Snow!



On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:41:27 GMT, [email protected] (Chris
Street) wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:47:50 -0000, "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.

And demonstrate "reasonable cause". Records are kept of all applications.

--
Don't steal. The government hates competition.

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
stemc © <[email protected]> wrote
>
>Well, you can't take a photo of a person's face without a model release form.

?? Even if it is not for publication? I took portraits of two or three ladies at our dance club
because they were looking attractive in their finery in spite of their 60+ years. I showed them some
A4s I had taken of my partner, and asked if they would like me to do one for them. They were all
happy for me to do so, and were delighted with the results. I just did it for my own satisfaction
and their pleasure. <Oooh-Err, missus>!

If I don't publish them anywhere, what's the problem?
--
Gordon
 
"Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| stemc © <[email protected]> wrote
| >
| >Well, you can't take a photo of a person's face without a model release form.
|
| ?? Even if it is not for publication? I took portraits of two or three ladies at our dance club
| because they were looking attractive in their finery in spite of their 60+ years. I showed them
| some A4s I had taken of my partner, and asked if they would like me to do one for them. They were
| all happy for me to do so, and were delighted with the results. I just did it for my own
| satisfaction and their pleasure. <Oooh-Err, missus>!
|
| If I don't publish them anywhere, what's the problem?

Okay, so it applies to publishing. But even then, plenty of things are published without them, this
aint the problem - it's when the person in the photo sues, that's the problem, and that's where a
model release form helps.

Good luck with your old ladies Gordon, as long as they are consenting adults, then no problems! I
just hope your partner doesn't get jealous! ;-)

I wouldn't try taking shots of kids in playgrounds or anything though, as that's a bit seedy.
Saying that though, I'm going to rig my little brother and sister into being models for some of my
shots, and getting my Mum to sign a model release form shouldn't be a problem if I wanted to sell a
good photo.

| Gordon

Ste
 
>>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.

Decent alkaline AA cells may come in at around the 2000mAh mark. Same for Lithium AA cells.

--
Boo
 
[email protected] said...
> Fran wrote:
>
> > I wish mine had a scratch like that on the side...
>
> What scratch?

Eh? *That* scratch.

> ...checks pic...
>
> Oh that, it's a reflection.

Oh. Ah well, never mind. Of course, if the owner would *like* a scratch on his car I've got a spare
one he can have for a small consideration...

> Say hello to Charlie for me, glad he's okay.

Will do; so is he and so am I. <Whisper> Don't tell him though, 'cos I reckon it's about time to
start ribbing him mercilessly ;-)

--
Fran If you need my email address please ask.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Boo <boo@spam_me_no_spam.net> writes
> >>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.
>
>Decent alkaline AA cells may come in at around the 2000mAh mark.

Nominal 2800mAh for Energizers (at 25mA to 0.8v - at higher cut off voltages and higher currents
they will have less capacity).

http://data.energizer.com/datasheets/library/primary/alkaline/energizer/c onsumer_oem/e91.pdf

>Same for Lithium AA cells.
>

Indeed - with similar caveats.

http://data.energizer.com/datasheets/library/primary/lithium/l91.pdf

--

http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/
 
John Laird <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.

Perp walking is illegal in the USA. One can't arrest a guy and parade him for the TV. Arpaio's
jailcam was also negated by Donna Hamm because it served no legitimate state interest and was very
popular with very sick **** freaks.

http://cooltech.iafrica.com/technews/archive/may/335880.htm
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Paul Saunders wrote:
|
| >> 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!
|
| Small error in that paragraph, I should have said that my website hasn't had a *hundredth* that
| many visitors in nearly 5 years.
|
| Paul

How many visits have you had to your website this year Paul? Forget about this registration plate
topic now :)-)), I'm just curious about how many people are visiting personal websites. I've had
7,787 visits this year on my websites (not hits, but actual visits, about half of this number are
unique visits). But I'm not happy with the content of these websites any more and never update them,
so I need to update them with things that are relevent to my interests and hobby's now.

Ste
 
stemc © wrote:

> How many visits have you had to your website this year Paul? Forget about this registration plate
> topic now :)-)), I'm just curious about how many people are visiting personal websites. I've had
> 7,787 visits this year on my websites

Approx 6,600 unique visits on Wilderness Wales so far this year.

Only a few hundred visitors to my Wild Wales site but that's only a small temporary thing anyway.
Besides, I've been chucking a lot of jpegs into my misc folder and giving direct links to the
newsgroup so none of those visits have been counted since the images aren't on pages.

To my surprise I've just noticed that my Fractal Island Horseshoe page has been getting a lot of
hits lately. If you haven't seen this Ste, you might be interested in my bit of "virtual
photography" done during the foot and mouth crisis.

http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/fractal/fractal.html

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| stemc © wrote:
|
| > How many visits have you had to your website this year Paul? Forget about this registration
| > plate topic now :)-)), I'm just curious about how many people are visiting personal websites.
| > I've had 7,787 visits this year on my websites
|
| Approx 6,600 unique visits on Wilderness Wales so far this year.
|
| Only a few hundred visitors to my Wild Wales site but that's only a small temporary thing anyway.
| Besides, I've been chucking a lot of jpegs into my misc folder and giving direct links to the
| newsgroup so none of those visits have been counted since the images aren't on pages.

Once I get my photography website sorted, I'll have to have a marketing blitz with it, and send it
to Outdoor Photography, as they always review users websites each month.

| To my surprise I've just noticed that my Fractal Island Horseshoe page has been getting a lot of
| hits lately. If you haven't seen this Ste, you might be interested in my bit of "virtual
| photography" done during the foot and mouth crisis.
|
| http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/fractal/fractal.html

I don't think I've seen this, but nice mountains! :) You must have really caught the photography
bug (as if I didn't know this already!) to have created these images when you couldn't get out! ;-)

Looking at this image, http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/fractal/15lake.jpg is that a 30 second
shutter speed, as the clouds look a lot like this one:
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/mh/th_ir.jpg :)

| Paul

Ste
 
"W. D. Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| In article <[email protected]>, stemc © <[email protected]> writes
| >Why snaps, because you thought they were ****? ;-)
| >
| OK Ste - how did he take the last one - the one with the snow like straight lines?
| --
| Bill Grey

I don't suppose it was taken with Auto was it! ;-) So I guess it was a proper shot rather than a
snap, with a longer shutter speed etc... :)

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stemc © wrote:
>
> >> OK Ste - how did he take the last one - the one with the snow like straight lines?
>
> > I don't suppose it was taken with Auto was it! ;-) So I guess it was a proper shot rather than a
> > snap, with a longer shutter speed etc...
> > :)
>
> Program mode, flash off, handheld. (0.6 secs actually, I'm surprised the tree in the background
> isn't more blurred).
>
> Paul

That'll be your rock-steady camera grip then!

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stemc © wrote:
>
> >> And for those that prefer the dreamy effect...
> >> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/snow/snow3.jpg
> >
> > Very creative! This sort of effect has potential, with the right composition and backdrop. It's
> > certainly different anyway.
>
> It was simply taken hand held in program mode with the flash turned off. I'm surprise the tree is
> almost sharp. I was going to go back and take some more on a tripod but I'd filled the card and by
> the time I'd emptied it onto the computer the snow had stopped.
>
> Paul

I'm sure it's the sort of thing you could do up a mountain, and with a nice backdrop it'd certainly
be something to try out. Especially if you like those dreamy water photos.

Ste
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back