Lens question

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:10:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Ghett Rheel" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
news:88ednR2uerbL7HPXnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@giganews. com...

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used
during
flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases
of
the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room
and so
on) so I'm happy to use a film body.

I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to
take
pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when
the
door
is open. No one has ever objected yet.

all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't have
a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put in
checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.

That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline
flying
as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using a
different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different.


During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly
concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter.

For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP
IPAQ,
which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I can't
use it during the flight.

But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying patiently,
or of scenic shots out the window.

You can't even properly frame nor see your dog that's laying right next to
your feet while sitting at a table in the mall. Even when you are using
the
full-screen of a laptop as your viewfinder. Please explain to everyone how
you can compose (with intent) any scene out of a window?

Even more funny are your recent posts about photographing and driving
cars.
I.e. Ford Exec says, "Let's humor the foolish blind man or we'll look bad
in PR. We'll just have a full safety-team stand by at thousands of dollars
of our cost so we don't look bad." Nothing like using your blindness to
manipulate all others to get what you want, eh? At everyone else's
expense,
of course. Or using gels on flash units. As if that's ever going to help
with your compositions that you can't see nor focus on in the first place.

major eye-roll

Grow up, and ...

Ghett Rheel


Jealous?

You might be surprised at what is going to be posted on my site over the
next few months. Perhaps, once you realize that others can appreciate the
unusual and the unorthodox, you might get an inkling as to how limited is
your understanding of the human condition.

Perhaps one of your relatives told Hellen Keller she should just give up?

FYI, Ford's decision came after I provided company execs with detailed info
as to the demographics of my site visitors, and statistics about usage. I
provided a rather comprehensive summary of who visits my site, why they
visit it, and what they are looking for.

The interesting thing about the internet is that users are tired of the same
old, same old.

Why do you think traditional newspapers are dying? Television stations are
closing? And, why do you think that bazaar internet sites are flurishing?

If a web master can produce a product which connects to a definable
demographic, and if a more traditional company can use that connection to
highlight its products, its way of doing business and its corporate
philosophy, is it not good business for it to do exactly that?

Ford seems to think I'll make them more than I'll cost 'em.

Get Real, get with the times...

Take Care,
Dudley


Web-master? You can't even post images on your web-space properly because
you can't read the html code in its entirety. Everyone with an internet
connection today is a "web master".

But I applaud you on your inventive side-stepping. You didn't answer the
question.

Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their
products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can see
the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to
market their cars to blind people."

Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from all
tax-payers will bail them out again.

And we'll only have you to blame for pity-manipulating a few Ford execs
because of your misplaced desperate need for attention.

It always all starts with one idiot with skewed self-serving intentions.
Why should you be any different in the course of history.

"Ghett Rheel" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:10:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Ghett Rheel" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
news:88ednR2uerbL7HPXnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@giganews .com...

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be
used
during
flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing
phases
of
the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg
room
and so
on) so I'm happy to use a film body.

I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to
take
pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when
the
door
is open. No one has ever objected yet.

all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't
have
a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put
in
checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.

That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline
flying
as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using
a
different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different.


During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly
concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter.

For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP
IPAQ,
which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I
can't
use it during the flight.

But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying
patiently,
or of scenic shots out the window.

You can't even properly frame nor see your dog that's laying right next
to
your feet while sitting at a table in the mall. Even when you are using
the
full-screen of a laptop as your viewfinder. Please explain to everyone
how
you can compose (with intent) any scene out of a window?

Even more funny are your recent posts about photographing and driving
cars.
I.e. Ford Exec says, "Let's humor the foolish blind man or we'll look
bad
in PR. We'll just have a full safety-team stand by at thousands of
dollars
of our cost so we don't look bad." Nothing like using your blindness to
manipulate all others to get what you want, eh? At everyone else's
expense,
of course. Or using gels on flash units. As if that's ever going to help
with your compositions that you can't see nor focus on in the first
place.

major eye-roll

Grow up, and ...

Ghett Rheel


Jealous?

You might be surprised at what is going to be posted on my site over the
next few months. Perhaps, once you realize that others can appreciate the
unusual and the unorthodox, you might get an inkling as to how limited is
your understanding of the human condition.

Perhaps one of your relatives told Hellen Keller she should just give up?

FYI, Ford's decision came after I provided company execs with detailed
info
as to the demographics of my site visitors, and statistics about usage. I
provided a rather comprehensive summary of who visits my site, why they
visit it, and what they are looking for.

The interesting thing about the internet is that users are tired of the
same
old, same old.

Why do you think traditional newspapers are dying? Television stations
are
closing? And, why do you think that bazaar internet sites are flurishing?

If a web master can produce a product which connects to a definable
demographic, and if a more traditional company can use that connection to
highlight its products, its way of doing business and its corporate
philosophy, is it not good business for it to do exactly that?

Ford seems to think I'll make them more than I'll cost 'em.

Get Real, get with the times...

Take Care,
Dudley


Web-master? You can't even post images on your web-space properly because
you can't read the html code in its entirety. Everyone with an internet
connection today is a "web master".

But I applaud you on your inventive side-stepping. You didn't answer the
question.

Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their
products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can
see
the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to
market their cars to blind people."

Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from
all
tax-payers will bail them out again.

And we'll only have you to blame for pity-manipulating a few Ford execs
because of your misplaced desperate need for attention.

It always all starts with one idiot with skewed self-serving intentions.
Why should you be any different in the course of history.

Wow, so dramatic...

Once again, you are demonstrating your limited understanding of the real
world...

First of all, I have very few blind visitors to my site. Most of the people
who visit it a

* Corporate types who have a passion for photography, and a curiosity
about how a blind person deals with his / her challenges in the pursuit of
capturing good images.

* Corporate types who love animals (dogs in particular), and who are
interested in how a blind human / sighted canine team copes with day-to-day
realities.

* Corporate types who enjoy what I write, about whatever subjects I write
about.

The key here is "corporate types."

You see, I actively market my site to higher income, "corporate types" who
visit it looking for something different, something real, to which they can
click to once and a while to offset their daily grind.

If these folks have any of the above noted interests , my site is hard to
pass up, even though it isn't exactly the most glitzy web production out
there.

The key is "interest." It doesn't matter how good a site is, if the web
designers have to manufacture interest, they are not going to keep people
coming back on a regular basis. But, if the individual is genuinely
interested in the individual(s) who run the site, they will be much more
likely to keep coming back, and they will pay a lot more attention to what
is posted -- a genuinely good mix for corporate sponsors, the web surfer,
and the content provider.

Oh, and one other thing. While Ford isn't exactly marketing cars to blind
guys, at the moment, how long do you think it'll take before GPS brained
vehicles are chauffeuring blind guys around with absolute ease and accuracy?

Given that cars can park themselves now (unheard of a decade or so ago),
self-brake when approaching hazards (another recent innovation), and warn
the driver of unseen dangers, need I say more?

Once again, Get Real, get with the times...

Take Care,
Dudley

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:00:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Ghett Rheel" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:10:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Ghett Rheel" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
news:88ednR2uerbL7HPXnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@giganew s.com...

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be
used
during
flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing
phases
of
the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg
room
and so
on) so I'm happy to use a film body.

I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to
take
pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when
the
door
is open. No one has ever objected yet.

all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't
have
a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put
in
checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.

That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline
flying
as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using
a
different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different.


During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly
concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter.

For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP
IPAQ,
which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I
can't
use it during the flight.

But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying
patiently,
or of scenic shots out the window.

You can't even properly frame nor see your dog that's laying right next
to
your feet while sitting at a table in the mall. Even when you are using
the
full-screen of a laptop as your viewfinder. Please explain to everyone
how
you can compose (with intent) any scene out of a window?

Even more funny are your recent posts about photographing and driving
cars.
I.e. Ford Exec says, "Let's humor the foolish blind man or we'll look
bad
in PR. We'll just have a full safety-team stand by at thousands of
dollars
of our cost so we don't look bad." Nothing like using your blindness to
manipulate all others to get what you want, eh? At everyone else's
expense,
of course. Or using gels on flash units. As if that's ever going to help
with your compositions that you can't see nor focus on in the first
place.

major eye-roll

Grow up, and ...

Ghett Rheel


Jealous?

You might be surprised at what is going to be posted on my site over the
next few months. Perhaps, once you realize that others can appreciate the
unusual and the unorthodox, you might get an inkling as to how limited is
your understanding of the human condition.

Perhaps one of your relatives told Hellen Keller she should just give up?

FYI, Ford's decision came after I provided company execs with detailed
info
as to the demographics of my site visitors, and statistics about usage. I
provided a rather comprehensive summary of who visits my site, why they
visit it, and what they are looking for.

The interesting thing about the internet is that users are tired of the
same
old, same old.

Why do you think traditional newspapers are dying? Television stations
are
closing? And, why do you think that bazaar internet sites are flurishing?

If a web master can produce a product which connects to a definable
demographic, and if a more traditional company can use that connection to
highlight its products, its way of doing business and its corporate
philosophy, is it not good business for it to do exactly that?

Ford seems to think I'll make them more than I'll cost 'em.

Get Real, get with the times...

Take Care,
Dudley


Web-master? You can't even post images on your web-space properly because
you can't read the html code in its entirety. Everyone with an internet
connection today is a "web master".

But I applaud you on your inventive side-stepping. You didn't answer the
question.

Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their
products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can
see
the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to
market their cars to blind people."

Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from
all
tax-payers will bail them out again.

And we'll only have you to blame for pity-manipulating a few Ford execs
because of your misplaced desperate need for attention.

It always all starts with one idiot with skewed self-serving intentions.
Why should you be any different in the course of history.

Wow, so dramatic...

Once again, you are demonstrating your limited understanding of the real
world...

First of all, I have very few blind visitors to my site. Most of the people
who visit it a

* Corporate types who have a passion for photography, and a curiosity
about how a blind person deals with his / her challenges in the pursuit of
capturing good images.

* Corporate types who love animals (dogs in particular), and who are
interested in how a blind human / sighted canine team copes with day-to-day
realities.

* Corporate types who enjoy what I write, about whatever subjects I write
about.

The key here is "corporate types."

You see, I actively market my site to higher income, "corporate types" who
visit it looking for something different, something real, to which they can
click to once and a while to offset their daily grind.

If these folks have any of the above noted interests , my site is hard to
pass up, even though it isn't exactly the most glitzy web production out
there.

The key is "interest." It doesn't matter how good a site is, if the web
designers have to manufacture interest, they are not going to keep people
coming back on a regular basis. But, if the individual is genuinely
interested in the individual(s) who run the site, they will be much more
likely to keep coming back, and they will pay a lot more attention to what
is posted -- a genuinely good mix for corporate sponsors, the web surfer,
and the content provider.

Oh, and one other thing. While Ford isn't exactly marketing cars to blind
guys, at the moment, how long do you think it'll take before GPS brained
vehicles are chauffeuring blind guys around with absolute ease and accuracy?

Given that cars can park themselves now (unheard of a decade or so ago),
self-brake when approaching hazards (another recent innovation), and warn
the driver of unseen dangers, need I say more?

Once again, Get Real, get with the times...

Take Care,
Dudley


"Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is now trying to market their
products to blind people. Here's proof, Blind-Dudley's website. What were
those Ford execs thinking? We won't bail them out this time. They were
stupid enough to get that bad off last time, this only clinches it."

If nobody else alerts the media about this I certainly will. The
entertainment value alone will be worth it. I could care less about Ford's
stock value.

And DUDley still he side-steps the important photography-related question
asked of him.

LOL

Whoo boy! Who needs to pay to see stand-up comics when this **** is being
posted for free on usenet.

Ghett Rheel wrote:
Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their
products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can see
the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to
market their cars to blind people."

Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from all
tax-payers will bail them out again.

Ford didn't get any TARP funds.

Like most rightards you're pretty short on facts and long on opinion.

--
Ray Fischer

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"No spam please" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

"No spam please" wrote in message
...
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
W

Hello again Neil.

I flew several years ago on a Dash 8-400 and was told not to use any
digital
equipment during the take-off and landing phases. More recently I flew on
an
A320 and was told not to use digital equipment at all.
In both cases the cabin crew took my requests courteously and seriously
and
checked with the captain.

On the Dash 8-400 we were not far away from landing at Birmingham when
one
of the cabin crew confiscated a mobile phone from one of the passengers
who'd been trying to use it.

This may well be different in North America. It seems that whatever the
North American airlines permit to-day so the European airlines will
permit
in a few years time.

Regards, Rog.

Rog, I knew about cell phones, because my sister -- who flies quite a lot,
including internationally -- had told me they couldn't be used during
takeoff or landing (or in flight either, if I understood her correctly).
She mentioned that often after landing, as soon as the seat belts light
went out you could hear cell phones snapping open all over the cabin.
(*She* could hear that I suppose, but I never did, probably because my
hearing is very poor.) I can understand prohibiting the use of cell
phones. And I can understand prohibiting the use of laptops too, since
probably most of them now in use have WiFi.

But I'd be surprised if "digital equipment" was taken to include cameras,
for this purpose, since as far as I know they don't generate any sort of
external RF. I never even thought to ask, just took out my little Coolpix
and snapped away through the window. On my last flight in fact, a short
hop in a small Embraer 145, I was seated within about a yard of the flight
attendant's station and in plain view of her when I was using the camera.

Hello again.

The chance of a DSLR upsetting any of the aircraft systems is very, very
small but I'd prefer to play safe.
A friend used to operate the radio at a local airfield. When she went on a
commercial flight she switched on her airband radio receiver to listen to
ATC ... and it upset some of the aircraft's systems.

Regards, Rog.

"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:NfvHm.51193$PH1.40481@edtnps82...

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article 5CuHm.51192$PH1.1085@edtnps82, Dudley Hanks
wrote:

I don't know if all airlines have adopted these practices, but I
wouldn't be
surprised.

you aren't supposed to use electronics during takeoff or landing, but
during cruise it's fine. some airlines prohibit photography of airline
staff but allow pics out the window or of people you're traveling with.


what i find amusing is that since there is now inflight wifi internet
for a fee, wireless transmitters are suddenly safe.

Isn't that the way it generally works? In the early days of commercial
air travel, bringing food on board was probably taboo -- at least until
they found a way to charge for it, or to work it into the price of the
ticket...

Take Care,
Dudley


Hello Dudley,
If you are over in the USA then you may not have heard of an airline named
Ryanair.
A search to find articles about Ryanair in the newspapers will give you some
amusement.
There's a rumour that they may charge passengers to use the aircraft's
toilet.
I haven't heard them charging for an inside seat as yet ...

Best wishes from a sunny UK (is it really November?),
Rog.

In article , No spam please
wrote:

A search to find articles about Ryanair in the newspapers will give you some
amusement.
There's a rumour that they may charge passengers to use the aircraft's
toilet.

it was mostly a publicity stunt. they aren't charging to pee.

In article , No spam please
wrote:

A friend used to operate the radio at a local airfield. When she went on a
commercial flight she switched on her airband radio receiver to listen to
ATC ... and it upset some of the aircraft's systems.

how did she know? and if so, what proof is there that the radio was the
cause of the problem?

the leakage from the radio is not only far from the avionics in the
cockpit, but more importantly, the plane encounters *far* stronger
sources of interference such as flying over a city with commercial
broadcast towers which pump out thousands of watts of radio and tv as
well as cellphone towers, public safety two-way radios, etc.

if there actually was a risk, all electronics would be banned.

In article
,
-hh wrote:

many airlines now allow cellphone use while taxiing to the gate after
landing.

That's pretty much become SOP. However, for international flights
arriving in the USA, one isn't allowed to have your cellphone on while
going through immigration & customs (or take photos inside this
area). Its not a technology issue, but a security issue.

right, but that's not in flight

The general rule for the 'electronics off' is when below 10,000 ft
altitude, eg, takeoff up to 10K, and then when descending, 10K until
landing. The concern is for a potential for RF interference, and
while the objective risk is arguably small, the real issue is that it
is financially impractical to test 1,000,000 devices x 1,000 aircraft
variations to positively certify that no interference is present.

it's also that the flight attendants aren't trained to determine if the
device can cause interference and if it can, whether that function is
disabled (e.g., airplane mode in a cellphone). it's *much* easier to
say 'everything off.'

they also don't want passengers being distracted. in the event of an
emergency, you want people to hear crew instructions, not be listening
to music on an ipod using noise canceling headphones that squelch
anything the crew might be saying.

lastly, unsecured devices can become projectiles in the event something
goes wrong. a laptop flying through the cabin can *hurt*. they also
need to be stowed so people can quickly exit if necessary.

And DUDley still he side-steps the important photography-related question
asked of him.

How can I compose, with intent, anything of interest to the sighted while
shooting out an airplane window?

Actually, it isn't all that difficult.

Keep visiting my site and I'll try to answer your question there.

Of course, shooting those ponies is going to be a lot of fun, so you may
need to check back a few times. But, it'll be worth your while, since
composing pics of cars is a lot tougher than composing a skyline shot from a
more or less constant arrangement of elements... And I think you'll be
surprised at the much tougher car shots.

Take Care,
Dudley