40D GETS EXTREME !

On Oct 7, 6:30 pm, "Pete D" wrote:



As opposed to you who does?

A lot more than you, ****head!


BWAHAHAHAHAHA..................................... ...... NAH just
kidding.

you bet

Rob vehemently accused in news:4708797f_3
@news.peopletelecom.com.au:

Willarojo wrote:

Dale_gavington vehemently accused in
:


On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:52:21 GMT, Willarojo
wrote:
Excuse me, I'm having a moment of stupidity by bothering
replying to something as inane and insipid as you. No doubt
entertaining your meaningless and empty life, for free no less.
I almost started to type even more examples of my varied
talents. It must be the weather that's keeping me indoors,
wasting my valuable time like this on something as insignificant
as you.




zzzzz sknxksnx huh what? Oh he's done now? yawn Yep,
vastly
entertaining.

I have no problem with people being multi-talented, but since
you
refuse to prove you're even singly-talented, I'll stick with my
"multi-delusional" diagnosis of you.

Willa

And the relevance is what two dicks

I'm replying to a reply to me, and I'm not replying to aus.photo,
so feel free to STFU.

Willa
--
http://www.pbase.com/willarojo

“I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to
live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.”
Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

“We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from
Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing
important to communicate.”
Thoreau, Walden
******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

On Oct 7, 5:41 am, Matthew Winn wrote:

I retired on the money from my art at the age of 25.

25? That's pathetic. I made money so fast I was able to retire while
I was still in the womb. I was half way there even before the second
sperm had realised it had missed its chance.


At least you had a womb.

Those that can do, do
those that can't do, teach
those that can't teach live vicariously.

Can't teach and no evidence that can do.
Living vicariously is all that is left.

Point.

w..


Dale_gavington wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:27:35 -0400, Walter Banks wrote:

I have had a little survival experience experience in the North probably enough
for the photo trip. For -30 the spring kit should do.

When do we start? I can tell you from personal experience that the light north of
75 gets quite bad by early December. There are some fantastic dawn images to
be had in Tuk Jan 16-20.

I prefer to go hungry than eat eastern seal mutuk

Yippee National Geographic here we come.

w..

Consider yourself disqualified then. If you have traveled that much with camera
in hand, with that many photo opportunities, and still can't take award winning
photos then nobody can help you. See jesus, it's been told that he can make the
blind see. Though I doubt he'd have much luck with you. That would be like
asking him to regrow someone's cleanly severed arm. The best that he could do
would be to teach you how to live within your limitations and be happy. I don't
waste my time on those that show no signs of potential. I pride myself on being
able to bring out the best in those that didn't even know they had it to begin
with. As example, I knew one woman who didn't think she could sing, was always
told by others she couldn't sing. I heard something different in her voice, I
heard massive amounts of potential. With my encouragement and accompanied
assistance she went onto a lucrative singing career. Her lead voice made for a
perfect invented harmony of my own. I still have fond memories of our public
performances long ago. It's clear from your reply that you don't have anything
to begin with. The old saying is more than true, you can't make a silk-purse out
of a sow's ear. I've wasted too much in the past trying to do that with others
who begged and pleaded for some guidance. I have since learned to recognize
their limitations before wasting even one more minute of my time. Having massive
amounts of pity for someone is just not enough, they have to have something to
begin with to make it possible. You clearly have nothing to work with.

Just like others that post their photography in this newsgroup. Spitting out the
same snapshot-grade photography their whole lives, never realizing during that
whole time that they've never had any real talent. All because of a few who
don't know any better give them some meager and meaningless lip-service in the
form of an ASCII pat on the back. They are happy with that. That's all they
need. Unfortunately this does not mean they are the least bit respectable at
photography, it only means their crippled and desperate egos are easily
supported by the least meaningful comments from those who don't know a thing
about photography in the first place. Ignorance, as they say, is bliss. Let them
remain ignorant and happy. Taking their blinders off only destroys what little
happiness they've managed to find in life. Sometimes it is best to just let them
remain ignorant. They already have so little in life, why take away their
self-invented delusions too.

Be happy within your limitations, if you can, but don't waste someone's time
that is better than you. You'll only drag them down to your limitations.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:02:38 -0400, Walter Banks wrote:

Those that can do, do
those that can't do, teach
those that can't teach live vicariously.

Can't teach and no evidence that can do.
Living vicariously is all that is left.

Point.

w..


Oh look, he's vicariously trying to justify why nobody will entertain his
useless ass for free. Isn't that cute. Extremely sad, pathetic even, but cute.
Okay, let's be honest, the sad and pathetic totally wipes out any possibility of
cute. The cute was just for sarcasm.

IdiotParadeInterjection wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:59:39 -0500, John Turco wrote:

IdiotParadeInterjection wrote:

edited, for brevity

Hummingbirds are by far the easiest birds of all to photograph in flight. Not
even a challenge. Because they just hover there for what seems like forever
until they dart off almost faster than you can follow. They repeatedly come back
to the same spots, the same plants, time and again all day, day after day, month
after month. Year after year. I could even set my calendar by the day they
arrive and leave each year. On top of that they lose all fear of being within
inches of any humans that they learn to trust.

heavily edited

Hello,

Have you ever seen (or heard of) the "Hemeris" genus of moths?

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Hemeris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemaris

Quoted, from the above Web page:

"They are often mistaken for hummingbirds, which is why their common
name is hummingbird moths."

One of these strange creatures sometimes visits me, while I'm sitting
in my front patio, during the evening. He flits around and sticks his
nose in the flowers, all while hovering. His big wings beat so rapidly
that he does, indeed, resemble a hummingbird.

This has happened, for the last few years or so; don't know whether it's
the same individual insect, each time (or what the average life span of
moths, in general, is). I never seem to have any of my digital cameras
handy, at the critical moment!


Cordially,
John Turco

Yes, they're pretty amazing. There's 3 similar species in the USA, two of them
difficult to tell apart at first glance at times. Hummingbird Clearwing, Slender
Clearwing, and Snowberry Clearwing (the bumble-bee mimic, sometimes called the
Bumble-Bee Moth). The Snowberry Clearwing being more like a very large
bumble-bee than hummingbird so that makes it a little easier to not be fooled.
But they won't land on flowers, always hovering, so it's easy to tell if there's
a stinger included or not. The bees will land on the flowers that they're
feeding from. All of them being day or late-afternoon fliers.

Even if you do have your camera handy don't be too disappointed when trying to
photograph them. They are much quicker as they move from blossom to blossom than
any hummingbird I've ever met. Plus their smaller size requires more
magnification for a good photo, which only enhances any camera shake and causing
a shallower DOF to work with. I only managed to capture Clearwing's photos a few
times, disappointedly, tiring myself out trying to chase it all over a meadow
full of flowers, none of the images ended up being good enough for sharing. Just
as soon as you think you've got it in focus and framed it's off to another
blossom while you start to say "DAMN IT!" every time. Their flight patterns are
not only quicker, spending far less time at each blossom, but they seem to be
more erratic/random than hummingbirds too. I suspect this is evolution at work,
the moths being a juicer meal for many more animals than hummingbirds so they
have to have a more darting flight pattern to avoid being dinner.

Average life-span of an adult moth is usually until just after they mate each
year. Usually once a year in northern climates, sometimes 2 life-cycles per year
in warmer climates. Adult moths, or in pupal stage, will over-winter hidden in
crevices of bark and the ground (or as in pupa merrily hanging from a branch or
tree-trunk, emerging in spring) surviving a freeze, but I've never heard of any
moth lasting very long as an adult, non-larval, state. Most of their life is
spent as a larva, eating and growing, until they can pupate into an adult to fly
and mate again.

Checking my Moths book here to be sure, I read (semi-paraphrased): "Some species
live 2-3 days as adults, some have been reported living up to 60 days. ... Two
weeks seems to be a reliable estimate of the adult life-span for medium and
large sized (adult) moths, although it is not safe to generalize on the basis of
the little we know about the subject."

In short, it's very unlikely that it's the same moth from year to year. But you
can still name it if you like and pretend it is. :-)

Practice taking its photo if you can. If you can capture one of those moths
clearly with available light then you'll have no problems photographing a real
hummingbird. Capturing a hummingbird's slower activity is child's play compared
to getting one of those moths.

This is the nice part about having experience in taking a wide variety of
subjects under many circumstances. You know when to applaud the efforts of
others who have managed to accomplish what you have yet to do well. Conversely,
you also know full-well when some 5th-rate hack on the internet is trying to
pull the wool over the less experienced photographers' eyes.


Hello,

Thanks, for the detailed response! I'm leaving everything intact, with
no editing, as it contains a lot of very fascinating information.


Cordially,
John Turco

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:51:42 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:


Not much, I think it's fair to say. I don't believe there has ever existed a
FP shutter that presents the film or sensor with anything but a slit at that
speed.

Bob


Sorry to be so late with this, but my old feeble brain seems to
remember way back when I had a couple of focal plane shuttered
cameras. I think to get optimum light with a flash and high speed
shutter, it took some special type of flash BULB. One with a long
time light pulse, rather than the very fast electronic flashes. Am I
correct, does anyone else recall such?

Olin McDaniel
To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
-----------------------------------------------------
"Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:19:18 GMT, (Olin
K. McDaniel) wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:51:42 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:


Not much, I think it's fair to say. I don't believe there has ever existed a
FP shutter that presents the film or sensor with anything but a slit at that
speed.

Bob


Sorry to be so late with this, but my old feeble brain seems to
remember way back when I had a couple of focal plane shuttered
cameras. I think to get optimum light with a flash and high speed
shutter, it took some special type of flash BULB. One with a long
time light pulse, rather than the very fast electronic flashes. Am I
correct, does anyone else recall such?

Olin McDaniel
To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
-----------------------------------------------------
"Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."

Sure, they were called FP or Focal Plane bulbs. They were designed to
produce their light over a longer preriod so the bulb's flash had to
last for the time it took the shutter slit to traverse the film plane,
rather than trying to maximize the light diuing a short shutter open
period. I believe they were often used with Speed Gaphic type cameras
to give them the benefit of flash with their focal plane shutter.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:19:18 GMT, (Olin
K. McDaniel) wrote:

Sorry to be so late with this, but my old feeble brain seems to
remember way back when I had a couple of focal plane shuttered
cameras. I think to get optimum light with a flash and high speed
shutter, it took some special type of flash BULB. One with a long
time light pulse, rather than the very fast electronic flashes. Am I
correct, does anyone else recall such?

Yes. Type FP flash bulbs were slow-burning bulbs with an effective
flash duration of around 25ms in order to work with focal plane
shutters. There's a graph of the light output of some different
types of flash bulbs at the URL below.

http://i22.tinypic.com/2kigkj.jpg

--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]

Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:51:42 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

Not much, I think it's fair to say. I don't believe there has ever existed a
FP shutter that presents the film or sensor with anything but a slit at that
speed.

Bob


Sorry to be so late with this, but my old feeble brain seems to
remember way back when I had a couple of focal plane shuttered
cameras. I think to get optimum light with a flash and high speed
shutter, it took some special type of flash BULB. One with a long
time light pulse, rather than the very fast electronic flashes. Am I
correct, does anyone else recall such?

Yes, when using electronic flash, x-sync is used.

when using photobulbs, which took longer to get to "flash" intensity a
different setting (or PC connection) is used (not commonly available on
SLR's over the past 20 or more years) called M-sync, "flash" or
something else on the camera. These would "pre-trigger" the flash to
start combustion such that the light intensity would peak just as the
shutter became fully open.

Alternately, one could use the "BULB" setting to manually hold open the
shutter, fire the bulb and then manually let the shutter close.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.