sand out
    of the focus ring of my lens.
     
    otter, Oct 23, 2012
    #12
  13. DanP

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/22/2012 7:30 PM, otter wrote:
    > On Oct 21, 10:20 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    > wrote:
    >> On 2012-10-20 23:28:04 -0700, DanP <> said:
    >>
    >>> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/photog-denied-park-permit-because...

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

    >
    > I've been there. The people in charge are actually pretty savvy about
    > cameras. He knew the answer before he asked the question. These guys
    > make a business out of giving photo tours everyday, so they know all
    > about various kinds of cameras. The guy giving my tour showed me some
    > tricks with my camera, then helped the Nikon guy with his, etc. etc.
    > Do that multiple times each day for several years and pretty soon you
    > know all the cameras inside-out.
    >
    > I'm not sure why they have a bias against mirrorless cameras and point-
    > and-shoots, but they probably figure a professional wouldn't really be
    > using one of those. Of course, if he is willing to pay for a private
    > guide, then he really is a pro, after all.
    >
    > It is a great place, but I don't see myself going back. Ended up
    > getting my new 5D2 completely covered with sand. They shovel sand up
    > in the air to illuminate the shafts of light, so the air is full of
    > sand. Sand, sand, everywhere. Took me awhile to get all the sand out
    > of the focus ring of my lens.
    >


    Which might be an appropriate time to use a protection filter. ;-)

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Oct 23, 2012
    #13
  14. DanP

    otter Guest

    On Oct 22, 7:04 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 10/22/2012 7:30 PM, otter wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Oct 21, 10:20 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    > > wrote:
    > >> On 2012-10-20 23:28:04 -0700, DanP <> said:

    >
    > >>>http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/photog-denied-park-permit-because....

    >
    > >> DanP

    >
    > >> ...and

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

    >
    > >> --
    > >> Regards,

    >
    > >> Savageduck

    >
    > > I've been there.  The people in charge are actually pretty savvy about
    > > cameras.  He knew the answer before he asked the question.  These guys
    > > make a business out of giving photo tours everyday, so they know all
    > > about various kinds of cameras.  The guy giving my tour showed me some
    > > tricks with my camera, then helped the Nikon guy with his, etc. etc.
    > > Do that multiple times each day for several years and pretty soon you
    > > know all the cameras inside-out.

    >
    > > I'm not sure why they have a bias against mirrorless cameras and point-
    > > and-shoots, but they probably figure a professional wouldn't really be
    > > using one of those.  Of course, if he is willing to pay for a private
    > > guide, then he really is a pro, after all.

    >
    > > It is a great place, but I don't see myself going back.  Ended up
    > > getting my new 5D2 completely covered with sand.  They shovel sand up
    > > in the air to illuminate the shafts of light, so the air is full of
    > > sand.  Sand, sand, everywhere.  Took me awhile to get all the sand out
    > > of the focus ring of my lens.

    >
    > Which might be an appropriate time to use a protection filter. ;-)
    >


    Oddly, enough, that was back when I used such things. However, what I
    really needed was a camera condom.
     
    otter, Oct 24, 2012
    #14
  15. DanP

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:24:02 -0700 (PDT), otter
    <> wrote:

    >On Oct 22, 7:04 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    >> On 10/22/2012 7:30 PM, otter wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On Oct 21, 10:20 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >> > wrote:
    >> >> On 2012-10-20 23:28:04 -0700, DanP <> said:

    >>
    >> >>>http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/photog-denied-park-permit-because...

    >>
    >> >> DanP

    >>
    >> >> ...and

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

    >>
    >> >> --
    >> >> Regards,

    >>
    >> >> Savageduck

    >>
    >> > I've been there.  The people in charge are actually pretty savvy about
    >> > cameras.  He knew the answer before he asked the question.  These guys
    >> > make a business out of giving photo tours everyday, so they know all
    >> > about various kinds of cameras.  The guy giving my tour showed me some
    >> > tricks with my camera, then helped the Nikon guy with his, etc. etc.
    >> > Do that multiple times each day for several years and pretty soon you
    >> > know all the cameras inside-out.

    >>
    >> > I'm not sure why they have a bias against mirrorless cameras and point-
    >> > and-shoots, but they probably figure a professional wouldn't really be
    >> > using one of those.  Of course, if he is willing to pay for a private
    >> > guide, then he really is a pro, after all.

    >>
    >> > It is a great place, but I don't see myself going back.  Ended up
    >> > getting my new 5D2 completely covered with sand.  They shovel sand up
    >> > in the air to illuminate the shafts of light, so the air is full of
    >> > sand.  Sand, sand, everywhere.  Took me awhile to get all the sand out
    >> > of the focus ring of my lens.

    >>
    >> Which might be an appropriate time to use a protection filter. ;-)
    >>

    >
    >Oddly, enough, that was back when I used such things. However, what I
    >really needed was a camera condom.


    You trying to prevent STDs? (Sensor Transmitted Depictions)


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Oct 24, 2012
    #15
  16. DanP

    otter Guest

    On Oct 24, 1:14 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-10-23 22:24:02 -0700, otter <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Oct 22, 7:04 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > >> On 10/22/2012 7:30 PM, otter wrote:

    >
    > >>> On Oct 21, 10:20 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    > >>> wrote:
    > >>>> On 2012-10-20 23:28:04 -0700, DanP <> said:

    >
    > >>>>>http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/photog-denied-park-permit-because.

    > > ..

    >
    > >>>> DanP

    >
    > >>>> ...and

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

    >
    > >>>> --
    > >>>> Regards,

    >
    > >>>> Savageduck

    >
    > >>> I've been there.  The people in charge are actually pretty savvy abou

    > > t
    > >>> cameras.  He knew the answer before he asked the question.  Theseg

    > > uys
    > >>> make a business out of giving photo tours everyday, so they know all
    > >>> about various kinds of cameras.  The guy giving my tour showed me som

    > > e
    > >>> tricks with my camera, then helped the Nikon guy with his, etc. etc.
    > >>> Do that multiple times each day for several years and pretty soon you
    > >>> know all the cameras inside-out.

    >
    > >>> I'm not sure why they have a bias against mirrorless cameras and point-
    > >>> and-shoots, but they probably figure a professional wouldn't really be
    > >>> using one of those.  Of course, if he is willing to pay for a private
    > >>> guide, then he really is a pro, after all.

    >
    > >>> It is a great place, but I don't see myself going back.  Ended up
    > >>> getting my new 5D2 completely covered with sand.  They shovel sand up
    > >>> in the air to illuminate the shafts of light, so the air is full of
    > >>> sand.  Sand, sand, everywhere.  Took me awhile to get all the sand

    > > out
    > >>> of the focus ring of my lens.

    >
    > >> Which might be an appropriate time to use a protection filter. ;-)

    >
    > > Oddly, enough, that was back when I used such things.  However, what I
    > > really needed was a camera condom.

    >
    > Why didn't you say so?
    >  The OP/Tech "Rainsleeve" provides inexpensive protection against
    > showers and dust. A two pack for $6.99 - $6.00 at Amazon is easy
    > enough. I have one in my bag at all times.
    > <http://optechusa.com/rainsleeve.html>


    I've seen those. Probably worth having.
     
    otter, Oct 24, 2012
    #16
  17. DanP

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/24/2012 2:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-10-23 22:24:02 -0700, otter <> said:
    >
    >> On Oct 22, 7:04 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    >>> On 10/22/2012 7:30 PM, otter wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> On Oct 21, 10:20 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> On 2012-10-20 23:28:04 -0700, DanP <> said:
    >>>
    >>>>>> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/20/photog-denied-park-permit-because.
    >>>>>>

    >> ..
    >>>
    >>>>> DanP
    >>>
    >>>>> ...and
    >>>
    >>>>> all he had to do was lie, and say that the camera had a mirror.
    >>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Regards,
    >>>
    >>>>> Savageduck
    >>>
    >>>> I've been there. The people in charge are actually pretty savvy abou

    >> t
    >>>> cameras. He knew the answer before he asked the question. These g

    >> uys
    >>>> make a business out of giving photo tours everyday, so they know all
    >>>> about various kinds of cameras. The guy giving my tour showed me som

    >> e
    >>>> tricks with my camera, then helped the Nikon guy with his, etc. etc.
    >>>> Do that multiple times each day for several years and pretty soon you
    >>>> know all the cameras inside-out.
    >>>
    >>>> I'm not sure why they have a bias against mirrorless cameras and point-
    >>>> and-shoots, but they probably figure a professional wouldn't really be
    >>>> using one of those. Of course, if he is willing to pay for a private
    >>>> guide, then he really is a pro, after all.
    >>>
    >>>> It is a great place, but I don't see myself going back. Ended up
    >>>> getting my new 5D2 completely covered with sand. They shovel sand up
    >>>> in the air to illuminate the shafts of light, so the air is full of
    >>>> sand. Sand, sand, everywhere. Took me awhile to get all the sand

    >> out
    >>>> of the focus ring of my lens.
    >>>
    >>> Which might be an appropriate time to use a protection filter. ;-)
    >>>

    >>
    >> Oddly, enough, that was back when I used such things. However, what I
    >> really needed was a camera condom.

    >
    > Why didn't you say so?
    > The OP/Tech "Rainsleeve" provides inexpensive protection against showers
    > and dust. A two pack for $6.99 - $6.00 at Amazon is easy enough. I have
    > one in my bag at all times.
    > < http://optechusa.com/rainsleeve.html >
    >
    >


    You beat me to the post.
    I have also used a plastic supermarket bag, with a hole in the bottom
    for the lens to just peek through.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Oct 24, 2012
    #17
    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. john p.
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    425
    john p.
    Sep 30, 2003
  2. Uncle Tom
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    541
    Uncle Tom
    Jun 15, 2004
  3. John Sealey

    INCREDIMAIL; Any positive issues?

    John Sealey, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,233
    The Old Sourdough
    Nov 14, 2004
  4. Mbo

    negative into positive

    Mbo, Feb 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,074
  5. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    B&H settles discrimination suit, agrees to pay $4.3 million

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 20, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    82
    Views:
    1,582
    Pudentame
    Oct 27, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page