Which camera for nude photography?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I find that what works best is a small light camera with auto focus and
romote trigger....then you scoot it along the ground until its in position
and fire away! Its best to get one with low light abilities as using a flash
can lead to problems.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Neil Ellwood wrote:

> Don't forget the dirty mac and dark glasses.

Why would someone need an Apple Computer, much less a dirty one?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:18:04 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
> <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >I find that what works best is a small light camera with auto focus and
> >romote trigger....then you scoot it along the ground until its in position
> >and fire away! Its best to get one with low light abilities as using a flash
> >can lead to problems.
>
>
> Yes, unless the nude shot is for biblical porn and you need a
> burning bush.


sorry, i'm a bit confused. are you talking about president bush
visiting new orleans or is this something entirely different?

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I hate nude photography - too damn drafty.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:vAGVe.13444$p%3.57659@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Neil Ellwood wrote:
>
> > Don't forget the dirty mac and dark glasses.
>
> Why would someone need an Apple Computer, much less a dirty one?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:18:04 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
<palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

>I find that what works best is a small light camera with auto focus and
>romote trigger....then you scoot it along the ground until its in position
>and fire away! Its best to get one with low light abilities as using a flash
>can lead to problems.


Yes, unless the nude shot is for biblical porn and you need a
burning bush.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Plonker" <h@ha.ha> wrote:

>Which camera for nude photography?

I find that I take better pictures with my clothes on!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Edstrom wrote:
> "Plonker" <h@ha.ha> wrote:
>
>> Which camera for nude photography?
>
> I find that I take better pictures with my clothes on!

Seems to me, uni-gender speaking, a nude photographer should be
mindful of sharp edges and possible pinchings. Not to mention the
items that oveheat with continuous use...

 

[MarkH]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Plonker" <h@ha.ha> wrote in news:42f0dcf6$0$11062$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:

> I really need something that will impress the girls.

Lots of money, girls like the bling bling.

Get a Canon 1Ds MkII + Canon 85 f1.2L lens and some big studio lights.

Have the girls picked up by limo and brought around to your studio. The
studio should be large, expensive and in the good area of town. Have
Champaign and strawberries on hand in your studio (and in the limo).

Also you should dress in Amani and wear a Rolex.

The only other advice that I can think of is that when the girls are naked
and you are taking pictures, don't masturbate over the girls - they
probably would not be impressed by that.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene Palmiter wrote:
> > There's no "hate" out there for Bush.
> > More the case that the guy who's steering the ship of state
> > may no quite be up to the job. And we're a bit nervous.
> >
> >
> > <rj>
>
> The unfortunate truth is that almost everything bad you hear about Bush is
> true while the same cannot be said about Clinton. Clinton has personal
> failings that only became a public liability when the Neocons made them so.
> Bush's failings more directly effect his job and the country. Moreover;
> Clinton really seemed to want to do what was best for the most people while
> Bush is out to benefit the elite. Ones motives are important...and if your
> motive for lying cheating and stealing is to line your pockets and those of
> your friends you give up a few feet of the moral high ground.


well, i actually think bush and clinton's motives are fairly similar --
they both want to help people -- but their methods are vastly
different. e.g. clinton thinks tax cuts decrease tax revenue, whereas
bush thinks tax cuts increase tax revenue. (with the current 1/2
trillion deficits (not including the iraq war nor katrina) -- i'd say
tax cuts decrease tax revenue.)

in broad terms there are two kinds of republicans snaking around
washington. both groups agree on the talking points (e.g. tax cuts
increase tax revenue, being compassionate means not helping people,
slamming my fist into your stomach hurts me more than it hurts you,
minimum wage means maximum wage, etc.). one group knows it's bullshit
but don't give a damn because they hate the idea of paying for other
people's stupidities with their tax dollars, while the other group
truly believes the campaign slogan bullshit.

i think bush falls into the latter camp.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> There's no "hate" out there for Bush.
> More the case that the guy who's steering the ship of state
> may no quite be up to the job. And we're a bit nervous.
>
>
> <rj>

The unfortunate truth is that almost everything bad you hear about Bush is
true while the same cannot be said about Clinton. Clinton has personal
failings that only became a public liability when the Neocons made them so.
Bush's failings more directly effect his job and the country. Moreover;
Clinton really seemed to want to do what was best for the most people while
Bush is out to benefit the elite. Ones motives are important...and if your
motive for lying cheating and stealing is to line your pockets and those of
your friends you give up a few feet of the moral high ground.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <tc3We.5988$XO6.869@trnddc03>, Gene Palmiter
<palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

> The unfortunate truth is that almost everything bad you hear about Bush is
> true while the same cannot be said about Clinton. Clinton has personal
> failings that only became a public liability when the Neocons made them so.
> Bush's failings more directly effect his job and the country. Moreover;
> Clinton really seemed to want to do what was best for the most people while
> Bush is out to benefit the elite. Ones motives are important...and if your
> motive for lying cheating and stealing is to line your pockets and those of
> your friends you give up a few feet of the moral high ground.

Keep voting for the Democrats...they need at least a few people who
will.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<RJ> mentioned in passing :
>
> There's no "hate" out there for Bush.

Google "I hate Bush".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill,
I thought he was against stem cell research?
Paul


Bill DeWitt wrote:

snipped

>
> Bush has vastly increased spending for ......(snipped)...... stem cell research

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fletis,
Well there are degrees of liberalism and conservatism. You wouldn't
just say, let the New Orleans people take care of themselves it's not
our problem, would you? I find that extremes in almost any position
don't usually work. Something a more moderate approach work more
consistently.
Paul



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

snipped

> I guess I'm in that camp too. I hate paying for other people's
> stupidity. If you think it should be your neighbor's burden, you're
> a liberal.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill,
I don't hate him, don't really hate anybody. OTOH I don't have respect
for him and the decisions he's made. But this isn't to say he hasn't
done some good things as well.
Paul


Bill DeWitt wrote:
> <RJ> mentioned in passing :
>
>>There's no "hate" out there for Bush.
>
>
> Google "I hate Bush".
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Schilter"

> Fletis,
> Well there are degrees of liberalism and conservatism. You wouldn't just say, let the New Orleans people take care of themselves
> it's not our problem, would you? I find that extremes in almost any position don't usually work. Something a more moderate
> approach work more consistently.
> Paul


I don't agree with the premise of part of your question. Conservatism
doesn't necessarily mean 'let the poor bastards die'.


> Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>
> snipped
>
>> I guess I'm in that camp too. I hate paying for other people's
>> stupidity. If you think it should be your neighbor's burden, you're
>> a liberal.
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SMS mentioned in passing :
>
>>
>> Since the tax cut has increased revenue, what is the "real,
>> immediate and negative effect of the tax cuts on the deficit"?
>
> There is no evidence at all that the tax cuts have produced any
> revenue.

Every time taxes have been cut, the revenue has increased. The mechanics
are obvious and well described. When the results meet the predictions of the
hypothesis, one generally concludes that the best explanation has been
found.

> You simply do not know whether the revenue would have been
> higher or
> lower without the tax cuts.

Well, since those who believe differently predicted that revenues
would -not- rise, and those for the cut predicted that it would, I have to
say that this is another win in the "for"column.

> Supply-side economics have been thoroughly
> discredited,

False. "Supply side economics" has been thoroughly propagandized against
by the left, but, like any science, it works whether you believe in it or
not.

>so the evidence would be that tax cuts do NOT increase
> revenue.

So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax cut?
Remarkable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

i already did elsewhere in this thread. ...ok, enough of him.

far better to contemplate the portfolio of some guy named marsel van
oosten (whom i don't know) that i came across tonight. the sheer
quality and variety of his work is astonishing (be sure to check out
the "his royal highness" pic -- reminds me a certain japanese
politician)

here's the link:

http://www.nikonians-images.com/galleries/showgallery.php?ppuser=4302&cat=500&password=

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax cut?
> Remarkable.

And they also increased after tax increases. You try to make
corellations that fit your far-right agenda, but they are untrue.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SMS mentioned in passing :
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
>> So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax
>> cut? Remarkable.
>
> And they also increased after tax increases.

Show that. Show a significant increase out of porportion to the increase
of the GDP immediately after a tax increase. I would be interested.

But assuming you can ... there is certainly more than one reason that
revenues may increase (as any HS economics class will teach you), but the
presence of other variables does not negate the primary variable. When there
is money available for reinvestment, wise business practice is to reinvest.
That creates more income, resulting in more income taxes. When the mechanism
can be shown, the correlation is most likely to be true.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> Waitwaitwait WAIT a minute! The challenge is, Name a real, immediate and
> negative effect that tax cuts has on the deficit. Not vaguely discuss
> dependence on foreign banks or disaster relief funding. Explain how
> increased revenues make the deficit worse.

Once again, there is no evidence that tax cuts increase revenue. Revenue
also went up after tax increases by Bush Sr and Clinton. You've got to
stop listening to Rush, and do some reading!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SMS mentioned in passing :
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
>> Waitwaitwait WAIT a minute! The challenge is, Name a real,
>> immediate and negative effect that tax cuts has on the deficit. Not
>> vaguely discuss dependence on foreign banks or disaster relief
>> funding. Explain how increased revenues make the deficit worse.
>
> Once again, there is no evidence that tax cuts increase revenue.

So you say (against all logic), but nonetheless, they did go up. How is
that bad for deficits?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:15:23 -0400, "Bill DeWitt"
<Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote:

>SMS mentioned in passing :
>>
>>>
>>> Since the tax cut has increased revenue, what is the "real,
>>> immediate and negative effect of the tax cuts on the deficit"?
>>
>> There is no evidence at all that the tax cuts have produced any
>> revenue.
>
> Every time taxes have been cut, the revenue has increased. The mechanics
>are obvious and well described. When the results meet the predictions of the
>hypothesis, one generally concludes that the best explanation has been
>found.
>
>> You simply do not know whether the revenue would have been
>> higher or
>> lower without the tax cuts.
>
> Well, since those who believe differently predicted that revenues
>would -not- rise, and those for the cut predicted that it would, I have to
>say that this is another win in the "for"column.
>
>> Supply-side economics have been thoroughly
>> discredited,
>
> False. "Supply side economics" has been thoroughly propagandized against
>by the left, but, like any science, it works whether you believe in it or
>not.

Bullshit. The propaganda is with the right for prosituting
real science to political ideology.

Democrats provided numbers on the welfare issue. Instead of,
as science would demand, refuting numbers with numbers, Bush simply
(well-chosen word) replied, "Fuzzy math. Fuzzy math" and the wackos
still voted for him. Hell of a scientist, that Bu(ll)sh(it).

>
>>so the evidence would be that tax cuts do NOT increase
>> revenue.
>
> So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax cut?
>Remarkable.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <u93si1lmqqb4mqbbj1sur95s0j83g8fcgv@4ax.com>, kashe@sonic.net wrote:

> > False. "Supply side economics" has been thoroughly propagandized against
> >by the left, but, like any science, it works whether you believe in it or
> >not.
>
> Bullshit. The propaganda is with the right for prosituting
> real science to political ideology.


Don't Bill's arguements sound suspiciously like those used by the guy who
promotes Sigma cameras?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill DeWitt <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote:
>SMS mentioned in passing :

>>> Since the tax cut has increased revenue, what is the "real,
>>> immediate and negative effect of the tax cuts on the deficit"?
>>
>> There is no evidence at all that the tax cuts have produced any
>> revenue.
>
> Every time taxes have been cut, the revenue has increased.

That explains why federal revenues have fallen in response to Bush's
tax cuts.

> The mechanics
>are obvious and well described.

If one ignores reality.

> When the results meet the predictions of the
>hypothesis, one generally concludes that the best explanation has been
>found.

And when the results contradict the claims, then the right-wing spins
the facts and lies.

>> Supply-side economics have been thoroughly
>> discredited,
>
> False.

It has. It doesn't work. It's a scam.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net