PineCoon
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Purl Gurl - 28 Jul 2008 03:29 GMT Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt will enjoy this with their being photo buffs.
Year, year and a half back, I shared photos and stories of momma raccoon and her six babies. She has moved on but one of her babies is now momma raccoon and she has at least one baby, just about grown.
Eighteen months or so, three generations of raccoons.
An advantage of being raised on a rural Oklahoma farm, in an area best described as a jungle surrounded by pine forests, an advantage is learning how to spot animals before danger comes about. This is spotting a ten foot rattlesnake enjoying warm sunshine while blending in perfectly with surrounding dirt and plants. Maybe a cotton mouth lying in water near water line, just his eyes and nose showing. Out in pine forests, very thick and dark pine forests, we needed to watch for panthers lying on low branches waiting to drop down on you.
Of course, there is also Flora Homma, the ugliest, the meanest and the most murderous Choctaw woman around McCurtain county. She sometimes sits up in a pine tree while drinking white lightning and eating a kid, more often, sitting up there just picking her teeth with her long buck knife, child bones scattered around on the ground below her pine perch. She killed three men I know of, no telling how many kids she ate.
Never know what might drop down from a tree to eat you.
We enjoy a lot of land. Our land has become a pine forest and almost a jungle. This jungle part is challenging here in Southern California; so damn hot and dry. Nonetheless, we are working at creating an animal sanctuary.
I like walking around, in the nude, on our land, like checking on everything, admiring our trees, flowers and timber bamboo. Lots of animals around, day and night. Reminds me of my childhood.
Today, having this advantage of an ingrained fear of having a panther or Flora drop down from a tree, I spot something not quite right about one of our pine trees. With caution, I walk about, looking up, watching for movement, any telltale sign of a dangerous animal.
Sure enough, I spot a tail I quickly recognize.
I shot some photos to entertain you folks. You will delight, as I did, in my discovery.
This is a shot of my photo circumstances. This ladder you see is fifteen feet tall. I added a small red arrow to point out a danger sign. Hard to see, yes? Almost all city slickers would never recognize something is out of sorts about this pine tree, which is mixed with Old Hami bamboo or common, Timber Bamboo.
Can you spot those eyes way up there in this pine tree?
http://www.purlgurl.net/aue/pine_coon_02.jpg
Here is a telephoto shot of one our house guests sleeping quite comfortably up there in a pine tree. I am sure you readers already know who you will see.
Top of this tree was sheared off years back by a fierce wind storm. An intense circle of branches grew out, then eventually, a new main trunk. This makes a perfect sleeping place for an animal prone to climbing up in trees.
http://www.purlgurl.net/aue/pine_coon_01.jpg
For Jitze and Skitt, I used my Canon digital with the "big" lens. Camera was set on "program" and the lens set for manual focus and 1 for IS setting.
For readers, IS is Image Stabilizer. This is a modern technology which is simply amazing. IS prevents "camera shake" from blurring photos. Hard to be still up there on a tall ladder while exposed to a brisk breeze, especially with a very heavy and a very big lens.
Rather fun standing up there on our step ladder sweet talking and taking a hundred so photos. Only four or five photos turned out good because the wind was blowing, moving bamboo in and out of my frame.
Never could do this with an old fashion film camera.
Oh yeah, exposure. Any of you folks ever spy a naked Indian squaw standing atop a tall ladder? With my being so excited, never dawned on me to check if hill top neighbors with telescopes might swing their telescopes around to snoop on me. This is common, our girl and I are well known around our hills for putting on a damn good show, and not a G rated show.
Naked woman on a tall ladder, nah, not a danger signal, unless you are one of those boys who wears a white lab coat and carries a butterfly net.
 Signature Purl Gurl -- So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
dicaduca - 28 Jul 2008 16:31 GMT > Naked woman on a tall ladder, nah, not a danger signal, > unless you are one of those boys who wears a white lab > coat and carries a butterfly net. negative here about those who would not appreciate the panorama I wish I was a pine cone sometimes...
Purl Gurl - 28 Jul 2008 16:54 GMT > Purl Gurl
>> Naked woman on a tall ladder, nah, not a danger signal, >> unless you are one of those boys who wears a white lab >> coat and carries a butterfly net.
> negative here about those who would not appreciate the panorama > I wish I was a pine cone sometimes... Oh, but then a squirrel would come along and eat your nuts.
I know about those boys and their butterfly nets!
http://www.purlgurl.net/aue/white_coat.jpg
 Signature Purl Gurl -- So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
dicaduca - 29 Jul 2008 01:44 GMT > Oh, but then a squirrel would come along and eat your nuts. > > I know about those boys and their butterfly nets! I would run the risk in sight of that big melon on or under the pine: you know, a coyote might always come and prevent the diner's lunch :)
p.s. Never have I worn a white lab coat nor carried a butterfly net: it is a matter of "Snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails" p.p.s. Thank you for sharing that stately posture jpg
Have a good time
Purl Gurl - 29 Jul 2008 03:36 GMT (snipped)
>> I know about those boys and their butterfly nets!
> p.s. Never have I worn a white lab coat nor carried a butterfly net I have a white lab coat leftover from my university days. These days I only wear my lab coat when I play scientist with my husband. No need for a butterfly net; he is easy to catch with the right bait.
> p.p.s. Thank you for sharing that stately posture jpg Yes, I am fit to be the Queen of England. Besides, the boys around here are so boring there are times they need to be wound up, and sometimes need to suffer an ego wound.
> Have a good time Not only do I almost always have a good time, I am a good time!
You having a good time?
 Signature Purl Gurl -- So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
dicaduca - 29 Jul 2008 13:33 GMT > (snipped) > > These days I only wear my lab coat when I play scientist > with my husband. Ah, the noble cause of Science!
> No need for a butterfly net; he is easy > to catch with the right bait. I wonder if the luring bait hide a hook inside, as it often happens with the fisherman's line
>> p.p.s. Thank you for sharing that stately posture jpg > > Yes, I am fit to be the Queen of England. Besides, the > boys around here are so boring there are times they need > to be wound up, and sometimes need to suffer an ego wound. Everybody gets what s/he deserves
>> Have a good time > > Not only do I almost always have a good time, > I am a good time! > > You having a good time? Yes, a good one, thank you, even though I miss the pine forest, from time to time...
Jitze - 28 Jul 2008 22:38 GMT >Here is a telephoto shot of one our house guests >sleeping quite comfortably up there in a pine tree. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >http://www.purlgurl.net/aue/pine_coon_01.jpg We used to have 'coons round here, but we don't see them much any more because something changed in the balance of the ecology, and now we are pestered every night by a chorus of these guys:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jitze1942/1751241022/in/set-72157602712686194
I think they've done for out local racoon population.
Jitze
Maria C. - 28 Jul 2008 23:17 GMT > We used to have 'coons round here, but we don't > see them much any more because something changed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I think they've done for out local racoon population. A couple of our neighbors have mentioned seeing coyotes around, but I have only seen what I thought may have been a coyote a year or so ago. All I really knew is that it wasn't a dog. It was crossing the road, coming from the park into our subdivision. (The park is a huge one, and is the home of many a deer and other creatures.)
The raccoons, groundhogs, chipmunks, rabbits, squirrels (and occasional deer), who are regular visitors (if not tenants) in our yard are quite enough. Just because of all of them, we never let our cats outside. Those who couldn't hurt a cat could be hurt by a cat.
Any case, we don't need no coyotes coming round these parts. (Not that we have much of a say in the matter.)
 Signature Maria C.
Raymond O'Hara - 29 Jul 2008 00:51 GMT >> We used to have 'coons round here, but we don't >> see them much any more because something changed [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Any case, we don't need no coyotes coming round these parts. (Not that we > have much of a say in the matter.) Here next to Boston Mass and in Boston itself coyote and deer have become a problem, its the result of leash laws. When I was a kid such large beaties lived in the woods in western Mass or in northern New England.
Purl Gurl - 29 Jul 2008 02:06 GMT (snipped)
>>> We used to have 'coons round here, but we don't
>> A couple of our neighbors have mentioned seeing coyotes around, but I have
>> The raccoons, groundhogs, chipmunks, rabbits, squirrels (and occasional >> deer), who are regular visitors (if not tenants) in our yard are quite
> Here next to Boston Mass and in Boston itself coyote and deer have become a > problem, its the result of leash laws. Well, there you go. Dang, boy, keep a leash on your coyote, keep a leash on your deer, you will not have those problems.
 Signature Purl Gurl -- So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
Raymond O'Hara - 29 Jul 2008 02:42 GMT > (snipped) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Well, there you go. Dang, boy, keep a leash on your coyote, > keep a leash on your deer, you will not have those problems. Wile E and Bambi are free agents and not covered by leash laws
Chuck Riggs - 29 Jul 2008 16:32 GMT >>> We used to have 'coons round here, but we don't >>> see them much any more because something changed [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >When I was a kid such large beaties lived in the woods in western Mass or in >northern New England. What part of northern New England? They make their presence known at night, from what I know of New Mexico, but I don't recall hearing coyotes near Bangor, Maine.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland
Purl Gurl - 29 Jul 2008 03:16 GMT (snipped)
> We used to have 'coons round here, but we don't > see them much any more because something changed > in the balance of the ecology, and now we are pestered > every night by a chorus of these guys: (link to coyote photo)
> I think they've done for out local racoon population. A coyote population waxes ands wanes very quickly.
Coyotes around neighborhoods and cities are generally not in balance with nature because of human discarded food; not enough natural competition.
I shared a story last year of killing female coyotes with my bow and arrows. This happened several years back. Our local coyote population became so large, most coyotes were starving to death. This helped to bring our local population back into balance.
Some cities more towards Los Angeles are having problems with coyotes grabbing babies then running off with them. One incident, a coyote picked up a baby by his diapers. Another incident, a coyote picked up a baby by his head. Both babies were unharmed except one baby underwent rabies treatment as a preventative measure.
Raccoons are multiplying like crazy. Raccoons are found all over Southern California, including urban areas and inner-city areas. Raccoons adapt very easily to human presence.
Your raccoons are probably still around but moving about with stealth because of your coyotes. Raccoons can offer a darn good fight; they have razor sharp long claws on all four feet and pronounced canines.
Raccoons make a lot of horrific noise when fighting with each other. They fight like a cross between a cat and a badger. You certainly would not want a raccoon after you; they are fast and furious.
I can tell our local coyote status is in good balance. We now have cottontail rabbits moving in, almost stepped on one this morning leaving home.
 Signature Purl Gurl -- So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
Skitt - 28 Jul 2008 22:52 GMT > Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals > around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt > will enjoy this with their being photo buffs. I think you have me mixed up with someone else -- Tony, perhaps. I used to be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look at some buff photos.
 Signature Skitt Always avoid "never"; never use "always".
Purl Gurl - 29 Jul 2008 02:10 GMT >> Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals >> around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt >> will enjoy this with their being photo buffs.
> I think you have me mixed up with someone else -- Tony, perhaps. I used > to be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look at some > buff photos. Oh yes, your favorite historical nudist hangout burnt down, you no longer poise in the buff for photos.
 Signature Purl Gurl -- So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
tony cooper - 29 Jul 2008 02:29 GMT >> Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals >> around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look at some buff >photos. I take a lot of photos, but I am humbled tonight. At tonight's camera club meeting, the members brought out their shots for critiques by some professional photographers. So many great shots, but so many taken with equipment that is far beyond what I would spend on equipment. A camera store owner gave a quick review of the new Nikon D700. $3,500 for the body and one basic lens, and another $500 for the flash. And that's a discounted price.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Raymond O'Hara - 29 Jul 2008 02:45 GMT >>> Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals >>> around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > D700. $3,500 for the body and one basic lens, and another $500 for > the flash. And that's a discounted price. Vist the group soc.culture.irish and look up the posts of Eugene and Gummo. They take pictures around the Emerald Isle that are quite beautiful.
tony cooper - 29 Jul 2008 03:46 GMT >Vist the group soc.culture.irish and look up the posts of Eugene and Gummo. >They take pictures around the Emerald Isle that are quite beautiful. Dunno about those two, but Eddie Wall - if he's still posting there - is an accomplished photographer and came up with some good shots.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jitze - 29 Jul 2008 08:21 GMT >>> Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals >>> around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >D700. $3,500 for the body and one basic lens, and another $500 for >the flash. And that's a discounted price. Yabbut, having expensive top-of-the-line gear in no way compensates for (lack of) talent. I can personaly vouch for that...
I have taken a number of brilliant photos where I took great care to compose, expose, etc. and the critics have merely sniffed and said things like "interesting". On the other hand, all the photos where I have been "published" were taken with lesser cameras and were frequently "grab shots".
And every single damn one of them was used for a text book of some kind - not for its artistic merit, but because it happened to portray something of interest for that text book. The last example I had of this was for a University level textbook on landscape architecture, where they were featuring the works of a famous landscape architect, and I just happened to have the shot they wanted
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jitze1942/1766274151/
Bah! Some day somebody will recognize the the great artist that lurks behind these pictures.
Jitze
tony cooper - 29 Jul 2008 15:56 GMT >>>> Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals >>>> around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >compensates for (lack of) talent. I can personaly vouch >for that... I've always maintained that the photographer's eye is the most critical element in photography. Some people have the ability to see what will be a good shot, and some don't see that shot. Even in post-processing, the eye determines how the image can be cropped for the most effect.
Where the equipment comes into play is in the ability to capture what the eye sees. In many shots, any decent combination of equipment will capture the scene. But, when you see an osprey swooping in to the nest high up in a dead tree, the 55mm or even the 200mm lens just isn't going to record what the eye knows to be a good shot.
I don't yearn for more megapixels or the full-frame D700 body, but I do yearn for the long lenses that allow the equipment to capture what my eye sees. Or the dedicated macro lens that captures more than the eye sees.
I wandered around the tables at the camera club's critique night looking at what others were producing as their brag shots. Invariably, the photos that grabbed my attention were photos where the photographer had seen a quite ordinary setting and found something in that setting that became the central theme by framing* or by cropping. The eye at work.
*For the non-photographer, I don't mean putting the photograph in a frame. I mean framing the scene in the viewfinder of the camera.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tony cooper - 29 Jul 2008 21:32 GMT >>>>I think you have me mixed up with someone else -- Tony, perhaps. I used to >>>>be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look at some buff >>>>photos. >>> >>>I take a lot of photos, Speaking of photographs, where was this picture taken in 1984, and what made me think about the location? http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213/2715003574/
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Fred Springer - 30 Jul 2008 02:01 GMT >>>>> I think you have me mixed up with someone else -- Tony, perhaps. I used to >>>>> be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look at some buff [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what made me think about the location? > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213/2715003574/ I think it's the Isle of Man -- probably Douglas.
And we were discussing the TT races, of course.
tony cooper - 30 Jul 2008 02:52 GMT >>>>>> I think you have me mixed up with someone else -- Tony, perhaps. I used to >>>>>> be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look at some buff [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >And we were discussing the TT races, of course. Nope. That's me in the yellow shirt, and I've not been to the Isle of Man.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 30 Jul 2008 10:56 GMT >>>>>>> I think you have me mixed up with someone else -- Tony, perhaps. I used to >>>>>>> be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look at some buff [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Nope. That's me in the yellow shirt, and I've not been to the Isle of >Man. I'm keeping out of this discussion. I still have vivid memories of your "where do you think this place is in London" some time last year, Tony. Jitze made a suggestion; I followed it up; one or two others commented; and we suggested completely the wrong place.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Jitze - 30 Jul 2008 18:55 GMT >>>>>>> I think you have me mixed up with someone else -- Tony, perhaps. I used to >>>>>>> be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look at some buff [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Nope. That's me in the yellow shirt, and I've not been to the Isle of >Man. Well Oi fink it's bloody Bognor innit?
On second thoughts - where on the coast of Blighty would an American tourist be likely to go? Brighton maybe?
Oooooh - Hastings! 1066 and all that.
Unless he's visiting a distant aunt who is retired - in which case it is Margate.
Jitze
tony cooper - 30 Jul 2008 19:45 GMT >>>>>>>> I think you have me mixed up with someone else -- Tony, perhaps. I used to >>>>>>>> be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look at some buff [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Unless he's visiting a distant aunt who is retired - in which >case it is Margate. Weston-super-Mare. I checked my photos to see if I had a shot of the Grand Pier when the news broke about the fire there. I don't. We'd driven to Bath, decided to see the Cheddar Gorge, and came back up via Weston-super-Mare and then to the M5.
I suppose they'll re-build something where the fire destroyed things, but it will probably include a Starbucks, a Gap, and a Harvey Nicks discount outlet store. Sad.
Haven't been to Bognor or Margate, but we have been to Whitby. Different trip (1989). http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213/2716861003/ I suppose I should clone out that bit of trash in the foreground so the Whitby Tourist Board won't come after me.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. J. Lodder - 30 Jul 2008 12:50 GMT > >>>>I think you have me mixed up with someone else -- Tony, perhaps. I > >>>>used to be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > what made me think about the location? > http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213/2715003574/ What's the point of you asking us when you know the answer?
Jan
tony cooper - 30 Jul 2008 15:50 GMT >> >>>>I think you have me mixed up with someone else -- Tony, perhaps. I >> >>>>used to be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >What's the point of you asking us when you know the answer? Point? We need to have a point here, now? That would certainly cut down on the traffic, but I don't think it would improve the content.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. J. Lodder - 31 Jul 2008 22:51 GMT > >> >>>>I think you have me mixed up with someone else -- Tony, perhaps. I > >> >>>>used to be a photo buff, but these days all I do is occasionally look [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Point? We need to have a point here, now? That would certainly cut > down on the traffic, but I don't think it would improve the content. The point of a riddle game is that there is a point. (unless you are Lewis Carrol, and even then)
Jan
Jitze - 29 Jul 2008 21:47 GMT
>I don't yearn for more megapixels or the full-frame D700 body, but I >do yearn for the long lenses that allow the equipment to capture what >my eye sees. Or the dedicated macro lens that captures more than the >eye sees. On more megapixels and full-frame, I agree with you in general, but there are two factors which should be mentioned in this context.
Given a certain number of megapixels, the full-frame camera will have physically much bigger pixels than its cousin with a smaller sensor. This means more light energy (photons) received per pixel which means better signal-to-noise ratio. What this means in practice is that I can underexpose by a some amount and then "push it" in photoshop to an extent that would not be possible otherwise without noise showing up in the image. So why don't I expose correctly in the first place? Could be many reasons, like I don't want to use flash at some indoors sport event, but I need fast shutter to freeze the action. Or more likely in my case, I have a composition which way excedds the 5 or 6 stop range available - if I expose the bright blue sky and clouds correctly, the beasties lurking in the shade of the trees will be lost in the murk - but if I expose to show the beasties in the shade, the sky will be burnt out. So I opt to expose the sky correcly, and then I can selectively "push" the beasties in the shadows and bring them out nicely in my digital dark room.
In the old analog days, I had to futz around with graduated neutral density filters to get this right. And sure I can do this with a camera with a smaller sensor, but not to the same extent.
And then as to the advantage of lots of megapixels - this means I can afford to do much more in the way of cropping (digital zoom) and still have a usable image. Frexample see
http://home.znet.com/couperus/Stuff/HMB.jpg
where I took the original of about 12 megapixels and snipped a bit out of it which I display at "full" size superimposed on a reduced version of the full frame. This way you can see that I can increase the power of a tele lens by some significant factor, giving me much wider flexibility with a given lens.This way my 400 mm can quite usefully give me the power of a 1200mm without having to lug a 30lb piece of glass around.
Jitze
tony cooper - 29 Jul 2008 22:47 GMT > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >This way my 400 mm can quite usefully give me the power of a 1200mm without >having to lug a 30lb piece of glass around. Since I have but the 200mm, I'll settle for the 400mm and move closer.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Frank ess - 29 Jul 2008 23:29 GMT [...]
> Bah! Some day somebody will recognize the the great > artist that lurks behind these pictures. > > Jitze On some message boards they have a smiley for "Posts like this are worthless without pictures".
 Signature Frank ess
Raymond O'Hara - 29 Jul 2008 08:55 GMT >>> Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals >>> around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > D700. $3,500 for the body and one basic lens, and another $500 for > the flash. And that's a discounted price. Gummo's pic for today http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y197/gummomarx/mm103.jpg and yesterday http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y197/gummomarx/asas073.jpg
J. J. Lodder - 29 Jul 2008 10:38 GMT > >> Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals > >> around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > D700. $3,500 for the body and one basic lens, and another $500 for > the flash. And that's a discounted price. It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools,
Jan
tony cooper - 29 Jul 2008 16:01 GMT >> >> Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals >> >> around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools, The standard analogy that people who don't know the subject pull out. The best carpenters know that certain tools allow them to do things that they cannot do without those tools. He does blame his tools if he tries to pound a nail with his fist because he doesn't have a hammer.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. J. Lodder - 30 Jul 2008 09:31 GMT > >> >> Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals > >> >> around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > he tries to pound a nail with his fist because he doesn't have a > hammer. What do you think a Nikon700 would do for you that a more modest camera can't?
BTW, a single original Ansel Adams print will buy you a hundred of the Nikons. And poor Ansel had nothing, no autofocus, no autoexposure, no auto-anything. Not even the IS that the purl is so fond of.
Yet it's a safe bet that no Nikon700 picture will ever sell for more than poor old Ansel,
Jan
tony cooper - 30 Jul 2008 15:54 GMT >> >> >> Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals >> >> >> around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >And poor Ansel had nothing, no autofocus, no autoexposure, >no auto-anything. If you intend to continue to provide bromides on this subject, you might consider the "If God had intended..." approach.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. J. Lodder - 31 Jul 2008 09:06 GMT > >> >> >> Some here enjoy periodically talking about animals > >> >> >> around and in our homes. I know Jitze and Skitt [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > If you intend to continue to provide bromides on this subject, you > might consider the "If God had intended..." approach. Won't bother. Lacking a direct line to god I'll just take you for a poor carpenter untill I see evidence to the contrary,
Jan
J. J. Lodder - 29 Jul 2008 10:38 GMT > For readers, IS is Image Stabilizer. This is a > modern technology which is simply amazing. IS > prevents "camera shake" from blurring photos. > Hard to be still up there on a tall ladder while > exposed to a brisk breeze, especially with a very > heavy and a very big lens. This is a often made mistake. Image stabilization corrects camera shake at the frequencies of the feedback loops of the human nerve-muscle system.
It won't correct for your swaying on top of a tall ladder.
Jan
|
|
|