Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Don White wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Chuck,
Can you hear the music in the background? Listen closely, I think
it is Kumbaya, but I am not sure.

Have a great day, and your boat's paint job really looks nice, can
you imagine how slow and careful you will be docking and hauling
your anchor for the next few years.

Like that first ding in your new autos paint.
I'd be afraid to sail on that boat until a few scratches show up.

Chuck's boat only goes slow.

Harry,

Then he will only get slow dings and dents in his boat. ;)

Harry, when I was younger, I always was in a rush to get somewhere,
now that I am older and dumber, I try to enjoy the trip as much as the
destination.

I was surprised that you would really consider spending $12,000 so you
can go 5 mph faster on the few days when the bay is calm enough so you
could actually go 30mph at 4000 rpm. Between the wind,, and the wake
chop, that must be 3 or 4 days a year. ; )

Where did you come up with $12,000?

I pulled the number out of my ass, was I close?

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Digital Cameras and Boating
 

I have gotten hooked on taking Digital pictures with my new D50. I just
ordered the new Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6g IF-ED AF-S DX VR
(http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/...m_brochure.pdf)
and am trying to figure out if I should buy lens filters. I am curious
what the other shutterbugs use? I contacted Nikon because I kept
getting conflicting recommendations from the sales reps both online and
in the stores. Some say you should use a UV/Haze filter to reduce the
'washout effect" others said this was a waste of time and only use a
polarized filter (and whatever you do, make sure it is a circular
polarized and not linear, linear polarized lens will eat your digital
camera alive) and finally whatever you do, only use a clear filter, all
the others screw with the auto focus and auto settings of the very
expensive lens and your pictures will all be useless.

The Nikon rep. at the 800 number told me not to use any lens filter for
protection, and I can do everything I want to do with a filter using
Photoshop.

So I am interested to see what everyone else has ended up using

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Digital Cameras and Boating
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:56:49 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

I have gotten hooked on taking Digital pictures with my new D50. I just
ordered the new Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6g IF-ED AF-S DX VR
(http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/...m_brochure.pdf)
and am trying to figure out if I should buy lens filters. I am curious
what the other shutterbugs use? I contacted Nikon because I kept
getting conflicting recommendations from the sales reps both online and
in the stores. Some say you should use a UV/Haze filter to reduce the
'washout effect" others said this was a waste of time and only use a
polarized filter (and whatever you do, make sure it is a circular
polarized and not linear, linear polarized lens will eat your digital
camera alive) and finally whatever you do, only use a clear filter, all
the others screw with the auto focus and auto settings of the very
expensive lens and your pictures will all be useless.

The Nikon rep. at the 800 number told me not to use any lens filter for
protection, and I can do everything I want to do with a filter using
Photoshop.

So I am interested to see what everyone else has ended up using

Clear, solely for protection. If I'm out and about and get some crap on the
lens, I want to be able to clean it with what's handy, which may be my
dirty t-shirt. If I scratch it, I'll spend the $10 bucks on a new filter.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:



******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.

No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote: :

Chuck, perhaps you are seeing things that don't exist. I'm referring to a
behavior pattern. You call it a 'personal attack'. I have no desire to
perpetuate a feud with JimH. I do find his venomous attacks on Rich to be
despicable. I think anyone should be able to post pictures of their house,
boat (s), horses, dogs, or whatever, without the name-calling and envy
being displayed by JimH.

You seem to disregard the behavior in question and, instead, focus on the
personalities. Forget the personalities for a minute. Do you find the
behavior appropriate?


No, the behavior isn't appropriate. Nor are a lot of things that pass
for behavior here.
My point is that at some point we have to get beyond the he said/ she
said, did so/ did not,
your fault/ no, your fault, flame ya/ flame ya back, nonsense. Might as
well be sooner rather than later.

We know for a fact that nobody will ever *win* an argument or prevail
in a personal ****ing match on the internet. I've been on the receiving
end of my share of crap here, and survived.
There have been times when I've lobbed back at least as good as I've
been clobbered with- and lo and behold all of those guys on the
receiving end of a Gould's mean spirited "zinger" seem to have survived
as well. But that type of behavior damages the group, and it's why the
majority of previous participants have seriously cut back on it or
stopped completely.

The problem with peeing matches is that they infect the whole group.
The participants choose to make it public business. Battlers should
take it to email, or demonstrate who is the more adult person and stand
down. The adult will always win, if only by refusal to be dragged down
to the level of the delinquent 4th grade playgournd nonsense.

The most graceful thing is for both sides to declare a no-fault truce
and carry on until one side or the other screws up again. Be assured
that somebody eventually will- but at least then it's a fresh violation
and not another incident in an escalating and unresolved problem.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JIMinFL wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...



Plenty of peace pipe to go around. :-)

We see the best and the worst of ourselves reflected in the people
around us. It's my opinion that if we expect to grow and improve as
individuals, we have to get past the point where we dwell on the
(perceived) faults of others. Two reasons; 1) if we can't forgive our
worst faults personified by others we will never get free of the burden
those same faults place on our own spiritual or pyschological progress.
2) Just as we all, individually, combine some extremely worthy as well
as some extremely unworthy aspects so do the people we encounter
throughout life. If we focus on the unworthiness of others we cannot
adequately appreciate their worth- and it is only the worthiness of our
brothers and sisters that enriches our own lives. As I said, that's my
opinion. Your mileage may vary, and if it does that's still pretty much
OK.


Good grief, Chuck.

A swift kick in the ass is just as effective and works a heck of a lot
faster.

RCE



More Psycho babble from the Chuckster. Please pardon my bluntness.

Send me an email listing the concepts you are having any difficulty
comprehending, and I'll send you an alternative version in a more basic
vernacular. No need to apologize for your bliuntness, how else would we
know that it's so far outside your ken it sounds like "babble"? Good
for you, Florida Jim. More people should speak out when they aren't
following along.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.

No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987



--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Digital Cameras and Boating
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
I have gotten hooked on taking Digital pictures with my new D50. I
just ordered the new Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6g IF-ED AF-S DX VR
(http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/...m_brochure.pdf)
and am trying to figure out if I should buy lens filters. I am
curious what the other shutterbugs use? I contacted Nikon because I
kept getting conflicting recommendations from the sales reps both
online and in the stores. Some say you should use a UV/Haze filter to
reduce the 'washout effect" others said this was a waste of time and
only use a polarized filter (and whatever you do, make sure it is a
circular polarized and not linear, linear polarized lens will eat your
digital camera alive) and finally whatever you do, only use a clear
filter, all the others screw with the auto focus and auto settings of
the very expensive lens and your pictures will all be useless.

The Nikon rep. at the 800 number told me not to use any lens filter
for protection, and I can do everything I want to do with a filter
using Photoshop.

So I am interested to see what everyone else has ended up using


If you live in a decent-sized city, sign up for a good visiting
Photoshop workshop and then sign up for a more advanced workshop six
months or a year later. Even if you think you know Photoshop, you don't.
Most of the pros I know enroll in at least one Photoshop workshop a year.

The advice you got filters was correct, though I use a UV filter and
a polarizing filter. About everything else is do-able with Photoshop and
the zillions of Photoshop add-ons.

I find my D-70 perfect for snapshots. But I still prefer larger format
cameras for "work" work.

Do you use a clear filter to "protect" the lens or is that what you use
your UV filter for?

Since the filter is a nice one, I really need to purchase a nice filter
and a Nikon clear filter is $70.

I have putz around with Photoshop, and use PaintShop Pro for quick touch
ups. I can tell I really do need to sign up for a class to begin to get
my hands around Photoshop.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Digital Cameras and Boating
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:27:08 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
I have gotten hooked on taking Digital pictures with my new D50. I
just ordered the new Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6g IF-ED AF-S DX VR
(http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/...m_brochure.pdf)
and am trying to figure out if I should buy lens filters. I am
curious what the other shutterbugs use? I contacted Nikon because I
kept getting conflicting recommendations from the sales reps both
online and in the stores. Some say you should use a UV/Haze filter to
reduce the 'washout effect" others said this was a waste of time and
only use a polarized filter (and whatever you do, make sure it is a
circular polarized and not linear, linear polarized lens will eat your
digital camera alive) and finally whatever you do, only use a clear
filter, all the others screw with the auto focus and auto settings of
the very expensive lens and your pictures will all be useless.

The Nikon rep. at the 800 number told me not to use any lens filter
for protection, and I can do everything I want to do with a filter
using Photoshop.

So I am interested to see what everyone else has ended up using


If you live in a decent-sized city, sign up for a good visiting
Photoshop workshop and then sign up for a more advanced workshop six
months or a year later. Even if you think you know Photoshop, you don't.
Most of the pros I know enroll in at least one Photoshop workshop a year.

The advice you got filters was correct, though I use a UV filter and
a polarizing filter. About everything else is do-able with Photoshop and
the zillions of Photoshop add-ons.

I find my D-70 perfect for snapshots. But I still prefer larger format
cameras for "work" work.

Do you use a clear filter to "protect" the lens or is that what you use
your UV filter for?

Since the filter is a nice one, I really need to purchase a nice filter
and a Nikon clear filter is $70.

I have putz around with Photoshop, and use PaintShop Pro for quick touch
ups. I can tell I really do need to sign up for a class to begin to get
my hands around Photoshop.

You don't need a 'Nikon' filter! Any clear filter will work fine, as long
as it screws on.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:33:43 GMT, Don White wrote:


Reginald P. Smithers wrote:

Chuck,
Can you hear the music in the background? Listen closely, I think it is
Kumbaya, but I am not sure.

Have a great day, and your boat's paint job really looks nice, can you
imagine how slow and careful you will be docking and hauling your anchor
for the next few years.


Like that first ding in your new autos paint.
I'd be afraid to sail on that boat until a few scratches show up.


I went through the 'first ding' yesterday. What a bitch!

(See response to Reggie.)
--
'Til next time,

John H


In a way I guess it was lucky that my new Ford Ranger came with a paint
flaw. We noticed it before taking it off the dealers lot so they sent it
right over to the bodyshop for repair. It I had been buying instead of
leasing, it would have been a deal breaker.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On 26 May 2006 13:36:39 -0700, "
wrote:


JohnH wrote: :

Chuck, perhaps you are seeing things that don't exist. I'm referring to a
behavior pattern. You call it a 'personal attack'. I have no desire to
perpetuate a feud with JimH. I do find his venomous attacks on Rich to be
despicable. I think anyone should be able to post pictures of their house,
boat (s), horses, dogs, or whatever, without the name-calling and envy
being displayed by JimH.

You seem to disregard the behavior in question and, instead, focus on the
personalities. Forget the personalities for a minute. Do you find the
behavior appropriate?


No, the behavior isn't appropriate. Nor are a lot of things that pass
for behavior here.
My point is that at some point we have to get beyond the he said/ she
said, did so/ did not,
your fault/ no, your fault, flame ya/ flame ya back, nonsense. Might as
well be sooner rather than later.

We know for a fact that nobody will ever *win* an argument or prevail
in a personal ****ing match on the internet. I've been on the receiving
end of my share of crap here, and survived.
There have been times when I've lobbed back at least as good as I've
been clobbered with- and lo and behold all of those guys on the
receiving end of a Gould's mean spirited "zinger" seem to have survived
as well. But that type of behavior damages the group, and it's why the
majority of previous participants have seriously cut back on it or
stopped completely.

The problem with peeing matches is that they infect the whole group.
The participants choose to make it public business. Battlers should
take it to email, or demonstrate who is the more adult person and stand
down. The adult will always win, if only by refusal to be dragged down
to the level of the delinquent 4th grade playgournd nonsense.

The most graceful thing is for both sides to declare a no-fault truce
and carry on until one side or the other screws up again. Be assured
that somebody eventually will- but at least then it's a fresh violation
and not another incident in an escalating and unresolved problem.

Ah yes, if I were extremely graceful I would back down and ask Jim to be
friends. I'm simply not yet that graceful. When a person lies to impugn my
integrity, I just don't feel like asking for a truce.

I also see nothing wrong with a comment on inappropriate behavior. You do
it all the time, and I've not disagreed with any of your comments. Personal
attacks are also inappropriate and deserve the same comeuppance. To me,
that's true whether the attacks are instigated by political posts,
successful fund raising, or owning a nice house.

I've killfiled Jim, so the only posts of his I see are those quoted by
others (which I *wish* didn't occur, but...).
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.

No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987

Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:35:48 GMT, Don White wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:33:43 GMT, Don White wrote:


Reginald P. Smithers wrote:

Chuck,
Can you hear the music in the background? Listen closely, I think it is
Kumbaya, but I am not sure.

Have a great day, and your boat's paint job really looks nice, can you
imagine how slow and careful you will be docking and hauling your anchor
for the next few years.


Like that first ding in your new autos paint.
I'd be afraid to sail on that boat until a few scratches show up.


I went through the 'first ding' yesterday. What a bitch!

(See response to Reggie.)
--
'Til next time,

John H


In a way I guess it was lucky that my new Ford Ranger came with a paint
flaw. We noticed it before taking it off the dealers lot so they sent it
right over to the bodyshop for repair. It I had been buying instead of
leasing, it would have been a deal breaker.

I just picked up the car, and the shop did a great job. I can't tell where
the dings were. Of course, the sun isn't out so I have had a chance to
really look at reflections, but I think it looks good.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

basskisser wrote:

I think it's PMS.......really, take a look. He'll rant, rant, ****
people off, troll, act like an ass for a period of time.........then
come back and stay on topic, never taking blame for his own actions, or
even accepting the fact that he DID such


LOL!

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.
No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987

Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.
No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987

Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I posted a picture of a blue flower, I think it is a lily. I thought it
was not to shabby for a rookie.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:30:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.
No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987

Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.

So she's seeking a Gaussian distribution of the blur circles as opposed to
a rectangular distribution? I assume she's looking for good background, as
opposed to foreground, bokeh.

If it were my wife, I'd ask what the bokeh she was talking about and let
her buy her own lenses!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:30:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.
No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987
Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.

So she's seeking a Gaussian distribution of the blur circles as opposed to
a rectangular distribution? I assume she's looking for good background, as
opposed to foreground, bokeh.

If it were my wife, I'd ask what the bokeh she was talking about and let
her buy her own lenses!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I told her to learn Photoshop. ; )


--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:30:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.
No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987
Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.

So she's seeking a Gaussian distribution of the blur circles as opposed to
a rectangular distribution? I assume she's looking for good background, as
opposed to foreground, bokeh.

If it were my wife, I'd ask what the bokeh she was talking about and let
her buy her own lenses!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************


Yes. It is my understanding she wants it for background, but I am also
sure, she will play around with using it in the foreground. Last night
she was looking over the specs for the 18-200 and she was complaining
about it's inability to have a nice bokeh. I felt like knocking her
upside the head, but I bite my tongue instead.


--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:49:47 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:30:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.
No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987
Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.

So she's seeking a Gaussian distribution of the blur circles as opposed to
a rectangular distribution? I assume she's looking for good background, as
opposed to foreground, bokeh.

If it were my wife, I'd ask what the bokeh she was talking about and let
her buy her own lenses!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************


Yes. It is my understanding she wants it for background, but I am also
sure, she will play around with using it in the foreground. Last night
she was looking over the specs for the 18-200 and she was complaining
about it's inability to have a nice bokeh. I felt like knocking her
upside the head, but I bite my tongue instead.

Where did she come up with the complaint about it's 'nice bokeh'?

At that point I'd be going, "Whatever you want, dear."
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:49:47 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:30:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.
No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987
Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.
So she's seeking a Gaussian distribution of the blur circles as opposed to
a rectangular distribution? I assume she's looking for good background, as
opposed to foreground, bokeh.

If it were my wife, I'd ask what the bokeh she was talking about and let
her buy her own lenses!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Yes. It is my understanding she wants it for background, but I am also
sure, she will play around with using it in the foreground. Last night
she was looking over the specs for the 18-200 and she was complaining
about it's inability to have a nice bokeh. I felt like knocking her
upside the head, but I bite my tongue instead.

Where did she come up with the complaint about it's 'nice bokeh'?

At that point I'd be going, "Whatever you want, dear."
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

JohnH,

I gave her a link to KenRockwell.com where he says this might be one of
the best all over lens in the world. Deep down in the article, cross
referenced was a link where he made this comment

Bokeh at 200 mm and 100 mm is poor.

Getting great bokeh in a lens like this isn't likely to happen. This
lens is designed for sharpness,
fast focus speed, reasonable distortion, no ghosts, VR and a huge zoom
range. it uses aspheric elements
which mess up bokeh, and VR also does weird things to in areas not
intended to be in focus.

If bokeh is critical you know who you are. You probably want a DC or
other f/2.8 or faster lens designed
with an eye towards bokeh. Bokeh isn't related to aperture or your
diaphragm; it's just that those particular
lenses tend to have better bokeh.

Now my wife has trouble figuring out what 18-200 mm means and even after
I show her a picture, the next day she forgets which means more and what
number means less magnifications, but she picks up on this bit about
bokeh. I have to be honest, I had never heard the word bokeh before
last night.

It is hard to believe all of this started when I was looking for some
point and shot digital cameras for the kids.
--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

wrote in message
ps.com...

JIMinFL wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...



Plenty of peace pipe to go around. :-)

We see the best and the worst of ourselves reflected in the people
around us. It's my opinion that if we expect to grow and improve as
individuals, we have to get past the point where we dwell on the
(perceived) faults of others. Two reasons; 1) if we can't forgive our
worst faults personified by others we will never get free of the
burden
those same faults place on our own spiritual or pyschological
progress.
2) Just as we all, individually, combine some extremely worthy as well
as some extremely unworthy aspects so do the people we encounter
throughout life. If we focus on the unworthiness of others we cannot
adequately appreciate their worth- and it is only the worthiness of
our
brothers and sisters that enriches our own lives. As I said, that's my
opinion. Your mileage may vary, and if it does that's still pretty
much
OK.


Good grief, Chuck.

A swift kick in the ass is just as effective and works a heck of a lot
faster.

RCE



More Psycho babble from the Chuckster. Please pardon my bluntness.

Send me an email listing the concepts you are having any difficulty
comprehending, and I'll send you an alternative version in a more basic
vernacular. No need to apologize for your bliuntness, how else would we
know that it's so far outside your ken it sounds like "babble"? Good
for you, Florida Jim. More people should speak out when they aren't
following along.

Not interested in following your preachings Chuck. But thanks for the offer.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JimH wrote:

You are indeed obsessed with me John.

You said you had me killfiled yet respond to a post not concerning you.

Sick.

Regarding Richy Rich.........he has launched attacks on me and I am
responding.

It is very telling that you snipped all previous responses to the
thread you quoted.

Your agenda is quite clear John.......to lie and incite arguments here.

Have a super evening John.........go start a fight with someone else.


Can you set your news reader to quote? This isn't an attack, it's just
very hard to follow your responses. If I read what I want to read and
mark everything as read I, and others, can't follow the conversations.

Dan

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:

We've all enjoyed having Rich in the group. As have others, he has shared
pictures of his boat, his house, his car, etc. Now he is being attacked for
doing so, and in a way that, to me, is despicable.

*********************************************
"JimH" wrote in message
oups.com...
And in your case.....narcissistic.

Any new pictures of the things you purchased and want to flaunt to the
NG? You know, the "look what I have but you don't" type you normally
post.

Have a super fantasticalictic weekend materialistic boy.;-)
*******************************************

Comments? Do you actually approve of this in the newsgroup?
--
'Til next time,

John H


It's not about approval, John. This isn't a club where you can show
someone the door. People will draw their own conclusions and act
accordingly. From where I sit, RCE doesn't flaunt his toys and I enjoy
seeing them just as I enjoy seeing Jim's. Some people respond to things
differently than others. Some are just having a bad day.

Dan

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 19:38:54 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:


JohnH,

I gave her a link to KenRockwell.com where he says this might be one of
the best all over lens in the world. Deep down in the article, cross
referenced was a link where he made this comment

Bokeh at 200 mm and 100 mm is poor.

Getting great bokeh in a lens like this isn't likely to happen. This
lens is designed for sharpness,
fast focus speed, reasonable distortion, no ghosts, VR and a huge zoom
range. it uses aspheric elements
which mess up bokeh, and VR also does weird things to in areas not
intended to be in focus.

If bokeh is critical you know who you are. You probably want a DC or
other f/2.8 or faster lens designed
with an eye towards bokeh. Bokeh isn't related to aperture or your
diaphragm; it's just that those particular
lenses tend to have better bokeh.

Now my wife has trouble figuring out what 18-200 mm means and even after
I show her a picture, the next day she forgets which means more and what
number means less magnifications, but she picks up on this bit about
bokeh. I have to be honest, I had never heard the word bokeh before
last night.

It is hard to believe all of this started when I was looking for some
point and shot digital cameras for the kids.

Well, does it have 'good bokeh' up to 100mm?

Here's what I've learned about identifying a lens with good bokeh:

"Look for points of light in the background. Perfect subjects for this are
distant points of light at night or sometimes light shining through leaves
or specular reflections in daylight.

If they all blend together nicely, that's nice bokeh. If they are perfect
little circles, then that's neutral bokeh. If they are all swimmy and look
like little rolled up condoms or donuts, then that's bad bokeh. "

I especially like the last line!

That's from: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

You might get your wife interested in scrapping. There's a nice synergy
there. My wife puts the pics in the album, and I take them. That works
nicely. I just constantly sing the praises of the scrapbooks!

[BTW, I had to add 'bokeh' to my spell check dictionary. That's proof it's
not too common!]
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

Harry Krause wrote:

I was surprised that you would really consider spending $12,000 so
you can go 5 mph faster on the few days when the bay is calm enough
so you could actually go 30mph at 4000 rpm. Between the wind,, and
the wake chop, that must be 3 or 4 days a year. ; )

Where did you come up with $12,000?

I pulled the number out of my ass, was I close?


No. It's more like $4000 or so. I probably wouldn't have any significant
"rigging" charges, since I already have Yamaha gauges and universal
controls.

If the promo is still on when you get it, there is an allowance in the
form of a rebate it seems for rigging.

Dan

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Don White wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Chuck,
Can you hear the music in the background? Listen closely, I think
it is Kumbaya, but I am not sure.

Have a great day, and your boat's paint job really looks nice, can
you imagine how slow and careful you will be docking and hauling
your anchor for the next few years.

Like that first ding in your new autos paint.
I'd be afraid to sail on that boat until a few scratches show up.

Chuck's boat only goes slow.

Harry,

Then he will only get slow dings and dents in his boat. ;)

Harry, when I was younger, I always was in a rush to get somewhere,
now that I am older and dumber, I try to enjoy the trip as much as the
destination.

I was surprised that you would really consider spending $12,000 so you
can go 5 mph faster on the few days when the bay is calm enough so you
could actually go 30mph at 4000 rpm. Between the wind,, and the wake
chop, that must be 3 or 4 days a year. ; )

Where did you come up with $12,000?

I pulled the number out of my ass, was I close?

You was close to your ass at least!!