|
"Don White" wrote in message ... "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Jim, you know you want to part of the great US of A and are ashamed of only being a Canadian. Fess up .... the truth will set you free. I've got a better idea. The 50% of good moral liberal Americans should leave the corrupt world bully that is now the US. They can bring the Northeast, West Coast. and any other progressive thinking areas and join Canada. Together we can make our new country live up to it's potential as a true world leader. Great idea take all of our liberal and progressives and while you are at it take the damn libertarians too. Hopefully they will do for you what they have done for us. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "HKrause" wrote in message ... The US Military would have no problem with that. They don't know who to shoot and bomb now, so they shoot and bomb everyone. I'd love to listen in on some second lieutenant to a bunch of fellas recruited out of a shopping center videogame parlor. Now that I think about it, the US military might feel it's best to eliminate everyone from the border areas north and start over with righties imported from the bible belt. Scary! Don, you are coming up with some good ideas today! |
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Don White" wrote in message ... "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Jim, you know you want to part of the great US of A and are ashamed of only being a Canadian. Fess up .... the truth will set you free. I've got a better idea. The 50% of good moral liberal Americans should leave the corrupt world bully that is now the US. They can bring the Northeast, West Coast. and any other progressive thinking areas and join Canada. Together we can make our new country live up to it's potential as a true world leader. Great idea take all of our liberal and progressives and while you are at it take the damn libertarians too. Hopefully they will do for you what they have done for us. They already have. |
Don,
It is good to see that you want to be assimilated by the US. "Don White" wrote in message ... "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Jim, you know you want to part of the great US of A and are ashamed of only being a Canadian. Fess up .... the truth will set you free. I've got a better idea. The 50% of good moral liberal Americans should leave the corrupt world bully that is now the US. They can bring the Northeast, West Coast. and any other progressive thinking areas and join Canada. Together we can make our new country live up to it's potential as a true world leader. |
P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? |
|
"John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... -- John H http://www.zutroy.com/stuff/neverend/ And I see asslicker is suffering from his lack of reading comprehension disorder once again. |
"N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Don, It is good to see that you want to be assimilated by the US. No...a partnership with the 'cream of the crop' of US citizens. The right-wing rabble can sink back into their swamps. |
P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. |
wrote in message oups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. Is this the new fixation replacing the Labatt/Labatts one? |
"JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. Is this the new fixation replacing the Labatt/Labatts one? LMAO........asslicker's correlation to a region as opposed to the military base makes as much sense as calling 'schnapps' whiskey. More proof he is the "King of the NG idiots" The only one dead wrong is the georgia residnet that must lie about his education and employment. |
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:18 -0500, "JimH" wrote:
wrote in message roups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. Is this the new fixation replacing the Labatt/Labatts one? I liked the pictures of Labatt's Blue beer bottles. I hope he sticks with that one. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
wrote in message oups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. Are you referring to the province of Guantanamo or as the rest of the posters used the reference to the US base named Guantanamo? |
"Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. Are you referring to the province of Guantanamo or as the rest of the posters used the reference to the US base named Guantanamo? That is the typical asslicker move........ |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. Are you referring to the province of Guantanamo or as the rest of the posters used the reference to the US base named Guantanamo? That is the typical asslicker move........ Paul...just a friendly word of advice. Could you drop the "asslicker" and "King of the NG Idiot" thing? It is getting old. It also reduces your credibility. Just a suggestion. |
Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message oups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. Are you referring to the province of Guantanamo or as the rest of the posters used the reference to the US base named Guantanamo? Uh, Bill, IF you would go back and read the original statement mentioning Guantanamo, and comprehend it, you'd figure out a couple of things. The statement said "Guantanamo", NOT U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo. Fritz also talked of the beaches at Guantanamo being void of tourists. Not true at all. Understand now? Doubtful. |
John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. |
John H wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:18 -0500, "JimH" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. Is this the new fixation replacing the Labatt/Labatts one? I liked the pictures of Labatt's Blue beer bottles. I hope he sticks with that one. -- John H You, and everyone else who still uses Labatt's are wrong. Look at a bottle. It's not been Labatt's since 1973. Do you still call Nissan cars Datsuns? |
On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On 31 Mar 2005 07:22:51 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
John H wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:18 -0500, "JimH" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. Is this the new fixation replacing the Labatt/Labatts one? I liked the pictures of Labatt's Blue beer bottles. I hope he sticks with that one. -- John H You, and everyone else who still uses Labatt's are wrong. Look at a bottle. It's not been Labatt's since 1973. Do you still call Nissan cars Datsuns? You're wrong. http://www.mylifeisbeer.com/beer/bot...tledetail/230/ But, speaking of being wrong, do you remember this post? ************************************** On 2 Mar 2005 12:07:35 -0800, wrote: And all of the conservatives here are lying ****ing pigs, just like you, liar. ******************************** That was a jewel. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. Again..........but what's new? LMAO -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 31 Mar 2005 07:22:51 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:18 -0500, "JimH" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. Is this the new fixation replacing the Labatt/Labatts one? I liked the pictures of Labatt's Blue beer bottles. I hope he sticks with that one. -- John H You, and everyone else who still uses Labatt's are wrong. Look at a bottle. It's not been Labatt's since 1973. Do you still call Nissan cars Datsuns? You're wrong. The fact of the matter is that it is referenced as Labatt's all the time, in advertising, on clothing etc..............and can be found all over the web and in real life......unlike "cow down" Asslicker seems to enjoy ****ing in the wind and soiling himself. http://www.mylifeisbeer.com/beer/bot...tledetail/230/ But, speaking of being wrong, do you remember this post? ************************************** On 2 Mar 2005 12:07:35 -0800, wrote: And all of the conservatives here are lying ****ing pigs, just like you, liar. ******************************** That was a jewel. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ |
On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
P=2EFritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 31 Mar 2005 07:22:51 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:18 -0500, "JimH" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 30 Mar 2005 05:47:42 -0800, wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "N S Sherlock" no****sherlock.com wrote in message ... Your response sounds very similar to my kids when they yell "BUT DAD HE STARTED IT FIRST". Asslicker is almost to easy to hook......most everybody here play's catch and release with him. Hey, Fritz, tells us more about how their aren't any tourists in Guantanamo!!!! Oh, and tell us again how it's correct to call Labatt Blue "Labatt's Blue", because it was called that 32 years ago!!!!! Would it be the same thing if I called a Nissan Titan a Datsun, because it once was one? basskisser, was that post a post-orgasmic activity for you? My God, you go on, and on, and on... Because he is "King of the NG idiots" But what else do you expect from someone who has to lie about his education and employemnt. So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. Is this the new fixation replacing the Labatt/Labatts one? I liked the pictures of Labatt's Blue beer bottles. I hope he sticks with that one. -- John H You, and everyone else who still uses Labatt's are wrong. Look at a bottle. It's not been Labatt's since 1973. Do you still call Nissan cars Datsuns? You're wrong. The fact of the matter is that it is referenced as Labatt's all the time, in advertising, on clothing etc..............and can be found all over the web and in real life......unlike "cow down" Please show me ANYTHING, clothing, advertising, etc, from Labatt Ltd. that says "Labatt's", and I'm not talking pre-1973. Again, go to http://www.labatt.com, and have a look. And, again, do you think that because an unknowing distributor or two still calls it Labatt's, that they would know more than the company that MAKES it? As for "cow down", want to hear a song that contains that exact phrase? If I give it to you, will you admit that you were wrong about THAT also? Oh, yeah, no tourists in Guantanamo, huh: http://www.usacubatravel.com/guantanamo.html http://www.worldsurface.com/browse/l...ationid=3D5175 Hmm, what's THIS: Guantanamo - Guant=E1namo is the province of Cuba located at the eastern end of the Island. This is a predominantly mountainous region of deep contrasts, and the only place in the country where you can find semidesert landscapes.There are between the Cuban capital and this territory little more than 900 kilometers (part of which is illegally occupied by an American aero naval base). The main door of this province for international tourism is the Baracoa, Prime City of Cuba. http://www.hicuba.com/eng/tourist-guide-east.htm |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:33 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." So friggin' predictable... -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:33 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." So friggin' predictable... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:33 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." So friggin' predictable... -- John H I NEVER, EVER said that "camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field". Apparently you can't comprehend well, because I've said exactly the opposite. BUT, let's stay in context, shall we. We are discussing a specific PRINTED OR DIGITAL image. But, I never thought you'd understand. |
P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:33 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." So friggin' predictable... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H That's odd, anyone who knew about film photography would understand what I've said completely. Do you and John need to study up on DOF vs. distance, with respect to COC? |
On 31 Mar 2005 09:43:26 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
John H wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:33 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." So friggin' predictable... -- John H I NEVER, EVER said that "camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field". Apparently you can't comprehend well, because I've said exactly the opposite. BUT, let's stay in context, shall we. We are discussing a specific PRINTED OR DIGITAL image. But, I never thought you'd understand. You said, ""The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Do you deny that? You said nothing about printed images or digital images. Quit bloviating. You made a boo-boo. You're making everyone laugh at you. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On 31 Mar 2005 09:45:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:33 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." So friggin' predictable... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H That's odd, anyone who knew about film photography would understand what I've said completely. Do you and John need to study up on DOF vs. distance, with respect to COC? This particular discussion, basskisser, has nothing to do with COC. It has to do with your statement, to wit: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 31 Mar 2005 09:43:26 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:33 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." So friggin' predictable... -- John H I NEVER, EVER said that "camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field". Apparently you can't comprehend well, because I've said exactly the opposite. BUT, let's stay in context, shall we. We are discussing a specific PRINTED OR DIGITAL image. But, I never thought you'd understand. You said, ""The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Do you deny that? You said nothing about printed images or digital images. Quit bloviating. You made a boo-boo. You're making everyone laugh at you. You forgot "AGAIN" -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On 31 Mar 2005 09:45:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:33 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." So friggin' predictable... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H That's odd, anyone who knew about film photography would understand what I've said completely. Do you and John need to study up on DOF vs. distance, with respect to COC? This particular discussion, basskisser, has nothing to do with COC. It has to do with your statement, to wit: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Poor asslciker......getting soiled by his own **** once again. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 09:45:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:33 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." So friggin' predictable... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H That's odd, anyone who knew about film photography would understand what I've said completely. Do you and John need to study up on DOF vs. distance, with respect to COC? This particular discussion, basskisser, has nothing to do with COC. It has to do with your statement, to wit: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." -- John H Horse****!!! ANY conversation involving photography, and depth of field has a LOT to do with COC. You are forgetting a very fundamental part of your argument. But, I'll let you go awhile longer flailing and acting like you know what you're talking about, then I'll spell it out for you! |
P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On 31 Mar 2005 09:45:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:23:33 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On 31 Mar 2005 09:11:48 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 31 Mar 2005 07:20:03 -0800, "basskisser" wrote: John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. Obfuscating the issue, aren't we? Does depth of field increase with distance to the subject? You said it became less. Go here for a less confusing explanation: http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques...e.cfm?recid=63 You'll note that the three main factors determining depth of field are aperture, focal length, and camera-to-subject distance. As the latter increases, the depth of field increases. The use of a digital camera may affect the actual depth of field in a given situation, but it doesn't alter the basics. Extract: 3 The Camera-to-Subject Distance For various technical reasons, the closer you get to the subject the more limited the depth becomes. In fact, when shooting close-up subjects it can extend to just a few millimeters in front of and behind the subject. I guess you could spend time looking up bulll**** to obfuscate the issue, but the fact remains that you made a boo-boo. -- John H Oh, holy hell, here we go. I explained it, if you can't comprehend it, too bad, you shouldn't have been involved in the conversation. You are dead wrong in MANY instances. Do you even understand the COC? Do you even grasp that the depth of field you are talking about is exclusive to focal length zoom, as opposed to digital? And yes, it certainly alters the basics. depth of field is right the opposite with focal length zoom, than with digital, AND THE NAKED EYE. Now, again, take a digitally zoomed picture, and one with a 35mm, or 110, or 4x5 filmed camera, and LOOK at the processed picture. You'll notice the difference right away. Or, at least you should........ ROFLMAO!! You're hitting a peak! You keep on believing that camera-to-subject distance has no bearing on depth of field. That is the asslicker "losing an arguement go into a rant" routine. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." So friggin' predictable... Yeah..... the 'tell' is the "I explained it, if you can't understand it..........." -- John H That's odd, anyone who knew about film photography would understand what I've said completely. Do you and John need to study up on DOF vs. distance, with respect to COC? This particular discussion, basskisser, has nothing to do with COC. It has to do with your statement, to wit: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Poor asslciker......getting soiled by his own **** once again. -- Poor Fritz. He doesn't have a CLUE what we are talking about, but, because of his lack of self esteem, needs to get noticed anyway. Remember your diatribe about me allegedly stalking you? This is the perfect example of you, proving YOURSELF wrong!!!!! |
On 1 Apr 2005 07:42:52 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
This particular discussion, basskisser, has nothing to do with COC. It has to do with your statement, to wit: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." -- John H Horse****!!! ANY conversation involving photography, and depth of field has a LOT to do with COC. You are forgetting a very fundamental part of your argument. But, I'll let you go awhile longer flailing and acting like you know what you're talking about, then I'll spell it out for you! Do you deny the statement, "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." That's the subject at hand. Nothing else. All your misdirection means zilch. You said it. You were wrong. All the tangents in the world won't make it right. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com