Picking Lice With The 70-200 VR2!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Review sites DESPERATE for SOMETHING to test
Next: Amazon and Apple, two vile companies probed for price fixing
From: George Kerby on 3 Aug 2010 18:36 On 8/3/10 1:40 PM, in article i39nr9$qd4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:C87DCBFA.3A788%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> >> On 8/3/10 10:21 AM, in article >> 2010080308215079149-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2010-08-03 08:13:13 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> >>> said: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/2/10 8:21 PM, in article >>>> d9e7839f-2682-4eaf-bab0-fad5f2f66c2d(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, >>>> "Nervous >>>> Nick" <nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Aug 2, 6:43 pm, Larry Thong <larry_th...(a)shitstring.com> wrote: >>>>>> Baboons do it in the zoo, they even do it in the wild. It must be a >>>>>> fun >>>>>> activity as it seems to be spreading. >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Lice.jpg> >>>>> >>>>> Why did you choose to share this photo? Were you jonesing for a >>>>> reason to use a double exclamation point? >>>> >>>> Just when we thought Rita was gaining control of the medications, he >>>> veers >>>> off again. Oh well... >>> >>> ...but all things considered it is not a bad candid capture, clearly >>> >>> demonstrating just how good the 70-200 f/2.8 can be. >>> >>> The baiting, tongue in cheek subject lines continue to be a groan. >> >> Not just a 'groan', a completely derailed train of thought that most >> likely >> came from the influence of mis-managed pharmaceuticals. >> >> Tell me, looking at that photograph, the thought of baboons picking lice >> would be *your* primary choice for a cut line? >> >> Thought not. Most normal folks as well. Maybe Rita speaks from personal >> experiences? Dunno... >> > Offbeat as it is, it got our attention, didn't it? cool. nice photo too. > I wish I was as young and thin.... > Don't we all?
From: otter on 3 Aug 2010 20:26 On Aug 3, 3:02 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > I always thought the big mystery to be the obsession with high ticket > equipment, and no apparent need for it. Yikes! So now we need to prove the need to own whatever cameras we can afford? :-) I'm definitely in trouble.
From: tony cooper on 3 Aug 2010 21:45 On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:02:48 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-08-03 11:36:58 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: > >> >> >> >> On 8/3/10 10:21 AM, in article >> 2010080308215079149-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2010-08-03 08:13:13 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/2/10 8:21 PM, in article >>>> d9e7839f-2682-4eaf-bab0-fad5f2f66c2d(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "Nervous >>>> Nick" <nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Aug 2, 6:43�pm, Larry Thong <larry_th...(a)shitstring.com> wrote: >>>>>> Baboons do it in the zoo, they even do it in the wild. �It must be a fun >>>>>> activity as it seems to be spreading. >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Lice.jpg> >>>>> >>>>> Why did you choose to share this photo? Were you jonesing for a >>>>> reason to use a double exclamation point? >>>> >>>> Just when we thought Rita was gaining control of the medications, he veers >>>> off again. Oh well... >>> >>> ...but all things considered it is not a bad candid capture, clearly >>> >>> demonstrating just how good the 70-200 f/2.8 can be. >>> >>> The baiting, tongue in cheek subject lines continue to be a groan. >> >> Not just a 'groan', a completely derailed train of thought that most likely >> came from the influence of mis-managed pharmaceuticals. >> >> Tell me, looking at that photograph, the thought of baboons picking lice >> would be *your* primary choice for a cut line? > >No, but I understood the source of the metaphor she conjured up, and I >have seen scenes where primate behavior evokes a certain easily >anthropomorphized tender interaction. > >> >> Thought not. Most normal folks as well. Maybe Rita speaks from personal >> experiences? Dunno... > >Who knows? I never perceived any need for medication, only an >underlying odd humor. >Rita's subject lines have always been strangely provocative, and we all >seem to get drawn in and tangled up, regardless of how strange, or >however good, bad, corny, or in bad taste her images might be. >I always thought the big mystery to be the obsession with high ticket >equipment, and no apparent need for it. That, and the source of income >to support what appears to nothing more than a hobby. I have yet to see >anything from her of the same quality Bret has given us, or some of the >work submitted to the SI (present company not included.) I have no problem with her subject lines. They are sometimes amusing. I can't really see how they are at all harmful even to the humor-impaired. Those who don't like Rita/Larry will find fault with anything. That's their problem. His/her photographs run from barely adequate to reasonably good, and "reasonably good" is better than many do. Certainly better than the moths and vines that someone else seems to think are worth offering. It's a hobby, Duck. You don't have to be able to do National Geographic level stuff to satisfy hobby urges. I don't understand why people want to take away someone else's pleasure in pursuing their hobby. Your curiosity about the money he/she spends on equipment is somewhat naive. Go to any golf course and see if the golfers with the highest priced equipment are the best golfers. Watch to see if the owners of Corvettes and high-end BMWs and Mercedes are better drivers. Last time I went scuba diving there was a guy on the charter boat with a wrist computer that cost more than all of my equipment combined, and he couldn't get down to bottom at 60 feet using an anchor line because he held his breath and kept too much air in his BCD. He got back on the boat and left his dive buddy to go alone. The attitude of every hobbyist is "More, and better, equipment will make me better". -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Savageduck on 3 Aug 2010 22:01 On 2010-08-03 17:26:50 -0700, otter <bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> said: > On Aug 3, 3:02�pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> I always thought the big mystery to be the obsession with high ticket >> equipment, and no apparent need for it. > > Yikes! So now we need to prove the need to own whatever cameras we > can afford? :-) > I'm definitely in trouble. Not really. Certainly I have lusted after some of the equipment Rita has owned, and does own and uses. I have no idea what Rita does for a living, and may well be an accomplished professional photographer playing with us. I like the idea of owning the best I can afford even though, like Rita, I have no demonstrable need for what I have, a D300s, a D70, a bag of lenses, a G11, bags, gizmos, and the various film cameras accumulated over the years. I have spent around $11,000 over the last 7 years, and if I stretch back to my first film purchases $20K+. As a hobbyist of average talent I have considered a FF camera, but I cannot justify the purchase today. A used D700 or D3 might be a possibility in the future. I have never had a professional need for any of what I bought. So if I put together the cost of darkroom equipment, film and all I listed above, my hobby has cost me about $520 per year for the last 45-48 years. Not too bad I guess. For me to spend all that extra cash on a D3(s/X) and some of the premium lenses for those cameras, would be foolish and unjustifiable. Rita has yet to show us that she has ever had a photographic need for the superb and expensive equipment she owns. For now all we can assume from what she has demonstrated, is her need to flaunt her photo equipment budget, and her results are no better than some here have achieved with lesser equipment. So my remark stands, I can see no apparent need for the equipment she owns other than bragging rights. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 3 Aug 2010 22:22
On 2010-08-03 18:45:23 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:02:48 -0700, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-08-03 11:36:58 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/3/10 10:21 AM, in article >>> 2010080308215079149-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2010-08-03 08:13:13 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/2/10 8:21 PM, in article >>>>> d9e7839f-2682-4eaf-bab0-fad5f2f66c2d(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "Nervous >>>>> Nick" <nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 2, 6:43�pm, Larry Thong <larry_th...(a)shitstring.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Baboons do it in the zoo, they even do it in the wild. �It must be a fun >>>>>>> activity as it seems to be spreading. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Lice.jpg> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why did you choose to share this photo? Were you jonesing for a >>>>>> reason to use a double exclamation point? >>>>> >>>>> Just when we thought Rita was gaining control of the medications, he veers >>>>> off again. Oh well... >>>> >>>> ...but all things considered it is not a bad candid capture, clearly >>>> >>>> demonstrating just how good the 70-200 f/2.8 can be. >>>> >>>> The baiting, tongue in cheek subject lines continue to be a groan. >>> >>> Not just a 'groan', a completely derailed train of thought that most likely >>> came from the influence of mis-managed pharmaceuticals. >>> >>> Tell me, looking at that photograph, the thought of baboons picking lice >>> would be *your* primary choice for a cut line? >> >> No, but I understood the source of the metaphor she conjured up, and I >> have seen scenes where primate behavior evokes a certain easily >> anthropomorphized tender interaction. >> >>> >>> Thought not. Most normal folks as well. Maybe Rita speaks from personal >>> experiences? Dunno... >> >> Who knows? I never perceived any need for medication, only an >> underlying odd humor. >> Rita's subject lines have always been strangely provocative, and we all >> seem to get drawn in and tangled up, regardless of how strange, or >> however good, bad, corny, or in bad taste her images might be. >> I always thought the big mystery to be the obsession with high ticket >> equipment, and no apparent need for it. That, and the source of income >> to support what appears to nothing more than a hobby. I have yet to see >> anything from her of the same quality Bret has given us, or some of the >> work submitted to the SI (present company not included.) > > I have no problem with her subject lines. They are sometimes amusing. > I can't really see how they are at all harmful even to the > humor-impaired. Agreed. ....and if you check my posting history with any of the Rita/Larry posts I have recognised the intended humor. That said many of the contributers to the SI have produced better with lesser equipment. > > Those who don't like Rita/Larry will find fault with anything. That's > their problem. Agreed. > > His/her photographs run from barely adequate to reasonably good, and > "reasonably good" is better than many do. Certainly better than the > moths and vines that someone else seems to think are worth offering. Agreed > > It's a hobby, Duck. You don't have to be able to do National > Geographic level stuff to satisfy hobby urges. Agreed. > I don't understand why > people want to take away someone else's pleasure in pursuing their > hobby. Agreed > > Your curiosity about the money he/she spends on equipment is somewhat > naive. Go to any golf course and see if the golfers with the highest > priced equipment are the best golfers. Watch to see if the owners of > Corvettes and high-end BMWs and Mercedes are better drivers. Last > time I went scuba diving there was a guy on the charter boat with a > wrist computer that cost more than all of my equipment combined, and > he couldn't get down to bottom at 60 feet using an anchor line because > he held his breath and kept too much air in his BCD. He got back on > the boat and left his dive buddy to go alone. > > The attitude of every hobbyist is "More, and better, equipment will > make me better". Guilty as charged. Don't get me wrong, I don't deny Rita the pleasure her hobby and equipment gives her. In fact I am envious of her ability to afford the very best. I am sure both you and I have pushed our photo budgets to their limit. I can appreciate some of the better things in life, but I am under no illusions of my place in the pecking order. I am well aware of many hobbyists spending BIG money on golf, RC, diving, shooting, carpentry, or whatever equipment and not achieving the desired improvement in results. ....I do like nice things though, and most times they seem to be prohibitively expensive. -- Regards, Savageduck |