Re: lighting portraits
Poxy
> Portrait of a cat...
> Lighting is the key to portraiture. Hi-key basically blows away the
> highlights. What is white if not the paper a photo is printed on? What
> colour is white anyway? 255.255.255 in Photoshop? A hi-key image then,
> relies on the paper it is printed on for it's effect.
You obviously have a different understanding of what high-key and low-key
means. I thought high-key meant the majority of the tones (ie. detail) in an
image were in the mid-to-upper range, whereas low-key has most of the detail
and tonal range in the mid-to-lower range. High-key does not imply blown-out
highlights.
> Low key lighting is harder to use. It is even harder to use with a
> speedlite and room lighting as the sole source of light. Some
> speedlites (Nikon, Olympus, Metz) can control exposure quite well,
> some (Like Canon's new 580) can only do it occasionally or on some
> EOS cameras. The 20D, for example does not interact well with this
> flash but the 5D does. Spot metering has a lot to do with it.
I assume by "speedlite" you mean "flash"?
> I used Olympus for this exercise. A GN30 speedlite with some styrene
> foam packaging (1mm thick) as a diffuser for this picture:
> http://www.photosbydouglas.com/cat.htm. I (spot) metered on the white
> fur, knowing it would render the room interior black enough to produce
> the effect I sought.
To me, your cat photo is high key - the detail in the shot is pretty much
all between midtones and highlights.
I'd suggest that you think about trying to add a little dimension by using
a backlight or reflector - that would avoid the "cutout" look. You might
consider a little more softening for the key light source as well.
You also need to consider your lighting ratios and the latitude of your
camera and what you are shooting against - the background of the shot has
some distracting elements.
> Other brands of (digital) cameras require Photoshop post processing to
> produce such effects. Canon 5D for example, can take this sort of
> picture relatively easily but it's (relatively) wide dynamic range is
> detrimental to the picture. You need to post process to get rid of
> detail from the shadows. I can't help but pose the question? What's
> all the noise about dynamic range? If you know the capabilities of
> your gear, it matters little, does it not?
You can always gain contrast in post-processing - both in film and digital.
You can not gain dynamic range after the image is shot. Thus is makes sense
to seek as much dynamic range as possible, particularly with digital where
contrast adjustment is so easy.
Hope this helps.
Alan Browne
> Portrait of a cat...
> Lighting is the key to portraiture. Hi-key basically blows away the
> highlights. What is white if not the paper a photo is printed on? What
> colour is white anyway? 255.255.255 in Photoshop? A hi-key image then,
> relies on the paper it is printed on for it's effect.
>
> speedlite and room lighting as the sole source of light. Some speedlites
> (Nikon, Olympus, Metz) can control exposure quite well, some (Like
> Canon's new 580) can only do it occasionally or on some EOS cameras. The
> 20D, for example does not interact well with this flash but the 5D does.
> Spot metering has a lot to do with it.
If you're using in camera metering to deliberately control lighting
ratio, you are likely going through a very hit and miss process.
High key generally means a low key to fill ratio. Low key means the
opposite.
If you've metered for a scene to have a key of f/8 and the fill is f/7.1
then it's high key. (bright, open, flat).
If you've metered the scene for f/8 and the fill is f/4 or wider, then
it is low key (moody/contrasty/textured)
And best done with a flash incident meter ... not in camera meter.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
From Douglas
mounted flash gun - called a speedlite by both Nikon and Canon. To me a
flash is a bloody big reflector with a FP flash bulb. These are true
flash guns. The little electronic gizmos you plug onto a camera are
Speedlites. I tried using a slave speedlite for back lighting but it lit
the background too much. And then of course the cat moved too which
makes things interesting.
Beth Conant has a lot of "High key" photos for sale on acclaims stock
photo site.
http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0027-0507-2206-5447.html
I presumed (rightly or wrongly) that the opposite to a high key photo
like hers is low key. Alan always seems to have a different opinion to
me on these sort of matters and we can both summons up support for our
own views. I guess under those circumstances everyone is right.
I presume from your "distracting background elements" comment you are
viewing this picture on an Apple Mac? One of the problems of trying to
display a picture on someone else's screen is the difference in Gamma
between a Mac and a PC and also the difference in brightness of various
monitors and the widely varying colour balance of video cards along with
the notion many people have that "their" colour calibrated system should
mean someone else's "colour calibrated" system will display the same on
their screen...and they don't!
Microsoft's new operating system "Vista" is supposed address these
problems which have plagued print bureau's for years, given that my
image originate from a PC in a professional print centre using a quite
expensive 2D display card and even more expensive "Graphics" monitor
which is monthly calibrated to a standard reference chart... And no
prints from my picture result in background detail showing, I used to
say it's "your" monitor at fault. As if shifting the blame from person
to person is going to alter anything. It won't. It's the imperfect
nature of the Internet.
Before getting into the idea of posting pics on the Internet, I took a
CD with some pictures of mine to Hardley Normals Computer super store
and looked at them on about 16 different PCs. The most reliable were LCD
screens on Laptops. All the rest went from good to terrible, depending
on the video card and make of monitor. I then bought one of the laptops
and came home and made some more pictures to resemble about the middle
of what I remembered.
Then I went to the now defunct Myer Mega Mart and did the same exercise.
From that I now know many people will see my pictures a lot differently
than I do. All I can say to that is; They look right on 30 PC I tried
then on. They look right on my LG notebook. They print properly on my
Epson r2400, the dye ink HP designjets (both of them) and my new 60"
wide designjet, provided I use the ICC profile for the specific printer
and media in use, when I print from Photoshop.
Which brings me the the "colour calibration" subject of using a spyder
or similar. Nearly all monitors of any worth come with their own ICC
profile. This is supposed to produce a "natural looking" - as in
original look - RGB image on the screen. Spyders, generate their own ICC
monitor profile and may actually stuff up the possibility of seeing
anything but the reference they use, the way it was intended.
I know now that a wide variety of monitors see my pictures the way I do.
I know also that of the 20 or so image files I get to enlarge every day,
only an insignificant number result in the owner saying the "print" is
off colour when in fact it is their monitor which was off.
Life goes on.
Judge my photographs,
not my pictures.
[BnH]
"From Douglas" <nothi...@the.group> wrote in message
news:ZQlwf.211608$V7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Thanks for your input Poxy. I do indeed mean Speedlite as in a camera
> mounted flash gun - called a speedlite by both Nikon and Canon.
Its Speedlight by Nikon Doug.
=bob=
From Douglas
Nikon Speedlights and Canon speedlites
My, we are off to a good start this year, arn't we?
Peter Marquis-Kyle
> Which brings me the the "colour calibration" subject of using a spyder
> or similar. Nearly all monitors of any worth come with their own ICC
> profile. This is supposed to produce a "natural looking" - as in
> original look - RGB image on the screen. Spyders, generate their own ICC
> monitor profile and may actually stuff up the possibility of seeing
> anything but the reference they use, the way it was intended.
Douglas, it sounds like you don't use any sort of hardware calibration
or profiling of your monitors -- is that right?
Peter Marquis-Kyle
google...@sensation.net.au
> The first stage of copy protection is in place on my web site. It will
> only deter honest thieves at this point but all my images are presently
> being encoded and the new server about to come on-line with my entire (30
> year) collection of stock photos will dish up only encoded images...
> Unless of course, you buy them.
Just a quickie - I don't expect you to reveal how you're going to
encode/encrypt your images, but I'll pose this question: does your
solution stop people using Print Screen? If you can view it, you can
copy-paste it. I don't think there's really any reliable solution apart
from forcing people to download a custom plugin that disables this (I
remember Microsoft's old terraserver satellite site did this... if you
copied the screen it replaced the image with copyright text)
BTW, disabling right clicking with javascript won't stop google images
from indexing it with a direct "click for full sized photo" link.
From Douglas
No Peter, that is not right. I just have many, many instances where such
devices have interfered with, rather than improved, viewing of customers
pictures.
From Douglas
click" thing is actually an applet and it will stop Google (or anyone
else) using a button for the URL of the image. Somewhere between the
privacy act and theft of copyright, Google sit. The evil we all need.
Google have a history of "falling into step" with such things so they
may decide on some "robot" text their spider recognizes to ignore some
things. It's still early days on this. Google is still evolving but
their partnership with Microsoft certainly isn't looking good for the
future of privacy and copyright.
The subject of protecting your images is as old as photography. There
are several "methods" we are about to use. No single solution currently
exists. There certainly is no protection in secrecy. My old servers
proved this.
In the past people have downloaded my postcard pictures and used Genuine
Fractals to get them back to print size. I stopped selling them this way
because of that. I also stopped my on-line camera sales when someone
devised a way to place an order with just the freight money and not the
purchase price being sent. Of course the goods never left my store but
one of the bunnies tried to take me to the fair trading dept over his
payment of $6 for postage and non arrival of the $700 camera!
It's true "print screen" will capture a surprisingly good quality
picture which if printed on a continuous tone printer, can be scanned
and interpolated up to amazingly large sizes. This is a worry.
The real concern for me is not casual theft of pictures for people's own
use - hell, I'd give 'em postcards as a public relations exercise ...but
commercial theft by Chinese poster printers who then send my work back
to AU or to Europe, selling it in the likes of Kmart, Target and ArtShed
for less than the royalty payment.
You simply cannot police this sort of thing. The solution is to either
pull out of the Internet altogether and go back to paper catalogue or
find an alternative deterrent. I've contracted the task out. If it
doesn't work, I'll go back to paper.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> does your solution stop people using Print Screen?
How about "SnagIt"?
http://www.techsmith.com/products/snagit/default.asp
If it can be viewed you can't prevent it from being
copied. And after all, imitation is the sincerest
form of flattery.
SnagIt works well, BTW. Great for documenting
screens for user manuals.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Google is still evolving but their partnership with Microsoft
> certainly isn't looking good for the future of privacy and copyright.
So much for "Do no evil." New slogan: "Straight to the Devil."
Copy protection is a mixed bag: in the making of art the third and
most important requirement is that the work is seen.
Generally that which is not copy protected is that which succeeds.
google...@sensation.net.au
> google...@sensation.net.au wrote:
> > Just a quickie - I don't expect you to reveal how you're going to
> > encode/encrypt your images, but I'll pose this question: does your
> > solution stop people using Print Screen? If you can view it, you can
> > copy-paste it. I don't think there's really any reliable solution apart
> > from forcing people to download a custom plugin that disables this (I
> > remember Microsoft's old terraserver satellite site did this... if you
> > copied the screen it replaced the image with copyright text)
> >
> > BTW, disabling right clicking with javascript won't stop google images
> > from indexing it with a direct "click for full sized photo" link.
> Google have a history of "falling into step" with such things so they
> may decide on some "robot" text their spider recognizes to ignore some
> things. It's still early days on this. Google is still evolving but
> their partnership with Microsoft certainly isn't looking good for the
> future of privacy and copyright.
Partnership with MS? I haven't heard of that one. MS is developing
their own search engine - see www.live.com
BTW, you can block google images from indexing your site via
robots.txt.
Have you considered that some people who find you via a google images
search may like the image and decide to purchase a print? :)
Peter Marquis-Kyle
> BTW, you can block google images from indexing your site via
> robots.txt.
Yes, you can, and it works. Put this in your robots.txt file:
User-agent: Googlebot-Image
Disallow: /
Peter Marquis-Kyle
From Douglas
>
>
> Partnership with MS? I haven't heard of that one. MS is developing
> their own search engine - see www.live.com
>
> BTW, you can block google images from indexing your site via
> robots.txt.
>
> Have you considered that some people who find you via a google images
> search may like the image and decide to purchase a print? :)
>
Sadly, the decision to either accept the protection of such things or
risk copyright violation - you could hardly call it theft - is a complex
issue. Robots.txt is not specific enough. It either tell 'em to bugger
off or opens the door.
Part of my security will be to ban all Chinese and Indian IP addresses.
It might not stop them but it sure as hell will slow 'em down. For a
while I got hit from Russia but I think they were looking for more
mundane things like credit card numbers.
Seeing as I only sell to English speaking people and I have no interest
in learning another language at my age, blocking countries using IP
address restrictions is not such a bad idea. I got 32,000 or so hits in
December and November. 180 actually resulted in some form of business
contact and these were all from English speaking countries.
The rest produced interesting analysis. 680 Mac or Linux, the rest
Windows. 20,000 of the hits came from foreign language countries. If
nothing else, my bandwidth needs will reduce by blocking them!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2283 for the rundown of G+M+S partnership
ch...@go.com
Why are you not allowing your posts to be archived?
>Lighting is the key to portraiture.
True.
>Hi-key (sic) basically blows away the highlights.
No. High key refers to images that are predominantly light shades.
Blown highlights do not have to be involved, and indeed the term
'blown' in this context is normally used to indicate a *problem*. High
key is a design choice. The two are not necessarily related. Here is
a very good example of blown highlights:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/gallery/nichole/slides/crystal_20a.html
It would have been a nice image but for the completely botched
exposure. High-key? Well, I guess their faces are pale, but the
background is not, and I would just call it... bad technique. This is
no isolated example - there are several others in the gallery, which is
proudly advertised on Douglas' home page.
>What is white if not the paper a photo is printed on?
Stating the obvious, paper is a reflective medium. So the most white
it can be depends on the ambient light, and the papers surface. In the
same way that a good CRT gives a certain contrast ratio, an LCD gives
less, and paper gives less again - these are all factors that a good
imager takes into account in his/her workflow.
>What colour is white anyway? 255.255.255 in Photoshop?
Those numbers tell you just two things - you should be looking at a
neutral white, and you have completely run out of headroom. If
anything other than specular highlights in your image shows these
numbers, there should be a good reason!
>A hi-key image then, relies on the paper it is printed on for it's effect.
And the ambient lighting, but what is the point of stating this?
>Low key lighting is harder to use. It is even harder to use with a
>speedlite and room lighting as the sole source of light.
I think both techniques are very hard to do well. But if you know your
equipment, the dificulty is more about finding a subject that
beneifts/deserves the treatment. In my opinion, a cat on a table is
hardly that subject.
> Some speedlites
I think we have established that Douglas means 'flashguns'..
> (Nikon, Olympus, Metz) can control exposure quite well
Indeed.
> some (Like Canon's new 580) can only do it occasionally or on some EOS cameras.
Well, there are those who claim this, but I am somewhat pre-disposed to
believe that operator incompetence may be more of a factor. Perhaps we
should ask 'All Things Mopar'? (Sorry, bad joke)
>Spot metering has a lot to do with it.
Not going to help much with flashlit subjects.. A proper flash meter,
or simple manual control would be what most competent photographers
would use.
>I used Olympus for this exercise. A GN30 speedlite with some styrene foam
>packaging (1mm thick) as a diffuser for this picture:
>http://www.photosbydouglas.com/cat.htm
I'm stunned. What on earth has *that* image got to do with high or low
key? It is neither - just a snapshot of a cat, about what I would
expect from Uncle Arthur's compact, while the cat was sitting on an
outdoor table waiting for a feed from the barbecue Arthur was hosting
that night..
>I (spot) metered on the white fur
Why?
> knowing it would render the room interior black enough to produce
>the effect I sought.
Surely he jests. Almost *any* use of a low-power flashgun at close
range in a poorly lit room will produce that classic 'ghost out of
darkness' effect, so common from cheap compact cameras used at night.
>I prefer my Olympus E300 digitals or a Mamiya MF outfit for this type of Photo.
God help anyone who would get the MF out for 'this type of Photo' -
with a capital P no less.
>these type of pictures are as easy to get out of the camera as they
>are using a film camera and transparency film.
'These type of pictures' are a bit embarrassing, IMO. And it has
little to do with high or low key.
>What's all the noise about dynamic range?
> If you know the capabilities of your gear, it matters little, does it not?
As with film (and our eyes for that matter), the dynamic range of
digital is nowhere near what exists in reality. And it is nice to
think that, for example, when you are out in sunlight, the camera may
have the best chance possible of being able to render shadow detail,
and not to blow highlights as superbly demonstrated in the 'crystal'
gallery image above.
>Notes: During last year, I discovered a few people stole pictures off my web
>site, posted them to other locations and used them as examples to
>demonstrate their own (usually wrong) opinion. C...@go.com being a
>leading culprit.
Yes, that was me. Douglas has a habit of pulling images as soon as
they meet with any critiques he doesn't like. I reposted two of his
images, INCLUDING copyright notice and explanation, for a couple of
weeks to make a point. He did, of course, pull the images down, so the
point was well made. The whole sad story can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/cjxmu
if anyone actually gives a hoot.
>I was surprised to read criticism of my disaster recovery work where any
>image was better than no image and at least one mouse jockey, managed to
>navigate through un-published directories into my client files to steal
>child study pictures.
I wonder if Douglas is referring to the first link in this post. That
image can be found by *anyone* going to Douglas' impressive website (O:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/
and then simply going into the proudly displayed 'Family Portraits..'
link at right. 'Unpublished directories'? 'Client files'? 'Stolen'?
Very amusing.
>Given the public nature of the Internet, I should
>have expected this.
Yep. You posted the drivel...
>I should have expected people like the king of mediocrity
>would seek out that trait in others.
I invite others to check the entire 'photosbydouglas' site and judge
who is the 'king' for themselves.. Oh, and if anyone asks, I would be
quite happy to rummage around and post a few 'real' high-key and
low-key images. I'll accept the audience verdict if required.. (O:
>These poeple with too much time, too little ability and too few ethics,
>were behaving badly.
No, actually, I don't think they were. And none of them hid behind
multiple identities - I see you are at it again, 'Henretta'...
>I reacted to them just as badly which only draged me down to their level.
>They probably got their jollies off from it all. They will be disappointed this year.
>My kill file will accommodate them all.
>The first stage of copy protection is in place on my web site. It will
>only deter honest thieves at this point
Douglas, you just don't get it. If you are displaying on the web,
forget about copy-protection. Accept the fact that people will 'steal'
those incredibly valuable ~600x400 pixel images of yours, blow them up
to posters and sell them for a small fortune. But people will
eventually notice they originated from you, your fame will spread, and
they'll be queuing up in their droves for the real thing.... (grin)
>but all my images are presently being encoded and the new server about
>to come on-line with my entire (30 year) collection of stock photos
We've been waiting for several years, with similar excuses all the
time, but he never quite seems to get there..
>If you would like a copy of the cat image to "play" with, don't try to
>steal it, just send me an Email from a *real* E-mail address and I'll
>post you a copy. Be nice and I'll respond nicely, OK?
I'll bet he was drowned in offers.. (O:
google...@sensation.net.au
> Part of my security will be to ban all Chinese and Indian IP addresses.
I personally don't think this is a good solution. If you have to do it
that way, make sure that your list is as accurate as possible, and is
regularly updated. There are plenty of Australian IPs that are
considered "Asian" by a fair few sites on the net. For example, some
people just blanket block 202/203/210/211/212.x.x.x. Pity there's a
fair bit of AU and NZ in there!
> The rest produced interesting analysis. 680 Mac or Linux, the rest
> Windows. 20,000 of the hits came from foreign language countries. If
> nothing else, my bandwidth needs will reduce by blocking them!
Bandwidth is cheap these days, I pay less than $US100 per month for a
dedicated server with 1200Gb (1.2Tb) of transfer included. Maybe you
need to change hosts. :)
Lionel
>Which brings me the the "colour calibration" subject of using a spyder
>or similar. Nearly all monitors of any worth come with their own ICC
>profile. This is supposed to produce a "natural looking" - as in
>original look - RGB image on the screen. Spyders, generate their own ICC
>monitor profile and may actually stuff up the possibility of seeing
>anything but the reference they use, the way it was intended.
Um, no, that's incorrect.
The ICC profile you get with your monitor is just a reference profile
that has only a vague relationship with the characteristics of *your*
actual monitor.
And even if the supplied profile was actually created specifically from
your monitor at the factory, it still wouldn't be useful for long,
because the response curves of the monitor change vary with the ambient
temperature, as well as drifting as the components & tube (if a CRT)
age, & even according to how long it's been turned on. (Which is why you
shouldn't do anything colour-critical until the monitor's been powered
up for an hour.)
A calibration device measures the *actual* response of your monitor for
that time, on that particular day, & will, if used correctly, generate a
profile that's dramatically more accurate than the canned ICC file that
you got on your driver disk. Correct colour calibration is difficult to
do, & easy to screw up, so it's vitally important to follow every step
in the manual. (Although that's more easily said than done if it's as
bad as the one that I got with my Spyder, which didn't even hint at what
colour temperatures are appropriate for typical purposes (6500K/G65 for
most photography), buried the Gamma stuff (2.2 for Windows) in a
Mac-specific appendix, & was very poorly written in general.)
>I know now that a wide variety of monitors see my pictures the way I do.
>I know also that of the 20 or so image files I get to enlarge every day,
>only an insignificant number result in the owner saying the "print" is
>off colour when in fact it is their monitor which was off.
Most people can't tell the difference at the best of times. Just look at
a few pub or domestic TVs to see what the average punter considers a
'good' saturation setting.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
ch...@go.com
>Maybe even Ben Kopilow:
>http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0024-0406-2401-5203.html
>might be a softer target for your jibes about highlights?
The second image isn't loading for me. So that is just one example,
and it is irrelevant, because you said this:
"Hi-key basically blows away the highlights"
That is simply *wrong* and *misleading*. High key means light/pastel
tones, that is all.
Nobody argues that high key *can* involve burnt highlights. Just as
travelling across the water *can* involve a sailboat. You don't
*need* a sailboat to travel across water though, and travelling across
water is not *basically* about sailboats..You don't *need* burnt
highlights to produce high-key images, and producing high-key images is
definitely not *basically* about blowing highlights.. Get it?
To illustrate, how about this one, Douglas:
http://www.carlcoxphoto.com/family03.htm
See many burnt highlights there? That, to me, is an excellent example
of a true high-key shot that has effectively no blown highlights. Yes,
the background wall is at the limit, but there is no meaningful detail
and it is *meant* to be white, so that hardly classifies as blown.
Everything else in that image, even though close to pure white, shows
detail.
Compare that image to your blown out disaster of the two girls, Douglas
- you know, the one you have PULLED, again. (You do an awful lot of
running around to hide your disasters...) Or maybe compare it to the
one of the cat:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/cat.htm
..although I am still trying to fathom what the heck *that* was
supposed to show..
(O:
ch...@go.com
high-key work here:
http://www.rangefindermag.com/Magazine/Archives/May01/unravel.tml
Note the pictures. Barely a trace of a blown highlight to be seen..
And try here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml
Note the last image, histogram and comments...
(O:
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Just as travelling across the water *can* involve a sailboat. You don't
> *need* a sailboat to travel across water though, and travelling across
> water is not *basically* about sailboats
Does, do & is.
"There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing
as mucking about in boats." - Ratty
"The Wind in the Willows"
Kenneth Grahame
ch...@go.com
Sigh. OK, Nicholas. Just for you, please replace the word 'sailboat',
with '200,000 tonne oil-tanker'.
Do you now get the drift of my poor attempt at analogy?
(O:
Nicholas O. Lindan
Sailing even further off topic --
> Do you now get the drift of my poor attempt at analogy?
So my poor attempt that one man's "does" is another man's
"doesn't" doesn't apply?
Stop being so bloody serious Chrlz, it's too early in the
morning for it.
Matt Clara
news:Xns974950D9E7...@61.9.191.5...
>
> This post is © copyright D. MacDonald 2006.
> It may not be reproduced or stored without express written
> permission from the author.
>
Good lord, but you're ridiculous. I saved a copy of your post to my
computer, btw. I think I might post it on my website, too. And whenever
someone replies to your message including your original text, without the
x=archive:no (or whatever), then that post will be archived on Google
Groups. I'd like to see you sue Google.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
no_name
> <ch...@go.com> wrote in message
>
>>Just as travelling across the water *can* involve a sailboat. You don't
>>*need* a sailboat to travel across water though, and travelling across
>>water is not *basically* about sailboats
>
>
> Does, do & is.
>
> "There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing
> as mucking about in boats." - Ratty
>
> "The Wind in the Willows"
> Kenneth Grahame
>
"Like standing in a cold shower tearing up $100 bills."
Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt ...
... in response to a reporter's question about what it felt like to own
a yatch.
William Graham
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote in message
news:fBrxf.6478$ZA2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> <ch...@go.com> wrote in message
>> Just as travelling across the water *can* involve a sailboat. You don't
>> *need* a sailboat to travel across water though, and travelling across
>> water is not *basically* about sailboats
>
> Does, do & is.
>
> "There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing
> as mucking about in boats." - Ratty
>
> "The Wind in the Willows"
> Kenneth Grahame
Or, you can just sit in a bathtub filled with ice cubes and burn $100
bills..........
William Graham
"Matt Clara" <no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote in message
news:mstxf.8838$Es3....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
"Notice: The above position is not that of the CIA, or of any other US
Government agency.....:^)
Matt Clara
news:8bednQ4Ct4x...@comcast.com...
Depends on the boat--I've a 1948 Grumman 18 foot aluminum canoe that doesn't
cost me a dime.
Peter Chant
>> This post is © copyright D. MacDonald 2006.
>> It may not be reproduced or stored without express written
>> permission from the author.
>>
>
> Good lord, but you're ridiculous. I saved a copy of your post to my
> computer, btw. I think I might post it on my website, too. And whenever
> someone replies to your message including your original text, without the
> x=archive:no (or whatever), then that post will be archived on Google
> Groups. I'd like to see you sue Google.
>
Obviously he did not give permission to the admin of my news server as I did
not see a copy of the original post!