Snow!

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Paul Saunders, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Chris Street" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:38:25 -0000, "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote:
    |
    | >stemc © wrote:
    | >
    | >>> But they're usually criminals aren't they? So they want to protect their identity.
    | >>
    | >> Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?
    | >
    | >If someone has broken the law they might be unfairly persecuted by others. Why would a normal
    | >person be persecuted?
    | >
    | >It seems standard to blur faces and number plates and suchlike in programmes about crime, but not
    | >in other cases. How many TV programmes feature cars driving along? How many blur the number
    | >plates?
    |
    | Channel 5 have taken to blurring out everything on the weird car program that they run. The most
    | pointless one I saw was the blurring and removal of the name on a Royal mail van, and the BP name
    | and logo on a petrol station - how *obvious* are both those!

    I've seen some programme's and newspapers that blur stuff, and others that don't. I don't know if
    it's a hit and miss thing, or if there's a privacy law or anything.

    | >>>> Or have you seen photos of people's cars in newspapers? Same here.
    | >>>
    | >>> But why?
    | >>
    | >> Not always, but when I have seen it, it's probably for the same reason as above.
    | >
    | >But what reason exactly? So you can read the number plate? What use is that to most people?
    |
    | Dunno but when I find the cretin in London whose cloned mine I'll ram eighty nine congestion
    | charge tickets up his arse.

    Maybe someone took a photo of your car, then uploaded it to their web space? ;-)

    | > How many people are in a position to check who that number plate belongs to,
    |
    | Anyone who sends £2:50 to DVLA at Swansea.....:)

    Hey, that's not fair, I was just going to send off my £2.50, but Paul blacked out the number
    plate now. :)

    | > and why would they want to anyway?
    | >
    | >Paul

    Ste
     


  2. stemc © wrote:

    > Just a protection of privacy. If it was my car with my number plate, I'd tell you to take it down.
    > Who else wants their car and number plate on the web?

    > Local people might recognise the number plate and recognise the number plate, and that neighbour
    > might not want themselves associated with your website.

    Aren't you being just a teeny bit paranoid here?

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
    http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
     
  3. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Chris Street" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:47:50 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:
    |
    | >
    | >"Simon Caldwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    | >news:[email protected]...
    | >| On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:34:24 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:
    | >|
    | >| >
    | >| >Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?
    | >|
    | >| Because (alleged) criminals are sometimes the subject of court cases, which might be
    | >| jeopardised if evidence were made public in advance.
    | >
    | >But as Paul says, "How many people are in a position to check who that number plate belongs to"?
    |
    | Everyone who can be bothered to send £2:50 to DVLA.

    Oh good, did you read that Paul? ;-)

    | >Don't want a debate about it though, it just started from a remark... :)
    | >
    | >Ste

    Ste
     
  4. Chris Street

    Chris Street Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:33:57 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >| stemc © wrote:
    >|
    >| >> Everyone who can be bothered to send £2:50 to DVLA.
    >| >
    >| > Oh good, did you read that Paul? ;-)
    >|
    >| Or they could save themselves the money and simply get the address off my website.
    >|
    >| Paul
    >
    >Just goes to show how easy it is though. £2.50. And before I posted, I thought you'd need a friend
    >in the police to do a search for you or something.
    >

    You have to have "good reason" like "he reversed into my car and I need to know where to server
    legal papers"

    >

    --
    79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick -
    looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
     
  5. Chris Street

    Chris Street Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:56:04 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Chris Street" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >| On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:38:25 -0000, "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >|
    >| >stemc © wrote:
    >| >
    >| >>> But they're usually criminals aren't they? So they want to protect their identity.
    >| >>
    >| >> Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?
    >| >
    >| >If someone has broken the law they might be unfairly persecuted by others. Why would a normal
    >| >person be persecuted?
    >| >
    >| >It seems standard to blur faces and number plates and suchlike in programmes about crime, but
    >| >not in other cases. How many TV programmes feature cars driving along? How many blur the number
    >| >plates?
    >|
    >| Channel 5 have taken to blurring out everything on the weird car program that they run. The most
    >| pointless one I saw was the blurring and removal of the name on a Royal mail van, and the BP name
    >| and logo on a petrol station - how *obvious* are both those!
    >
    >I've seen some programme's and newspapers that blur stuff, and others that don't. I don't know if
    >it's a hit and miss thing, or if there's a privacy law or anything.
    >
    >
    >| >>>> Or have you seen photos of people's cars in newspapers? Same here.
    >| >>>
    >| >>> But why?
    >| >>
    >| >> Not always, but when I have seen it, it's probably for the same reason as above.
    >| >
    >| >But what reason exactly? So you can read the number plate? What use is that to most people?
    >|
    >| Dunno but when I find the cretin in London whose cloned mine I'll ram eighty nine congestion
    >| charge tickets up his arse.
    >
    >Maybe someone took a photo of your car, then uploaded it to their web space? ;-)

    Well I guess it was the only time I did drive it through London (after 11pm so not liable for the
    charge) and someone decided to make someone else pay for them.
    >

    --
    79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick -
    looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
     
  6. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | stemc © wrote:
    |
    | > Just a protection of privacy. If it was my car with my number plate, I'd tell you to take it
    | > down. Who else wants their car and number plate on the web?
    |
    | > Local people might recognise the number plate and recognise the number plate, and that neighbour
    | > might not want themselves associated with such an unsavoury website! ;-)
    |
    | Aren't you being just a teeny bit paranoid here?

    Hey, it's not my car, so I'm not bothered! It only started as a joking remark, and I did forget to
    put a smiley in the above paragraph. I've now edited the third line of above paragraph. ;-)

    | Paul

    Ste
     
  7. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Chris Street" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:33:57 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:
    |
    | >
    | >"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    | >news:[email protected]...
    | >| stemc © wrote:
    | >|
    | >| >> Everyone who can be bothered to send £2:50 to DVLA.
    | >| >
    | >| > Oh good, did you read that Paul? ;-)
    | >|
    | >| Or they could save themselves the money and simply get the address off my website.
    | >|
    | >| Paul
    | >
    | >Just goes to show how easy it is though. £2.50. And before I posted, I thought you'd need a
    | >friend in the police to do a search for you or something.
    | >
    |
    | You have to have "good reason" like "he reversed into my car and I need to know where to server
    | legal papers"

    ..."and I need to pay him a visit to deliver them too...!" ;-)

    Ste
     
  8. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Chris Street" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:56:04 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:
    |
    | >
    | >"Chris Street" <desp[email protected]> wrote in message
    | >news:[email protected]...
    | >| On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:38:25 -0000, "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote:
    | >|
    | >| >stemc © wrote:
    | >| >
    | >| >>> But they're usually criminals aren't they? So they want to protect their identity.
    | >| >>
    | >| >> Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?
    | >| >
    | >| >If someone has broken the law they might be unfairly persecuted by others. Why would a normal
    | >| >person be persecuted?
    | >| >
    | >| >It seems standard to blur faces and number plates and suchlike in programmes about crime, but
    | >| >not in other cases. How many TV
    programmes
    | >| >feature cars driving along? How many blur the number plates?
    | >|
    | >| Channel 5 have taken to blurring out everything on the weird car
    program
    | >| that they run. The most pointless one I saw was the blurring and
    removal
    | >| of the name on a Royal mail van, and the BP name and logo on a petrol station - how *obvious*
    | >| are both those!
    | >
    | >I've seen some programme's and newspapers that blur stuff, and others
    that
    | >don't. I don't know if it's a hit and miss thing, or if there's a
    privacy
    | >law or anything.
    | >
    | >
    | >| >>>> Or have you seen photos of people's cars in newspapers? Same here.
    | >| >>>
    | >| >>> But why?
    | >| >>
    | >| >> Not always, but when I have seen it, it's probably for the same reason as above.
    | >| >
    | >| >But what reason exactly? So you can read the number plate? What use
    is
    | >| >that to most people?
    | >|
    | >| Dunno but when I find the cretin in London whose cloned mine I'll ram eighty nine congestion
    | >| charge tickets up his arse.
    | >
    | >Maybe someone took a photo of your car, then uploaded it to their web
    space?
    | >;-)
    |
    | Well I guess it was the only time I did drive it through London (after 11pm so not liable for the
    | charge) and someone decided to make someone else pay for them.

    It happened to my auntie too, and she never even owned the car anymore, she'd sold it. She said it
    was a complete pain to sort out.

    Ste
     
  9. AndyP

    AndyP Guest

    "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote

    > | >But as Paul says, "How many people are in a position to check who that number plate
    > | >belongs to"?
    > |
    > | Everyone who can be bothered to send £2:50 to DVLA.
    >
    > Oh good, did you read that Paul? ;-)

    I think this was on the cycling NG recently. You need to demonstrate you've got a good reason for
    wanting to know.
     
  10. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | stemc © wrote:
    |
    | >> Everyone who can be bothered to send £2:50 to DVLA.
    | >
    | > Oh good, did you read that Paul? ;-)
    |
    | Or they could save themselves the money and simply get the address off my website.
    |
    | Paul

    Just goes to show how easy it is though. £2.50. And before I posted, I thought you'd need a friend
    in the police to do a search for you or something.

    Ste
     
  11. stemc © wrote:

    > Just goes to show how easy it is though. £2.50. And before I posted, I thought you'd need a friend
    > in the police to do a search for you or something.

    I was just chatting to my ex-policeman friend about this and he explained that the reason they blur
    them is because of model release issues, you need permission from the owner. With regard to
    accidents you don't want relatives recognising the number before they've been properly informed.

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
    http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
     
  12. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | stemc © wrote:
    |
    | > Just goes to show how easy it is though. £2.50. And before I posted, I thought you'd need a
    | > friend in the police to do a search for you or something.
    |
    | I was just chatting to my ex-policeman friend about this and he explained that the reason they
    | blur them is because of model release issues, you need permission from the owner.

    This was part of my rationale in another thread, where I said "...you can't take a photo of a
    person's face without a model release form. You need building release form for some buildings..."

    | With regard to accidents you don't want relatives recognising the number before they've been
    | properly informed.

    Of course not, that'd be a terrible way to find out.

    | Paul

    Ste
     
  13. AndyP

    AndyP Guest

    "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote

    > This was part of my rationale in another thread, where I said "...you
    can't
    > take a photo of a person's face without a model release form. You need building release form for
    > some buildings..."

    What about TV and webcams? They don't get people's permission to stick their faces on TV or the
    internet. I was recognised by several people when I was unknowingly in the background of a news
    report on TV once. Ofcourse, I wasn't anywhere I shouldn't have been but I'm sure there must be the
    odd person who gets caught out like that from time to time. People bunking off work, people
    strolling lovingly along with someone they're having an extra marital affair with rather than
    staying home doing the decorating...
     
  14. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | stemc © wrote:
    |
    | >> It seems to be mostly to do with legal issues and television conventions. I doubt it matters on
    | >> the internet.
    | >
    | > It's all the same, no matter what medium is used. If it's an issue for television, then surely
    | > it's the same for the Internet.
    |
    | Yeah, but on TV 10 million people can all see it at the same instant. My website hasn't yet had a
    | tenth that many visitors in nearly 5 years!

    Oh well, when you're a famous photographer with millions of visitors, just be more careful then! ;-)

    | > Don't lose sleep about it though, I promise I won't tell your neighbours! ;-)
    |
    | It doesn't belong to a neighbour.
    |
    | > In my job, I've been dealing with other companies about images we hold in our image library, and
    | > they are all very knit-picky about what they want, the permissions we have, the release forms we
    | > have, etc.
    |
    | Yeah, because there's money involved. There's no money involved in posting a snap on a personal
    | website.

    No money involved in getting our images, we're a charity and the companies are our partner
    organistions.

    | > I was talking to one lady today, and she wanted an image that showed 'multi-cultural community
    | > involvement within a park,' though preferably without people in it!!! Duhhhh!!! :)
    |
    | Well that sounds like an interesting job!

    Well that's me for you, an interesting person with an interesting job and interesting duties! :-S

    | Paul

    Ste
     
  15. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "AndyP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote
    |
    | > This was part of my rationale in another thread, where I said "...you
    | can't
    | > take a photo of a person's face without a model release form. You need building release form for
    | > some buildings..."
    |
    | What about TV and webcams? They don't get people's permission to stick their faces on TV or the
    | internet. I was recognised by several people
    when
    | I was unknowingly in the background of a news report on TV once.
    Ofcourse,
    | I wasn't anywhere I shouldn't have been but I'm sure there must be the odd person who gets caught
    | out like that from time to time. People bunking
    off
    | work, people strolling lovingly along with someone they're having an extra marital affair with
    | rather than staying home doing the decorating...

    It does appear to be a grey area doesn't it! I read a few months ago that some guy was suing a
    newspaper or tv station because he was filmed or photographed coming out of a brothel or something,
    in an entirely innocent piece of coverage that never intended to catch him in the background. Can't
    remember the details, or even if he won the case or not.

    Ste
     
  16. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:59:13 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >(fancy expensive battery)
    >> What is the mAh rating? Seems from a quick google that it is less than 1500mAh.
    >
    >Not sure of the significance of that compared to AA batteries.

    Looking at the spec, it might be more useful to think in terms of mWh. It claims to be 7.4V, which I
    guess must be two lithium cells in series. You'd need 6 NiMh cells to produce the same voltage, or
    alternatively comparing with a camera which runs on just 2, the Li-ion (or polymer) cell has an in-
    built advantage of a factor of 3 even at the same mAh rating. Even compared with the highest
    capacity NiMh equivalents, I would expect it to last twice as long between charges.

    All of which is a convoluted way of saying that lithium batteries have a much higher charge density
    and are a good, though expensive, choice for serious use.

    --
    The young know the rules, the old know the exceptions.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  17. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:10:06 +0000, Simon Caldwell
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:34:24 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?
    >
    >Because (alleged) criminals are sometimes the subject of court cases, which might be jeopardised if
    >evidence were made public in advance.

    I always presumed faces were blurred for reasons associated with "sub judice". That said, I'm not
    sure of the legal situation surrounding permission to use one's image (release is the term, I
    think). If it were me and I didn't want my ugly mug on film, I wouldn't be expecting a declined
    release to somehow grant permission to merely blur things out.

    --
    We die only once, and for such a long time.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  18. Gordon

    Gordon Guest

    Paul Saunders <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    >It's bigger and bulkier than a digital compact, but it's a very nice camera.
    >
    >The camera itself is only 691g without the lens, but including the battery, flash card and strap.
    >The supplied lens weighs just 184g. Total 886g (the weight I gave you earlier included a tripod
    >release base).
    >
    >You haven't been keeping up with lens design have you? The Canon 70-300 zoom that a friend has lent
    >me is rather long, but made of plastic it's surprisingly light for it's size, just 523g.
    >
    >The Sigma zoom that I mentioned is about the same, at 530g, but quite compact.
    >http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/pages/70_300_ams2.htm
    >
    >But there's an even lighter, smaller model if you prefer, a 100-300mm, only 4 inches long and
    >weighs 410g. The quality of this lens is not so good though.
    >http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/pages/100_300_dl.htm
    >
    >On the other hand, if you have money to burn, why not splash out on Canon's new 70-300mm zoom. It's
    >so small you'd never think it was a telephoto lens, and it has image stabilisation, great for those
    >hand held shots.
    >
    >"It is likely to appeal to professional photojournalists and serious advanced amateurs with a need
    >to contain the size and weight of equipment carried."
    >
    >Sounds like an ideal backpacking lens! Unfortunately they're asking $1300 for it, so that's
    >probably the same in pounds, so I doubt I'll be buying one for a while yet... :-(
    >http://www.letsgodigital.be/en/news/articles/story_780.html
    >
    >As for the camera, the final review has just been posted at dpreview;
    >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/
    >
    >Paul
    >
    Message exported to file in Tech Info folder. :)
    --
    Gordon
     
  19. Gordon

    Gordon Guest

    Paul Saunders <[email protected]> wrote
    >Gordon wrote:
    >
    >> That might be fine for some exhilarating snow scenes, but not much use when photographing a
    >> Dipper. ;-)
    >
    >I wouldn't know. If it ain't a landscape then I don't know how to photograph it...
    >
    Landscapes without birds are like a desert without sand.
    --
    Gordon
     
Loading...