Paradigm thinking
Alan Browne
At the photo club tonight various people showed a dozen or so slides
from their past few months. Your faithful narrator included.
I put up about 20 on mixed subjects.
My last slide was quite abstract in color to the point where the subject
was recognizable only after a good look.
I asked, "so how did I achieve this?"
The ranting and finger pointing went on for a few minutes with angry
statements about my slide.
----"He x-processed it!" (Tone of voice as if I had spit in the holy water)
----"It's digital and photoshopped and printed on accetate" (mean
sprited as if I'd had sex with a nun in church during mass).
----"It's black light with an orange filter" (tone of voice indicates
that I will have no heating problems in the afterlife...)
etc. The old pros were having it out and I was wondering about
excommunication... the newbies were wondering if macrame would be a
safer Thur. night activity...
...but nobody noticed my tut-tut little smirk. Finally I said "Okay.
Enough, I'll tell you."
What I did was...
...cut a negative frame (from my "water" shots, as it turns out) and put
it in a slide mount and projected that.
Paradigms are funny things... projected it looked EXACTLY like a
negative looks on a light table...but w/o the sprocket holes and data...
but because I had put it in the slide projector and the sprocket holes
were not projected, it could be any imaginable thing ...except a plain
ole negative.
So they slapped their foreheads and muttered and shook their heads and
glared at me (the ole pros really hate it when they're not right...) and
a newbie asked "but why would you do that?"
...so, if you like to play little pranks on your photoclub, give this
one a whirl. Best with abstract subjects... your mileage and life
expectancy may vary.
Cheers,
Alan.
PSsquare
You put up 20 slides? That would provoke a stronger negative reaction in
our photo group. We limit to about 3 per person so that we get more
contributors, and more serious consideration of the images.
PSsquare
Ken Cashion
<alan....@videotron.canospam> wrote:
Well, done, Alan. I would like to think I would have known
what it was, but the different context was an interesting thing to do.
And you are lucky you got out alive.
Never ask such a question. It creates instant hostility.
Remember, (someone said), "If you make a man think he is thinking, he
will love you. If you really make him think, he will hate you."
Also, this was well written.
Ken Cashion
T P
My goodness, what an anal lot you sound!
;-)
PSsquare
photographers a chance to show their best versus one person taking up most
of the time. While I am confident all of Alan's images were worthwhile, all
too often newcomers were bringing in a full roll of slides (some pretty
crappy) and boring everyone else.
If it is anal, then it is anal for the whole group people who strongly
decided to limit.
PSsquare
"T P" <t...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kp0mmvc6mmh05h6tg...@4ax.com...
Alan Browne
PSsquare wrote:
This depends on the evenings "activity", the number of people who want
to put up slides and the size of the club (we're about 30 in the club,
25 or so who showed up).
Only 6 people put up slides ... and it wasn't a "theme" evening, just a
romp through some slides. (I had 4 themes actually, but presented them
interlaced, plus the negative at the end). Other people put up prints
on large panels we have in the meeting room for the purpose, and these
were examined during breaks.
For theme judgements, the maximum is 3 images (on slide or print) total.
There are some people who "abuse" the open projector evenings, one of
them a long standing member, and treasurer of the club. Hw has calmed
down over the past year to no more than 30. Last night, a lady put up a
modest 5 slides. She joined last year as a confessed P&Ser. She
demonstrated very convincingly that she is no longer a P&Ser. Because
she has taken a leap, hopefully a few others will take a leap too.
There is no discussion during these presentations, or at most a comment
here and there. If a particualr image gets everyone hopping, then we go
back to it to discuss it.
I don't disagree with you, but this is the way we do things. It's a
small club and we do about three open evenings per year. There are 6
"member nights" reserved for presentations by members in teams of two,
they select their own theme, go out and shoot it, and then present it in
a structured manner. My approach to this is to try and edit down to no
more than 20 slides with up to 1 - 2 minutes of verbal presentation per
slide and have it all wrapped up in 40 minutes if possible. 1 hour is
allotted, but that is too much IMO to hold people's attention regardless
of the number of slides.
"Serious Consideration" is given when we look at particular subjects or
problems or during selection of images for the regional competitions; or
when we review the winning images following a theme judgement.
Anyway that's the way we do it. Other evenings are reserved for
presentations or "technique" seminars, etc.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
PSsquare wrote:
> Who's anal, TP? Don't get what is anal about giving all 20 to 30
> photographers a chance to show their best versus one person taking up most
> of the time. While I am confident all of Alan's images were worthwhile, all
> too often newcomers were bringing in a full roll of slides (some pretty
> crappy) and boring everyone else.
>
> If it is anal, then it is anal for the whole group people who strongly
> decided to limit.
>
> PSsquare
>
>
>
You can imagine that with TP shooting 50 rolls of film per average
*week* he would not be particularly satisfied putting up only 3 images,
even if by pure chance they were any good.
;-----o
Alan Browne
Ken Cashion wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:21:07 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@videotron.canospam> wrote:
>
> Well, done, Alan. I would like to think I would have known
> what it was, but the different context was an interesting thing to do.
> And you are lucky you got out alive.
> Never ask such a question. It creates instant hostility.
> Remember, (someone said), "If you make a man think he is thinking, he
> will love you. If you really make him think, he will hate you."
> Also, this was well written.
>
> Ken Cashion
I hope you realize that in my post here I slightly exagerated their
reactions to improve the story ...
Thanks,
Alan.
PSsquare
Not an unreasonable approach. We try to have both a scheduled presentation
by one person for about 30 to 45 minutes AND a time for each member to
share a max of 3 images with critiques provided. It is hopeless to critique
uneditted slides.
We too have a few problem members who abuse the situation. The worst was
about 20 images of the photographer's Pit Bull trying to catch a Frisbee.
Most belonged in the waste can. I think he was trying to sell people that
the PIt Bulls are warm and fuzzy animals. His might have been, but so what?
Regards,
PSsquare
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.canospam> wrote in message
news:CJFab.12382$0l4.3...@weber.videotron.net...
Ken Cashion
<alan....@videotron.canospam> wrote:
I thought as much. :o) I particularly liked the "nun" part.
Ken Cashion
Ken Cashion
<alan....@videotron.canospam> wrote:
Alan, since you are active in a camera club, and because of
your writing ability, I think most people on the group read your
posts, let me a little fun activity for your club. It wouldn't take
long to do.
Everyone is encouraged to bring their favorite camera and lens
to the next meeting and then they put their camera under their chair
and fill out a little surprize questionaire...without looking at their
camera, of course.
The questions are things like --
Viewing from behind the camera, specify which direction, cw or
ccw the iris ring is rotated to increase light.
List the stops on the ring.
Which direction to focus further away.
To zoom out.
List the speeds.
The function that is closest to the lens from the right.
From the left.
These sorts of questions are fun to answer...particularly,
when we get one wrong. :o)
After they complete the questionaire, they get there camera
and grade themselves. Some little gag gift can be given to the one
with the best score...be prepared for lots of ties.
A fellow thinks of these things when he is a Program Chairman
for a photo club. :o)
Ken Cashion
Lisa Horton
Ken, I wonder how, or even if, you'd change your questions today. I had
some perhaps amusing answers as I read them.
Ken Cashion wrote:
>
> The questions are things like --
> Viewing from behind the camera, specify which direction, cw or
> ccw the iris ring is rotated to increase light.
There's no aperture ring. I turn the main control dial to the left to
increase light.
> List the stops on the ring.
When the dial is controlling shutter speed, or when it's controlling
aperture? It's 1/3 of a stop for either, but the stops have different
names ;)
> Which direction to focus further away.
Down, on the shutter release button. (I'm stretching here, I COULD turn
the lens focus ring CCW)
Lisa :)
Leicaddict
--
Leicaddict
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.canospam> wrote in message
news:uCuab.8131$zL3.2...@wagner.videotron.net...
mike II
>
> At the photo club tonight various people showed a dozen or so slides
> from their past few months. Your faithful narrator included.
Funny thing. Last month in the church hall I showed a slide which was a
negative of some pervert photographer doing *t to a nun during mass. The
old and experienced pros in the audience all nodded knowingly. Whispers
of "yup..a frame from his 'water' shots..." could be heard around the hall..
mike
Ken Cashion
<leica...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>pathetic & boring
>--
Leicaddict, I guess I am pathetic and boring, too. I thought
it a good exercise for a photo club meeting.
Ken Cashion
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>
>Ken, I wonder how, or even if, you'd change your questions today. I had
>some perhaps amusing answers as I read them.
Lisa, I did think of this sort of problem but I didn't know
how to frame the questions since I don't have modern cameras. I think
a similar sort of quiz could be developed though...like, on program
mode, how many do you have, and list them in the sequence they appear
on the camera.
I thought of that one by thinking about the CanonSure
Shot...which I thought of to go back to mechanical.
Ken Cashion
Peter Chant
kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) writes:
>>reactions to improve the story ...
>
> I thought as much. :o) I particularly liked the "nun" part.
Sounds kind of fun[NO CARRIER]
Peter Chant
"PSsquare" <psch...@stny.rr.com> writes:
> Who's anal, TP? Don't get what is anal about giving all 20 to 30
> photographers a chance to show their best versus one person taking up most
> of the time. While I am confident all of Alan's images were worthwhile, all
> too often newcomers were bringing in a full roll of slides (some pretty
> crappy) and boring everyone else.
I cannot imagine that even my closes friends and relative would put up
with me showing them all 10 rolls of my holiday photos. I think I
will pick the best 15 or so, scan them and make an album. Even I cannot
be bothered to look at that many slides in one sitting.
Tony Parkinson
--
The next new technology from Microsoft . . . . . .
NNBTGNDHI: Not Necessary, But The Guy Next Door Has It
Michael Scarpitti
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:21:07 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@videotron.canospam> wrote:
>
> Alan, since you are active in a camera club, and because of
> your writing ability, I think most people on the group read your
> posts, let me a little fun activity for your club. It wouldn't take
> long to do.
> Everyone is encouraged to bring their favorite camera and lens
> to the next meeting and then they put their camera under their chair
> and fill out a little surprize questionaire...without looking at their
> camera, of course.
Have them hold the camera behind their back, and do all of this: set
the lens at f/x, shutter at 1/x, focus at closest/farthest point. I
can, and I made it a point to be ablse to do so.
Ken Cashion
All my history classes include slides. I easily show 60 slides
during a history class; this takes about 35 minutes. Each slide has
commentary...but the subject would have been discussed during the 1
hour, 15 minutes of lecture.
In the three courses, they will see nearly 980 slides. I have
to tell them how many they have seen to keep them from putting on the
college appraisal form, "Enjoyed the slides...I wish there had been
more."
I always assume this to be a compliment about my photography
rather than negative criticism about my lecturing. :o)
Ken Cashion
Alan Browne
mike II wrote:
That was you?
Alan Browne
Ken Cashion wrote:
Personally I'd score pretty high as I often work everything with my eye
firmly glued to the viewfinder... The AF mode ... well I'd fail 'cause
I leave it in S (single) and shoot mostly MF anyway. The 20 or so
sub-functions I need the checklist from the manual, there is just too
much to remember...
My cameras has no aperture wheel on the lens... speed is always the
front control wheel; aperture always the back control wheel. Left hand
operates the exp comp (and sometimes flash comp)... right hand can find
the DOF preview quickly as well.
I know most of the ole pros at my club would have little problem with
this...
The newbies, for the most part, would fail. I'll suggest it as an
exercise for fun though...
Cheers,
Alan.
Tony Parkinson
news:oxTab.37$ww6...@jekyl.ab.tac.net...
>
> Funny thing. Last month in the church hall I showed a slide which was a
> negative of some pervert photographer doing *t to a nun during mass.
>
Ken Cashion
<alan....@videotron.canospam> wrote:
Good point. I forgot about the program modes. Some I have
seen goes on forever seemingly.
>My cameras has no aperture wheel on the lens... speed is always the
>front control wheel; aperture always the back control wheel. Left hand
>operates the exp comp (and sometimes flash comp)... right hand can find
>the DOF preview quickly as well.
>
>I know most of the ole pros at my club would have little problem with
>this...
>
>The newbies, for the most part, would fail. I'll suggest it as an
>exercise for fun though...
>
>Cheers,
>Alan.
Alan, the clever suggestion of doing this behind the back
would take care of the more modern cameras.
Ken Cashion
Gordon Moat
> . . . . .
>
> Have them hold the camera behind their back, and do all of this: set
> the lens at f/x, shutter at 1/x, focus at closest/farthest point. I
> can, and I made it a point to be ablse to do so.
Under poor lighting condition shooting (like night-clubs), or when the action changes fast, I often
need to adjust without looking at the camera. The interesting bit is being able to choose the 1m and
2m focus distances without looking, though I can only do that consistently with a little over half my
lenses. I also use the setting without looking technique when I am shooting from the hip.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Peter Chant
kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) writes:
> I always assume this to be a compliment about my photography
> rather than negative criticism about my lecturing. :o)
Perhaps when you show them slides it stops you doing anything which makes
them take notes...
Ken Cashion
Chant) wrote:
>In article <3f6c78fd...@news.datasync.com>,
> kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) writes:
>> I always assume this to be a compliment about my photography
>> rather than negative criticism about my lecturing. :o)
>
>Perhaps when you show them slides it stops you doing anything which makes
>them take notes...
They are in the dark...I have a small light at the podium to
enable me to read my notes. I am amazed at how many notes people take
sometimes though.
I tell them that there are tens of thousands of Bronze Age
round barrows in England. Before I am through, they think they have
seen slides of all of them. :o)
Ken
Peter Chant
kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) writes:
>
> They are in the dark...I have a small light at the podium to
> enable me to read my notes. I am amazed at how many notes people take
> sometimes though.
> I tell them that there are tens of thousands of Bronze Age
> round barrows in England. Before I am through, they think they have
> seen slides of all of them. :o)
I think most of them are around here. Why slides of a lot of them?
They are all grassy lumps! Build your own locally.
Ken Cashion
Not really correct, Pete. There are gallery round barrows,
some with ante chambers, and some multichambered. And the grassy
lumps have different cross-sections indicating the sub-culture that
built them.
Some are saucer shaped, some conical, some bell shaped, and
other shapes. Some have henges, some don't. Some had articulated
remains, some didn't.
Though there are a lot around Salisbury Plain and Marlborough
Downs, they are plenty anywhere the Beaker people settled...which is
pretty widespread.
I show a lot of the long barrows and circles, as well.
And I show a lot of the abbeys, etc., that Good K. Henry VIII
redecorated. The point I make by showing many variations of quoits
and the like is to impress the student that there are a lot of them.
I could show them one each of these artifacts and tell them
there are a lot of them, but the point is better made to show them
many and point out the differences between them.
As for building my own; I am not into follies -- at least
those kind. :o)
Ken
leicaddict
I produce a coffee table book. From an office supply, I get a business
portfolio that holds either 12, 24, 36, or 48 A4 pages. Since I use an
Epson printer and A4 Epson Colorlife Paper, these really make a nice
presentation. I print both vertical and horizontal shots that are
about 5x7 on the page. Although I haven't, it would probably be easy
enough to add commentary. The front cover and spline allow for the use
of a custon front cover and spline. Last year, I went to Paris a
couple of times, and from this produced a 48 print coffee table book,
which I called "Rue du Parisians." I've also made smaller books. One
called "Street Portraits" and one b&w called "Edge, Form, Surface."
It's amazing how much people like this form of presentation. And
before long, you'll have a nice set of books for people to look at.
And believe me, they will look.
Now digital darkrooms can be set up really easily for about $500 (US).
Once you've done this, you'll never go back to slide projectors again,
except as a nice medium to scan.
leicaddict
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>For what it's worth:
It was worth a lot. That is a really nice thing to do and it
is a lot easier to do it digitally than analogly (new word).
Still, I have a little personal quibble with the manipulation
of digital images.
For a long time, I made a living at this stuff but the images
were computer-derived from the radiometric values impinging on
non-imaging sensors.
The images that were produced never existed in nature.
This was fun and had value.
I see the commercial application of taking an image that does
exist in nature and converting it to one that does not, but what I
would like to develop is an image that looks just like the
photographic print and it looks the same on everyone's computer. I
know how this can be done but it would take more effort than it would
be worth.
So, I will keep trying to get nature to look like nature on a
monitor. I know that in practise however, even between the four
computers in this house, this can't be done.
For the heck of it, I generated four files of the same image
and got them all to look the same on the four monitors, but there were
some big differences in the four images when displayed side by side on
any of the four monitors.
In all the things that we can do with digitals images, what we
cannot do is make one that will look the same to any two people.
I am still resisting getting back into counting pixels and all
the stuff that I left (I thought) safely behind in a remote sensing
laboratory behind some tall metal fences. :o)
Cheers -- Ken
Peter Chant
leica...@hotmail.com (leicaddict) writes:
> For what it's worth: Every once in a while, with the digital darkroom,
> I produce a coffee table book. From an office supply, I get a business
> portfolio that holds either 12, 24, 36, or 48 A4 pages. Since I use an
Good idea, I am planning to make an album from my recent trip. What do
you mean by 'portfolio'. I suspect that it is not the sort of thing
with about 20 plastic wallets in it.
Peter Chant
kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) writes:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:51:40 +0000 (UTC), pe...@petezilla.co.uk (Peter
> Chant) wrote:
>
> Not really correct, Pete. There are gallery round barrows,
> some with ante chambers, and some multichambered. And the grassy
> lumps have different cross-sections indicating the sub-culture that
> built them.
With hindsight I am guilty of being slightly flippant. However,
without doing an accurate survey or digging them up, all the round barrows
look from a distance like round lumps. Maybe I am missing something.
> Some are saucer shaped, some conical, some bell shaped, and
> other shapes. Some have henges, some don't. Some had articulated
> remains, some didn't.
My mother has a set of large books produced by the chap who did
the first archeological survey of Salisbury Plain. It is quite interesting.
> Though there are a lot around Salisbury Plain and Marlborough
> Downs, they are plenty anywhere the Beaker people settled...which is
> pretty widespread.
Bingo!
> I show a lot of the long barrows and circles, as well.
It seems reasonable to suspect that you have visited West Kennet long
barrow. I'm not sure how much it has been disturbed, quite a lot I
suppose.
> And I show a lot of the abbeys, etc., that Good K. Henry VIII
> redecorated. The point I make by showing many variations of quoits
> and the like is to impress the student that there are a lot of them.
Fair enough. Reveux (sp?) is a rather good one in Yorkshire.
> I could show them one each of these artifacts and tell them
> there are a lot of them, but the point is better made to show them
> many and point out the differences between them.
> As for building my own; I am not into follies -- at least
> those kind. :o)
People are burying themselves all sorts of ways nowadays. Be different!
Besides, a round barrow is a lot cheaper than a pyramid, luckily
you are not an Egyptologist (I assume).
:-)
Ken Cashion
Chant) wrote:
>In article <3f703dce...@news.datasync.com>,
> kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) writes:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:51:40 +0000 (UTC), pe...@petezilla.co.uk (Peter
>> Chant) wrote:
>>
>> Not really correct, Pete. There are gallery round barrows,
>> some with ante chambers, and some multichambered. And the grassy
>> lumps have different cross-sections indicating the sub-culture that
>> built them.
>
>With hindsight I am guilty of being slightly flippant. However,
>without doing an accurate survey or digging them up, all the round barrows
>look from a distance like round lumps. Maybe I am missing something.
And I am guitly of being overly pendantic. I do have slides
of a round barrow near to Knowlton Circle and it is not only just a
bump in a field of corn but has some trees growing out of it. And I
have a slide of exactly what you said. I took a photo of some on the
horizon from Stonehenge. I have counted nearly I3 such barrows from
there. I want the class to know that many are just such grassy
bumps. :o)
You Are missing something though. What a tremendous place to
live where you can walk in a field or moor and see megalithic
mysteries left by people who was planting similar crops over 6,000
years ago.
>> Some are saucer shaped, some conical, some bell shaped, and
>> other shapes. Some have henges, some don't. Some had articulated
>> remains, some didn't.
>
>My mother has a set of large books produced by the chap who did
>the first archeological survey of Salisbury Plain. It is quite interesting.
Some of those old etchings must be taken as actual and we can
see the changes in the structures over the years. Particularly, some
of the castles and abbeys.
>> Though there are a lot around Salisbury Plain and Marlborough
>> Downs, they are plenty anywhere the Beaker people settled...which is
>> pretty widespread.
>
>Bingo!
>
>> I show a lot of the long barrows and circles, as well.
>
>It seems reasonable to suspect that you have visited West Kennet long
>barrow. I'm not sure how much it has been disturbed, quite a lot I
>suppose.
But England (and Mexico) has the correct attitude about the
preservation of some of these sites. W. Kennet was excavated properly
and returned to near its original state. I know they can't keep the
grass off of it because it would erode, but considering the marl in
the ground and the location of W. Kennet, isn't it great to be able to
think how that long, long chalk mound would have shown in the sun
against a blue sky and yellow corn?
When I show some of my slides, I point out that the Neolithic
builders were not just pilers of stone but real architects...because
they used steel-reinforced concrete girders to support the roof. :o)
>> And I show a lot of the abbeys, etc., that Good K. Henry VIII
>> redecorated. The point I make by showing many variations of quoits
>> and the like is to impress the student that there are a lot of them.
>
>Fair enough. Reveux (sp?) is a rather good one in Yorkshire.
As are Bolton Abbey and Jervaulx, both in Yorkshire.
>> I could show them one each of these artifacts and tell them
>> there are a lot of them, but the point is better made to show them
>> many and point out the differences between them.
>> As for building my own; I am not into follies -- at least
>> those kind. :o)
>
>People are burying themselves all sorts of ways nowadays. Be different!
I didn't think of that! Wow! That is genius. But I wonder
who I could contract to set my body out so the flesh could decay off
and just my unarticulated bones be installed?
Geez! What a silly thing to ask! Hell, I live near New
Orleans. Half the population would be willing to do that for a
six-pack.
>Besides, a round barrow is a lot cheaper than a pyramid, luckily
>you are not an Egyptologist (I assume).
I am not. I think a simple burial cist would be too primitive
for here though.
As for follies, I have two slides I show the class of the
circle at Fishguard and one other...the name escapes me now. And these
are such obvious follies. I explain that there was a time when guys
would go through towns selling stone circle kits. (Not true, but
seems like it.)
Pete, it is too easy for us to let our familiarity with place
and time inhibit our curiousities. I am as guilty of this as anyone,
but you really do live in a compacted time-warp and should enjoy it.
Of course, I am talking about pubs with real ale. The
antiquities are nice, too.
So about midnight GMT, from Midden Manor's Windmill Free House
at the edge of a southern South Mississippi swamp, I will raise a pint
of Samuel Smith Nut Brown your direction.
Cheers -- Ken
Alan Browne
Ken Cashion wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:17:29 +0000 (UTC), pe...@petezilla.co.uk (Peter
> Chant) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3f703dce...@news.datasync.com>,
>> kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) writes:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:51:40 +0000 (UTC), pe...@petezilla.co.uk (Peter
>>>Chant) wrote:
>>>
>>> Not really correct, Pete. There are gallery round barrows,
>>>some with ante chambers, and some multichambered. And the grassy
>>>lumps have different cross-sections indicating the sub-culture that
>>>built them.
>>
>>With hindsight I am guilty of being slightly flippant. However,
>>without doing an accurate survey or digging them up, all the round barrows
>>look from a distance like round lumps. Maybe I am missing something.
>
>
> And I am guitly of being overly pendantic. I do have slides
less than you think, unless you hang at the end of a rope.
Ken Cashion
I might be at rope's end someday, but not yet. I have a
penchant to raise my pennant of penitence and offer penance for my
digital faux pas. I bet I meant "pedantic."
I find the link between brain, fingers, screen, eye, and brain
to be an interesting loop...though in my case, not always a closed
one.
Thanks, Alan.
Cheers -- Ken
Peter Chant
kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) writes:
>>
>>My mother has a set of large books produced by the chap who did
>>the first archeological survey of Salisbury Plain. It is quite interesting.
>
> Some of those old etchings must be taken as actual and we can
> see the changes in the structures over the years. Particularly, some
> of the castles and abbeys.
I have a thought some time of copying one of the images and putting it
on my wall. I'm wondering the best way, scan and lasterprint onto
heavy weight art paper or to photograph and try to print at high contrast
onto matt paper. I will not cut one out under pains of death and also
my own thought that it is vandalism.
>
> But England (and Mexico) has the correct attitude about the
> preservation of some of these sites. W. Kennet was excavated properly
> and returned to near its original state. I know they can't keep the
> grass off of it because it would erode, but considering the marl in
> the ground and the location of W. Kennet, isn't it great to be able to
> think how that long, long chalk mound would have shown in the sun
> against a blue sky and yellow corn?
> When I show some of my slides, I point out that the Neolithic
> builders were not just pilers of stone but real architects...because
> they used steel-reinforced concrete girders to support the roof. :o)
:-)
>>
>>People are burying themselves all sorts of ways nowadays. Be different!
>
> I didn't think of that! Wow! That is genius. But I wonder
> who I could contract to set my body out so the flesh could decay off
> and just my unarticulated bones be installed?
> Geez! What a silly thing to ask! Hell, I live near New
> Orleans. Half the population would be willing to do that for a
> six-pack.
It wasn't my first though, but it came to me when I saw your reply.
Hmm, they would place (more likely dump) your body in the wilds,
but how many would pick up the bones?
> I am not. I think a simple burial cist would be too primitive
> for here though.
I'm sure you could look though your slides and find one you like.
> As for follies, I have two slides I show the class of the
> circle at Fishguard and one other...the name escapes me now. And these
> are such obvious follies. I explain that there was a time when guys
> would go through towns selling stone circle kits. (Not true, but
> seems like it.)
Hmm, not so keen on follies, a lot of them seem so false.
> Pete, it is too easy for us to let our familiarity with place
> and time inhibit our curiousities. I am as guilty of this as anyone,
> but you really do live in a compacted time-warp and should enjoy it.
It took me until the week I left to visit Southend pier!
> Of course, I am talking about pubs with real ale. The
> antiquities are nice, too.
> So about midnight GMT, from Midden Manor's Windmill Free House
> at the edge of a southern South Mississippi swamp, I will raise a pint
> of Samuel Smith Nut Brown your direction.
:-)
I was actually plesently surprised in the US, good beer could be found,
although at a price and US pints seem a bit small. One of the few things
that is bigger in the UK!
Ken Cashion
Chant) wrote:
>In article <3f71af17...@news.datasync.com>,
> kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) writes:
>>>
>>>My mother has a set of large books produced by the chap who did
>>>the first archeological survey of Salisbury Plain. It is quite interesting.
>>
>> Some of those old etchings must be taken as actual and we can
>> see the changes in the structures over the years. Particularly, some
>> of the castles and abbeys.
>
>I have a thought some time of copying one of the images and putting it
>on my wall. I'm wondering the best way, scan and lasterprint onto
>heavy weight art paper or to photograph and try to print at high contrast
>onto matt paper. I will not cut one out under pains of death and also
>my own thought that it is vandalism.
As for value of the book (which was not asked), I have found
an old book with etchings for one price and then two weeks later, all
etchings have been cut out and placed in archival quality sleeves and
these are being sold individually. And they are selling well. More
people will enjoy them for longer. The value for all the etchings
will be five to ten times what they couldn't get for the book...the
market works that way.
I have photographically copied etchings, one about 8" high and
made a photoprint of that to mat and hang. From proper viewing
distance, it looks like a drawing rather than etching. The photo was
14" high.
I later needed a good copy of just an inch section and I
needed it 12" high. I got it done at a copy place and they used a
rather standard Xerox copy machine and it was perfect...and it should
be, shouldn't it?
The etching is just black and white and that is all the copy
machine produced.
So the question always goes back to the purpose of the
product. How far away will it be viewed? If farely close and there
is a pretty good amount of enlargement, consider film. If the viewing
distance will be near the apparent distance as when viewing the book,
use a Xerox type copier and you will lose nothing.
My large copy of the etching section is great at 50'; up
close, there are 1/4" gaps between some of the black lines.
There! I hope I have made this perfectly clear. :o)
>>
>> But England (and Mexico) has the correct attitude about the
>> preservation of some of these sites. W. Kennet was excavated properly
>> and returned to near its original state. I know they can't keep the
>> grass off of it because it would erode, but considering the marl in
>> the ground and the location of W. Kennet, isn't it great to be able to
>> think how that long, long chalk mound would have shown in the sun
>> against a blue sky and yellow corn?
>> When I show some of my slides, I point out that the Neolithic
>> builders were not just pilers of stone but real architects...because
>> they used steel-reinforced concrete girders to support the roof. :o)
>
>:-)
>
>>>
>>>People are burying themselves all sorts of ways nowadays. Be different!
>>
>> I didn't think of that! Wow! That is genius. But I wonder
>> who I could contract to set my body out so the flesh could decay off
>> and just my unarticulated bones be installed?
>> Geez! What a silly thing to ask! Hell, I live near New
>> Orleans. Half the population would be willing to do that for a
>> six-pack.
>
>It wasn't my first though, but it came to me when I saw your reply.
>
>Hmm, they would place (more likely dump) your body in the wilds,
>but how many would pick up the bones?
>
>> I am not. I think a simple burial cist would be too primitive
>> for here though.
>
>I'm sure you could look though your slides and find one you like.
And since I live so close to New Orleans, I am sure that there
are some of these scattered through the swamps around the town. They
have to hide the bodies somewhere.
>> As for follies, I have two slides I show the class of the
>> circle at Fishguard and one other...the name escapes me now. And these
>> are such obvious follies. I explain that there was a time when guys
>> would go through towns selling stone circle kits. (Not true, but
>> seems like it.)
>
>Hmm, not so keen on follies, a lot of them seem so false.
:o)
>> Pete, it is too easy for us to let our familiarity with place
>> and time inhibit our curiousities. I am as guilty of this as anyone,
>> but you really do live in a compacted time-warp and should enjoy it.
>
>It took me until the week I left to visit Southend pier!
>
>> Of course, I am talking about pubs with real ale. The
>> antiquities are nice, too.
>> So about midnight GMT, from Midden Manor's Windmill Free House
>> at the edge of a southern South Mississippi swamp, I will raise a pint
>> of Samuel Smith Nut Brown your direction.
>
>:-)
>
>I was actually plesently surprised in the US, good beer could be found,
>although at a price and US pints seem a bit small. One of the few things
>that is bigger in the UK!
Michael Jackson knows his beer and I agree with his assessment
of US beer. (Michael Jackson is an expert on beer and author of
several authoritative books; I am not talking about the white kid who
dangles babies and dances funny.) ;o)
Cheers -- Ken