A perfectionist in search of the truth egad
Dicky
I started my professional life, many,many years ago working as a
photographer, and chose to specialised in both portraiture and landscape
(large format B&W...is there any other way?).
After a few years, a considerable lack of talent plud the loss of my own
darkroom, forced me to make what is known to those of us in the trade as, "
a lifestyle change", so I switched over to what we in the trade also refer
to as "the print" or to be more precise, the pre-press component of... "the
print".
Here I found my true metre i.e. technical reproduction of other peoples
photographs (and not just B&W let me tell you). Years of triumphant progress
followed until then day came when I was finally persuaded that I was too old
for the life and found myself....as we additionally say in the trade "put
out to grass".
Having retrained into a logically associated new industry, I now work part
time as what we in the trade usually refer to, in an amusing way, as "A
Fitness professional" where I spend many happy but sometimes boring hours
assisting some of those who are many years younger than myself in their
sometimes vain attempt to reach my own exalted level of physical
conditioning.
"What has that to do with this here news thread?" I hear you ask, and
rightly so if you ask me, which you probably have not, but anyway........
During the course of my graphic reproduction years I was known as something
of a "know all", which I was, and again rightly so if you ask me
which.........
....although having "retired???" qracelessly in 1997, I retained a keen
intrest in current image production technology and it is at this point in my
rather excellent disposition that I will, as they say in the trade,
"cut-to-the-quick".
I have recently had a little cash windfall which enabled me to re-position
my disposable income level a pitch or two higher than I was expecting and as
a result of this "manner from heaven" event I have decided to uprate my PC,
and further to develop it's facilities in such a way as to bring about a
situation which, if fully exploited, investment wise, and completely
developed, know-how wise, will enable yours truly to resume his interupted
personal development "Panoramic Landscape Photography" wise and re-take his
rightful place on the creative high ground of photographic excellence.
Amen to all the above say I.
I now find myself with 256Mb of R.A.M being friven by 500Mhz of intel
excellence with both components seeking out data from a 30Mb hard accessing
this data within 0.9ns while all the while my drive is rotating at
7,500rpm....eureka!!!!
In addition I have purchased , after exaustive market research spread over a
period of many days, both an Epson Perfection 1200 Flat bed Scanner with
transparancy attachment, as well as an Epson Stylus Photo 870 ink jet colour
printer.
In my considerable opinion the stage is now set for the final and most
triumphal stage of my own personal photographic self-development plan,
namely the selection of a digital camera.
I am looking for the following facilities....
1: Panorama
2: Zoom
3: 3.2 mega pixel or...
4: 1,800X1,200 approx pixel area.
Now for the one million pound question.....
Can anyone on here assist me in my search for the ultimate digital
photographic experience.
Richard Corbett esq and likely to become photographer to the trade itself.
iane...@my-deja.com
explanation taken as read and duly snipped.
Goodness me. You seem to be "in the trade" rather a lot. I regularly
dip into the published diaries of Kenneth Williams. He makes repeated
reference to "trade" within those pages but I assume his and yours
trade differ.
As to your technical questions, I regret I am unable to help you as I
am not in the trade. I am afraid that I rather an ignoramus in these
matters. I have only just managed, after six months of owning the
software, to grasp the basic principles of Adobe Photoshop this past
weekend. So I'm afraid my reply is rather a waste of bandwith (is this
the correct technical term?).
Yours tradingly with regards
Ian.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dicky
<iane...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8pldb7$fp2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <5gqv5.10$3a....@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> "Dicky" <corb...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> > ...allow me to explain my situation....
>
> explanation taken as read and duly snipped.
>
> Goodness me. You seem to be "in the trade" rather a lot. I regularly
> dip into the published diaries of Kenneth Williams. He makes repeated
> reference to "trade" within those pages but I assume his and yours
> trade differ.
>
> As to your technical questions, I regret I am unable to help you as I
> am not in the trade. I am afraid that I rather an ignoramus in these
> matters. I have only just managed, after six months of owning the
> software, to grasp the basic principles of Adobe Photoshop this past
> weekend. So I'm afraid my reply is rather a waste of bandwith (is this
> the correct technical term?).
I find myself forced to ask you the following question.....
Was you answer really necessary....
Richard Corbett
iane...@my-deja.com
I found it necessary. Was it useful? No. But I acknowledged its
uselessness myself.
Osman
"Dicky" wrote
> I find myself forced to ask you the following question.....
> Was you answer really necessary....
I think it was a juxtaposition which complimented the first 99 per
cent of your post...
--
Graham
Gordon Harris
<r...@gseed.freeserve.co.uk> writes
Yes, Dickie, you have a fast enough processor and more than enough RAM
to run the latest games software, including Flight Simulator 2000,
provided that you have a good graphics card and sound card, neither of
which you specified in you brief post. I say brief advisedly, for it
failed to exceed the limit of 150 lines which would have been trapped by
my killfile.
--
Gordon
Dicky
<iane...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8pljd1$nov$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I found it necessary. Was it useful? No. But I acknowledged its
> uselessness myself.
Then why bother to post?
Richrd Corbett
Dicky
"Gordon Harris" <gor...@g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3dl68AAn...@g3snx.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8plni9$amt$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Osman
> <r...@gseed.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Dicky" wrote
> >
> >> I find myself forced to ask you the following question.....
> >> Was you answer really necessary....
> >
> >I think it was a juxtaposition which complimented the first 99 per
> >cent of your post...
> >
> But it failed to answer his question - assuming that I understood it.
>
> Yes, Dickie, you have a fast enough processor and more than enough RAM
> to run the latest games software, including Flight Simulator 2000,
> provided that you have a good graphics card and sound card, neither of
> which you specified in you brief post
Games, games, who is talking about games my man. I am talking about mega
pixell Camera's.
Richard Corbett
Dicky
"Osman" <r...@gseed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:8plni9
> I think it was a juxtaposition which complimented the first 99 per
> cent of your post...
I take it then that you are one of those who support the blockade of oil
terminals.
Richard Corbett
PJ
http://www.personal.u-net.com/~keswick/ldp.htm
Regards
PJ
Dave Newton
About Mountains. Ann uses a Canon Ixus which fits your bill perfectly and is
small enough to slip into a pocket whilst walking the fells. Cost about
£650. Take a look (for comparative purposes) at my two most recent walks
(address below) where I'm using a Kodak 290 - cost about £525 although I
struck lucky and paid only £470. If you look at my earlier pages, up to and
including 'August 2000', you'll see a bundle taken with a Kodak 240 which
you can now pick up for £325'ish but it may not come up to your spec being
only 1.3mp. You pays your money etc... Depends what you want it for...
--
Dave Newton in Sunny Bolton
(to reply by e-mail remove 'NOSPAM' from address
http://www.btinternet.com/~davenewton
"PJ" <h.mac...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:YUuv5.12225$8r4.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
lomax
Chris Townsend
>
>I am looking for the following facilities....
>
>1: Panorama
>2: Zoom
>3: 3.2 mega pixel or...
>4: 1,800X1,200 approx pixel area.
>
>Now for the one million pound question.....
>
>Can anyone on here assist me in my search for the ultimate digital
>photographic experience.
After a fashion, maybe!
Why do you want a digital camera? This may be a silly question but if
it's for prints, as your listing of a printer suggests, then you'll get
better results from normal film. (For slides, by the way, a film scanner
is far better than an add-on to a flatbed. I considered the latter but
the quality wasn't good enough).
If it's for the Internet then you don't need 3.2 million pixels. I used
a Ricoh 2.3 million pixel camera in Arizona earlier this year. You can
see some of the results at http://www.bluedome.co.uk/arizonatrail/index.
html
I also carried an SLR (Canon EOS 300) for slides and a compact (Ricoh
GR1s) for prints. The results from these look as good as the digital
pictures on a PC screen and far better when printed.
Digital cameras that have been getting good reviews recently are the 6
million pixel Kodak/Canon Pro Digital SLR and the 6 million pixel
Kodak/Nikon Pro Digitial SLR. These are said to get better results than
scanned film. Unfortunately these cameras cost 8,000 UKP +.
Much cheaper (around 2,000 UKP) is the 6 million pixel Fuji FinePix S1
Pro. The one review of this I have seen was very positive.
When 6 million pixel digital cameras become affordable I'll probably get
one. By then I'll probably have to for book and magazine one. For now
though I'm sticking with my film cameras.
- -
Chris Townsend
http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk
http://www.redstart.net/Chris_Townsend/index.html
http://www.bluedome.co.uk/arizonatrail/index.html
Osman
"Dicky" <corb...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rLuv5.34$3a....@news.dircon.co.uk...
Ciggy tax is good so lets up that (and of course stick a message on
the pack telling you how bad fags are for you) Alcohol's a bit of a
dark horse, so we'll tax that, and........fuel, based on the fact that
it's bad for the environment to use too much of it. Do we use any
less? No. The first government that isn't so cynical gets my full
support. No danger of having to do that then.
BTW, totally off topic, but my Personal Computer World mag (Jun 2000)
says that the Canon Powershot S20 just pips the Fujifilm FinePix 4700
Zoom.
--
Graham
alan.hughes3
Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OQQ2KbA+...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
> When 6 million pixel digital cameras become affordable I'll probably get
> one. By then I'll probably have to for book and magazine one. For now
> though I'm sticking with my film cameras.
'Amateur Photographer' magazine said a while ago that 6 million pixels is
the same quality as today's films. In a few year's time, when prices drop, I
can see no reason to use film any more. Until then . . . .
--
Regards
Alan Hughes
Cardiff
Mike Coverdale
There are a few 1600x800 pics at:-
www.westhead.u-net.com/causey.htm
that I took with a Casio QV2000 earlier
this year.
--
Mike Coverdale, G4LTI
email: mi...@westhead.net
www.wyndham-holiday-park.co.uk
iane...@my-deja.com
above.
zeus
> is the same quality as today's films.
photoshop files onto film and we get the best results from 18 meg files.
They are probably only referring to 35mm the quality of larger film
formats
is out of the reach of portable digital cameras, if I recall correctly
a 6x7 tran is 5 or six times the size of 35mm.
I have had a play with a nikon D1 and an A3 inkjet print fooled most
people
who thought it was a photograph. Some slight pixelation in very fine
sloping
lines ie hair, but you had to look closely.
Mark
Simon Caldwell
wrote:
If necessity were a condition of posting, this would be a very quiet
group ;-)
S.
--
FOR YOUR NEAREST PETROL SUPPLY:
http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk/list-of-petrol-stations
--
People seem to think there is something inherently noble and virtuous in the desire to go for a walk
- Max Beerbohm
Chris Boughay
>FOR YOUR NEAREST PETROL SUPPLY:
>http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk/list-of-petrol-stations
Thanks for useful (useless) info... smart arse :-)
Chris
--
http://www.wildsnowdonia.co.uk - Snowdonia & Its Mountains & urw
Expeditions
http://members.aol.com/chrisbough/scotland.htm - Lochaber & Glen Coe
zeus
I used do have one of their imaginators
> or it did 5 years ago when I
> tried to obtain a UK agency agreement.
Substantiallly less now I would guess
> A same-size image takes up to 40mb and can easily blow up to A3 image
> size.
A repro A3 scan would be 50meg (cmyk) so I guess 40 meg RGB would do.
Mind you, you can get 140 megs scan from a 6x7 then feed it thro
my 60 inch inkjet.... lovely
> The snag of course is that it, at least then, used RGB filters to
> expose a true trichromatic image
Does this mean is exposes first the red then the green and then the blue
ie long exposures and trick flash?
Mark
zeus
Mark
------------------------------------
Breakthrough chip in digital photos
------------------------------------
Digital photography promises to get better and cheaper with a
breakthrough chip expected to be on the market within a year.
Foveon, a US-based company, announced Monday an image-sensing
chip that
is capable of producing photos of extremely high resolution
at a
fraction of today's costs. The chip, company officials said,
can capture
digital images with a resolution of 4,096 by 4,096 pixels -
about twice
the resolution of 35mm film, and eight times as much as a
typical
consumer digital camera.
''This shows that very, very quickly, we're going to blow
past the
benchmarks of quality that consumers have internalised with
35mm
cameras,'' said Alexis Gerard, president of Future Image, a
digital-
imaging research consulting firm.
''Right now, people are buying digital cameras as an adjunct;
when they
care about quality, they use film cameras,'' Mr Mead said.
''And we're
here to change that.''
Source:
http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2569665598-9
94 - Infobeat / AP
The Reids
>'Amateur Photographer' magazine said a while ago that 6 million pixels is
>the same quality as today's films. In a few year's time, when prices drop, I
>can see no reason to use film any more. Until then . . . .
Indeed, from the life history in the post (ah, so it was useful ) you
have conventional cameras. So why not just get a slide scanner (if you
have slides) and wait until digital is fully competitive?
--
Mike Reid
My efforts at landscape photographs at:-
"http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/pict052.htm"
Dicky
"zeus" <ze...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> They are probably only referring to 35mm the quality of larger film
> formats
> is out of the reach of portable digital cameras, if I recall correctly
> a 6x7 tran is 5 or six times the size of 35mm.
Tarry awhilw at the Dicomed site wherein you will find a professional back
of around th size you would expect a professional mail order catalogue
photographer to use.
This back sells at around £28,000.000 sterling, or it did 5 years ago when I
tried to obtain a UK agency agreement.
A same-size image takes up to 40mb and can easily blow up to A3 image size.
The snag of course is that it, at least then, used RGB filters to expose a
true trichromatic image and used a Mac with Photoshop in order to generate
four colour images.
It also had an exposure lattitude 0f +_ 2 stops.
However when used with either a Hasleblad or 5X4 studio stand camera mucho
flexability, creative wise, was available to the end user.
Richard 'Fox' Corbett
Dicky
> Dicomed, blimey are they still around..
> I used do have one of their imaginators
That was the prime product about 8-10 years ago but they then signed up a
small outfit who had developed an ultra high-res CCD array, put in the
development funding and obtained the rights to exclusive distribution of
this device for 5 years. That time must be coming to an end by now and if
the big sellers into the mass markets get hold of the technology then the
photographic do-it-yourself industry will really start to move.
> Mind you, you can get 140 megs scan from a 6x7 then feed it thro
> my 60 inch inkjet.... lovely
A mere trifle, file wise, if I might say so. Quantel's graphic paintbox
works on 300mb images taken from a modified drum scanner.
> Does this mean is exposes first the red then the green and then the blue
> ie long exposures and trick flash?
Still life studio work including rather pricy oil paintings although I have
seen landscape work produced but the kit in those days was rather bulky
because the camera back had a dirty great cable leading into a substantial
box that contained a large HD and a battery.
Richard Corbett
The Reids
>Simon (funny bugger) wrote:
>
>>FOR YOUR NEAREST PETROL SUPPLY:
>>http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk/list-of-petrol-stations
>
>Thanks for useful (useless) info... smart arse :-)
>
>Chris
I was tempted to look but suspected it is a blank page or similar?
--
Mike Reid
Looking north-west towards the Ben & the Houses of Parliament,
Hill shareware, quiz, books at "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
iane...@my-deja.com
gilla...@mcmail.com wrote:
> Following up to Chris Boughay :
>
> >Simon (funny bugger) wrote:
> >
> >>FOR YOUR NEAREST PETROL SUPPLY:
> >>http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk/list-of-petrol-stations
> >
> >Thanks for useful (useless) info... smart arse :-)
>
> --
that has petrol available. I found it invaluable and have forwarded it
to many friends. Just as useful as that www.petrolbusters.com. Thanks
Simon.
Dicky
> After a fashion, maybe!
>
> Why do you want a digital camera? This may be a silly question but if
> it's for prints, as your listing of a printer suggests, then you'll get
> better results from normal film. (For slides, by the way, a film scanner
> is far better than an add-on to a flatbed. I considered the latter but
> the quality wasn't good enough).
>
> If it's for the Internet then you don't need 3.2 million pixels. I used
> a Ricoh 2.3 million pixel camera in Arizona earlier this year. You can
> see some of the results at http://www.bluedome.co.uk/arizonatrail/index.
> html
>
> I also carried an SLR (Canon EOS 300) for slides and a compact (Ricoh
> GR1s) for prints. The results from these look as good as the digital
> pictures on a PC screen and far better when printed.
>
> Digital cameras that have been getting good reviews recently are the 6
> million pixel Kodak/Canon Pro Digital SLR and the 6 million pixel
> Kodak/Nikon Pro Digitial SLR. These are said to get better results than
> scanned film. Unfortunately these cameras cost 8,000 UKP +.
>
> Much cheaper (around 2,000 UKP) is the 6 million pixel Fuji FinePix S1
> Pro. The one review of this I have seen was very positive.
>
> When 6 million pixel digital cameras become affordable I'll probably get
> one. By then I'll probably have to for book and magazine one. For now
> though I'm sticking with my film cameras.
Allow me to begin my reply by indicating that I am your humble and obedient
servant, in all things and right from the start too.
Your copy is too valuable to edit, so I include the whole of your mighty
prose as a prelude to my own humble efforts.
Firstly let me thank you for taking up so much of your valuable time in
order to administer "the word" to this entirely undeserving minion.
Further I would like to take this oportunity to thank you on behalf of the
entire membership of this news group for all those extremely useful, as well
as valuable, TGO articles that have so nimbly slipped frpm your powerful
intellect onto the printed page. We of this news group, and indeed the whole
of the walking world, are indebted to you for those many terrific years
worth (and I do believe that you are no longer a young man) of valuable
advice enscribed within some of the most beautifully scripted prose that is
has ever been my pleasure to read.
Please excuse the somewhat intimate and perhaps over familiar nature of this
email but really I am simple bursting with pride at the thought that someone
of your calibre would even remotely consider it worth your time, and to take
time out, to communicate directly to me (especially considering that for you
the march of time must have taken it's toll by now and that once youthful
bloom on your cheeks must have been replaced by something far less
attractive).
Therefore it must surely be thank you, thank you, thank you time, from yours
truly.
Now down to the nitty gritty.
Having pondered, cogitated and considered long and hard on your timely and
highly appropiate advise, I have decided to have a good look at the Epson
850Z 2,1 megapixel digital camera.
While, as you so rightly proclaimed, the two 6 mega pixel Kodak jobs are
really what a man with my standards would normally be expected to go for, I
will admit, on a "for your eyes only" basis, that the matter of "coin" has
raised it's ugly vissage not to mention the equally ugly vissage of an angry
wife.
Thus it is, as I am sure you would agree, the issue of both needs and wants,
not to mention the course of history, get circumnavigated by that lack of
available support both financial and emotional, that all true artists needs
must accept as the great limiter of both talent and means of expression of
same.
The 850Z is no longer being manufactured so the "men of commerce" are
currently rapidly de-stocking via the process of offering a substantial
discount.
There we are then, I have rightly paid my homage to your munificent
iconship as well as explined my likely areas of decion making, and so all
that remains is for me to firstly, and once again thank you most humbly and
from the bottom of my heart for you over kind consideration of my not
insignificent problems.
Secondly I would like to thamk you personally for allowing me into your life
and letting me unburden myself to you, problems wise.
Finally I would like, with all due defference, to make the tineist
suggestion of my own and one that you might finh helpful in all your future
dealings with the TGO management who are, or so I have been informed, all
exceptioally youthful.
Consider well your facial complexion, we live in an age where youth rules
supreme and the "wrinkly" is on a one way ticket to nowhere.
I remain obediently yours
Richard Corbett
The Reids
>Nope. Not blank. Just a helpful tool to inform you of a garage near you
>that has petrol available. I found it invaluable and have forwarded it
>to many friends. Just as useful as that www.petrolbusters.com. Thanks
>Simon.
Hmmm, in that case I shall have a look. Still not convinced i'm not
being wound up. BTW Just heard about http://metronetworks.co.uk" for
London
Paul Saunders
> > Mind you, you can get 140 megs scan from a 6x7 then feed it thro
> > my 60 inch inkjet.... lovely
>
> A mere trifle, file wise, if I might say so. Quantel's graphic
paintbox
> works on 300mb images taken from a modified drum scanner.
This is no trifle on a PC with a mere 256meg. Photoshop (which you
will be using if you are indeed serious about this venture) has a huge
memory overhead. Back in my 28meg of RAM days I remember working on
10meg pics and the swap file reached 70meg.
More recently the largest image I've worked on was about 130meg and
this consumed a vast 650meg of memory. With currently only 64meg of
RAM in my computer it almost ground to a halt as the hard drive tried
to cope with the overhead. Even 256meg of RAM would not be enough to
satisfy Photoshop when working on images of that size.
As you've already been advised, if quality is paramount then you
should forget digital, unless you have a small fortune conveniently
stashed away. Your best results, quality wise, on a minumum budget
would come from the following;
1) A reliable second-hand SLR purchased from a reputable source (such
as Jessops), costing maybe £100-200.
2) A good wide-angle lens, preferably 24mm. Again s/h would be your
best bet (Jessops will not purchase for resale any lens that has an
optical defect of any kind). Cost perhaps £60-120? Wider lenses are
available, e.g. 21mm or 17mm, but cheap ones tend to be below par
optically, suffering from distortion and vignetting. Good ones are
rather pricey. Having said that, the flaws in a cheap ultra-wide lens
can be corrected digitally, but this of course takes time and effort.
3) A proper film scanner. The best model (in terms of value and
quality) available is the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual (or whatever the
current model is called). Mine cost £350 (without SCSI card) and in
tests was reported to outperform the Canon and Nikon models costing
twice the price.
For serious graphics work a good graphics card (with at least 4meg of
RAM, preferably 8meg) and a decent sized monitor (at least 17") are
highly desirable.
To create panoramic images you have two options;
1) Use the wide-angle lens then simply trim the top and bottom off
the photograph to create a long thin image. This creates the
impression of a panorama, but strictly speaking it isn't. (For this
reason, do not be seduced by the name "panoramic" on many digital and
compact cameras, they simply use the trick above.)
2) For a proper panorama (short of buying a "real" panoramic camera,
which would be very expensive) the process is to take a series of
images and join them together in the computer later. The best
software available for doing this is Panavue's Image Assembler, demo
available from their website. This is a remarkably clever piece of
software which compensates for the distortion inherent in most lenses
by "uncurving" the images before joining them together. There are a
variety of settings which you can use to fine-tune the joining
process.
In order to create the best panoramas it's necessary to use a tripod.
If possible, use a spirit level to ensure that the tripod is level
throughout the entire panning range. Some tripods (video tripods)
have spirit levels built into to the tripod head (this is what I use).
When taking the images, the horizon should be in the centre of the
photograph (normal compositional rules do not apply here, it's
necessary to keep the camera level in order for the lens "uncurving"
to work correctly. An overlap of 10-15% between each image should be
applied so that they have enough room to blend properly.
The exposure should be exactly the same for every image. Do not use
automatic exposure, set it manually. The resulting images should be
scanned direct from the slides or negatives, also using manual
exposure. Do not scan from prints since these have their exposures
adjusted automatically during printing, and therefore won't blend
properly.
One problem with panoramas is that the resulting image tends to be
very narrow. To partially remedy this, tilt the camera onto it's side
and take each image in portrait format. This will require more shots
but the resultant panorama will benefit from a greater thickness.
With my 24mm lens in portrait format, with a reasonable overlap, I can
take a 360 degree panorama in 12 shots. Using this technique I can
take three 360 degree panoramas with one roll of film.
Hope you find this information useful.
--
Paul Saunders
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
uk.rec.walkers
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/urw/urw.html
Katherine Rotherham
Even I found it invaluable.
Katherine
Chris Townsend
<corb...@dircon.co.uk> writes
Er, how old do you think I am?
P.S. Are you applying for the Challenge next year?
- -
Chris Townsend
Mountain & Wilderness Writing & Photography.
The Reids
>Even I found it invaluable.
I take it all back, more use than the broadcasts on GLR radio:-
Urban twit "well, you dont really need petrol if you live in London do
you, I mean, just cycle or walk and make our city a more wonderful
place, I cant understand why Londoners have cars at all"
Irate caller "i'm supposed to be getting married in Norfolk on
Saturday"
Urban twit "errr...."
--
Mike Reid
South of the border down Bexley way
shareware & books at "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
Simon Caldwell
wrote:
>Following up to Katherine Rotherham :
>
>>Even I found it invaluable.
>
>I take it all back, more use than the broadcasts on GLR radio:-
>
Glad to be of service :-)
S.
--
FOR YOUR NEAREST PETROL SUPPLY:
http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk/list-of-petrol-stations
--
Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you.
Osman
"Simon Caldwell" wrote in message
> Glad to be of service :-)
>
> S.
>
>
> --
> FOR YOUR NEAREST PETROL SUPPLY:
> http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk/list-of-petrol-stations
> --
I bet you're getting lots of hits! <looks for boxing gloves....>
G
Dicky
> Er, how old do you think I am?
What you might consider asking is "have the years treated me well?"
To which I would answer "undoubtedly so", but have care and remember to
beware of Geeks bearing gifts.....as they say.
> P.S. Are you applying for the Challenge next year?
> http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk
Now that's a tricky one in truth because I had intended to attempt the
Southern Upland Way "but" the call of the old highlands may yet prove too
strong for little old me with a penchant for doing things foolish on an
almost continuous, and never ending, basis.
Anyway I am also quite frightened of Roger Smith, not to mention the lovely
Barbra of whom Shakesphere may well have said "...and age shall not wither
her infinite lovliness".....
I shall decide by October end.
Richard Corbett
Chris Townsend
<corb...@dircon.co.uk> writes
>> Er, how old do you think I am?
>
>What you might consider asking is "have the years treated me well?"
Good point. So far I think the answer is yes though I would argue that
in part the years have treated me well because I have treated myself
well with plenty of exercise and what I hope is a reasonable healthy
diet. I am told that still having a thick dark head of hair is greatly
to my advantage. I am also told that I looked much older than I was 20
years ago due to my weather-beaten face but that I've now caught up so
to speak!
>To which I would answer "undoubtedly so", but have care and remember to
>beware of Geeks bearing gifts.....as they say.
Indeed.
>
>> P.S. Are you applying for the Challenge next year?
>> http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk
>
>Now that's a tricky one in truth because I had intended to attempt the
>Southern Upland Way "but" the call of the old highlands may yet prove too
>strong for little old me with a penchant for doing things foolish on an
>almost continuous, and never ending, basis.
I am in the same position. Having not done a Challenge for 7 years (due
to ski touring work rather than any desire not to) I really enjoyed this
years even though I didn't set off until the Monday and missed the best
weather and most of the other Challengers. There are other things I
would like to do in the spring but the Challenge is calling....
>
>Anyway I am also quite frightened of Roger Smith, not to mention the lovely
>Barbra of whom Shakesphere may well have said "...and age shall not wither
>her infinite lovliness".....
I think I'm more frightened of Barbara than Roger! Mind you, both of
them welcomed me back then berated me for not being there for so many
years. And as Roger said now that I've done eight....
>
>I shall decide by October end.
As shall I.