 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tried taking a pic when it was fully in shadow but was too dark to find
thru camera. :(
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'moon.gif' (61 KB)
Preview of image 'moon.gif'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouth net> wrote in message
news:46d3f86a@news.povray.org...
> Tried taking a pic when it was fully in shadow but was too dark to find
> thru camera. :(
>
> --
> Tim Cook
I can't get a stable-enough image. I have a tripod, but it is set on grass
and with no lead for bulb exposure, I still must touch the camera for
time-lapse photography - and it moves, however careful I am. My lens only
extends to 125 mm so I can't zoom very close -- not that a 400 mm would be
any good anyway with the mechanical instability I have to deal with.
And for any exposure longer than a few seconds, I'd need a tracking mount.
1 degree Earth rotation per every four minutes -- bah.
--
Brian
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'mooneclipse1.jpg' (40 KB)
Download 'mooneclipse2.jpg' (30 KB)
Preview of image 'mooneclipse1.jpg'
Preview of image 'mooneclipse2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Brian Elliott" <NotForSpam@AskIfUWant> wrote in message
news:46d40701@news.povray.org...
> "Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
> news:46d3f86a@news.povray.org...
>> Tried taking a pic when it was fully in shadow but was too dark to find
>> thru camera. :(
>>
>> --
>> Tim Cook
>
> I can't get a stable-enough image. I have a tripod, but it is set on
> grass
> and with no lead for bulb exposure, I still must touch the camera for
> time-lapse photography - and it moves, however careful I am. My lens only
> extends to 125 mm so I can't zoom very close -- not that a 400 mm would be
> any good anyway with the mechanical instability I have to deal with.
>
> And for any exposure longer than a few seconds, I'd need a tracking mount.
> 1 degree Earth rotation per every four minutes -- bah.
BTW, I notice that your image is upside-down compared to mine (fuzzy, but
can still tell). Shows that you're in the Northern hemisphere and I'm in
the Southern. Here (Brisbane, Australia) the shadow grew from the
bottom-left corner until the last fingernail vanished top-right. My pics
here were taken after peak coverage but before direct light has struck the
Moon yet.
Anyway, still disappointed I haven't succeeded in getting a good image.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I can't get a stable-enough image. I have a tripod, but it is set on
> grass
> and with no lead for bulb exposure, I still must touch the camera for
> time-lapse photography - and it moves, however careful I am.
Hold a black card infront of the lens (but not touching) as you press the
shutter, then move the card away a split second after you release the
shutter. That might help.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message
news:46d415dd$1@news.povray.org...
>> I can't get a stable-enough image. I have a tripod, but it is set on
>> grass
>> and with no lead for bulb exposure, I still must touch the camera for
>> time-lapse photography - and it moves, however careful I am.
>
> Hold a black card infront of the lens (but not touching) as you press the
> shutter, then move the card away a split second after you release the
> shutter. That might help.
On camera bulb setting, it holds its shutter open as long as the
shutter-release button is held pressed, irrespective of any light hitting
the meters. Which means unfortunately, I have to keep a finger pressed on
it for the entire length time I want the exposure. Or get a proper bulb
cord. Actually I do have one with another old Pentax SLR that I have had
for many years, but its screw thread doesn't fit into THIS modern camera.
Dammit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hold a black card infront of the lens (but not touching) as you press the
>> shutter, then move the card away a split second after you release the
>> shutter. That might help.
>
> On camera bulb setting, it holds its shutter open as long as the
> shutter-release button is held pressed, irrespective of any light hitting
> the meters.
Oh I see, I had assumed you were setting the shutter time manually as
anything more than 30 seconds is going to get blurry (as you suggested).
On my camera (Canon 300D) the remote shutter release is just a stereo 2.5mm
jack, easy to pick up from electronics stores and wire up 2 simple switches
if you can solder.
I suppose another alternative would be to use some sort of clamp to hold
down the shutter button, then you can use the black card trick while
attaching it and removing it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Brian Elliott wrote:
>
> And for any exposure longer than a few seconds, I'd need a tracking
> mount. 1 degree Earth rotation per every four minutes -- bah.
>
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-assignment-how-to-light-comet.html
They have some nice guides to cheap camera tricks. I think they left out
the required distance from the center of the screw to the center of the
hinge, 11 and 7/16 inches, but it's there in the comments some place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> On my camera (Canon 300D) the remote shutter release is just a stereo
> 2.5mm jack, easy to pick up from electronics stores and wire up 2 simple
> switches if you can solder.
Simple way of getting around spending what they want for a remote. Might
want to look for a switch that closes one contact on a half press, and
another on full press to emulate the way the shutter button works. I
don't know how easy or difficult it would be to find a SPDT pushbutton
switch, though.
(Searching...Aha, found one!)
http://tinyurl.com/323qqz
> I suppose another alternative would be to use some sort of clamp to hold
> down the shutter button, then you can use the black card trick while
> attaching it and removing it.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On my camera (Canon 300D) the remote shutter release is just a stereo
>> 2.5mm jack, easy to pick up from electronics stores and wire up 2 simple
>> switches if you can solder.
>
> Simple way of getting around spending what they want for a remote. Might
> want to look for a switch that closes one contact on a half press, and
> another on full press to emulate the way the shutter button works. I don't
> know how easy or difficult it would be to find a SPDT pushbutton switch,
> though.
>
> (Searching...Aha, found one!)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/323qqz
For mine I used two toggle switches. I found ones where you could flick
them either way, to the left and they stay there (for long exposures) or to
the right and they spring back (for repeated fast shots). I just mounted
them side-by-side in a small box and another 2.5mm socket, connected them up
with a pre-made 2.5 mm stereo lead (I hate soldering those tiny plugs and
they always come unstuck after a few weeks), and it all worked fine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> (Searching...Aha, found one!)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/323qqz
Hmm, My guess now is not quite. Not enough information about that
switch, but more info gives that SPDT pushbuttons are usually on-on,
which means they don't have a center position. :/ if anyone can find a
SPDT pushbutton that is off-on-on let me know.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> For mine I used two toggle switches. I found ones where you could flick
> them either way, to the left and they stay there (for long exposures) or
> to the right and they spring back (for repeated fast shots).
RS (rswww.com) part number 448-0810 if you are interested.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
46d3f86a@news.povray.org...
> Tried taking a pic when it was fully in shadow but was too dark to find
> thru camera. :(
>
We like the moon
coz it is close to us
we like the moooon!
but not as much as a spoon
'cause that's more use for eating soup
and a fork isn't very useful for that
unless it has got many vegetables
and then you might be better off with a
chop-stick
unlike the moon
it is up in the sky
it's up there very high
but not as high
as maybe
dirigibles or zeppelins
or lightbulbs
and maybe clouds
and puffins also I think maybe
they go quite high too
maybe not as high as the moon
coz the moon is very high
we like the moon
the moon is very useful everyone
everybody like the moon
because it light up the sky at night
and it lovely
and it makes the tide go and we like it
but not as much as cheese
we really like cheese
we like zeppelins
we really like them
and we like kelp and we like moose
and we like deer and we like marmots
and we like all the fluffy animals
we really like the moon
Sorry I can't resist
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message
news:46d4276d$1@news.povray.org...
> On my camera (Canon 300D) the remote shutter release is just a stereo
> 2.5mm jack, easy to pick up from electronics stores and wire up 2 simple
> switches if you can solder.
Hmmm, <looks at camera>. Pentax *iST DS here. I can see it is a coaxial
socket, but my impression is the bore is too small for a 2.5mm jack.
Squinting into it with a magnifying glass, I think I can make out sleeve,
ring and tip contacts. I think I have some in my old electronics junk box,
so it won't be too hard to check.
> I suppose another alternative would be to use some sort of clamp to hold
> down the shutter button, then you can use the black card trick while
> attaching it and removing it.
Uh-oh, carpentry and metalwork were my two worst subjects! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message
news:46d4311a$1@news.povray.org...
>>> On my camera (Canon 300D) the remote shutter release is just a stereo
>>> 2.5mm jack, easy to pick up from electronics stores and wire up 2 simple
>>> switches if you can solder.
>>
>> Simple way of getting around spending what they want for a remote. Might
>> want to look for a switch that closes one contact on a half press, and
>> another on full press to emulate the way the shutter button works. I
>> don't know how easy or difficult it would be to find a SPDT pushbutton
>> switch, though.
>>
>> (Searching...Aha, found one!)
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/323qqz
>
> For mine I used two toggle switches. I found ones where you could flick
> them either way, to the left and they stay there (for long exposures) or
> to the right and they spring back (for repeated fast shots). I just
> mounted them side-by-side in a small box and another 2.5mm socket,
> connected them up with a pre-made 2.5 mm stereo lead (I hate soldering
> those tiny plugs and they always come unstuck after a few weeks), and it
> all worked fine.
Soldering the plugs is never easy. Not only are they small, but the
stainless finish on the tags often resists bonding with solder. It can take
a lot of heat and time with the iron to get a metal bond. By then your
cable insulation is damaged.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote in message
news:46d429c3$1@news.povray.org...
> Brian Elliott wrote:
>>
>> And for any exposure longer than a few seconds, I'd need a tracking
>> mount. 1 degree Earth rotation per every four minutes -- bah.
>>
>
> http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-assignment-how-to-light-comet.html
>
> They have some nice guides to cheap camera tricks. I think they left out
> the required distance from the center of the screw to the center of the
> hinge, 11 and 7/16 inches, but it's there in the comments some place.
Sabrina, thanks! Even with my limited ability, I should be able to put
together a barn-door mount.
Brian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"M_a_r_c" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
news:46d437c6$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 46d3f86a@news.povray.org...
>> Tried taking a pic when it was fully in shadow but was too dark to find
>> thru camera. :(
>>
> We like the moon
> coz it is close to us
> we like the moooon!
> but not as much as a spoon
> 'cause that's more use for eating soup
> and a fork isn't very useful for that
> unless it has got many vegetables
> and then you might be better off with a
> chop-stick
> unlike the moon
> it is up in the sky
> it's up there very high
> but not as high
> as maybe
> dirigibles or zeppelins
> or lightbulbs
> and maybe clouds
> and puffins also I think maybe
> they go quite high too
> maybe not as high as the moon
> coz the moon is very high
> we like the moon
> the moon is very useful everyone
> everybody like the moon
> because it light up the sky at night
> and it lovely
> and it makes the tide go and we like it
> but not as much as cheese
> we really like cheese
> we like zeppelins
> we really like them
> and we like kelp and we like moose
> and we like deer and we like marmots
> and we like all the fluffy animals
> we really like the moon
>
>
> Sorry I can't resist
You read tha book, now see tha show. :-)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'we_like_the_moon.swf.dat' (424 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Brian Elliott" <NotForSpam@AskIfUWant> a écrit dans le message de news:
46d4a68d@news.povray.org...
> Soldering the plugs is never easy. Not only are they small, but the
> stainless finish on the tags often resists bonding with solder. It can
> take a lot of heat and time with the iron to get a metal bond. By then
> your cable insulation is damaged.
You can scratch the tags finish with a cutter blade before soldering.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On my camera (Canon 300D) the remote shutter release is just a stereo
>> 2.5mm jack, easy to pick up from electronics stores and wire up 2 simple
>> switches if you can solder.
>
> Hmmm, <looks at camera>. Pentax *iST DS here. I can see it is a coaxial
> socket, but my impression is the bore is too small for a 2.5mm jack.
> Squinting into it with a magnifying glass, I think I can make out sleeve,
> ring and tip contacts. I think I have some in my old electronics junk
> box, so it won't be too hard to check.
A quick google seems to suggest it actually uses the same 2.5mm plug as
mine...
http://www.digicaminfo.btinternet.co.uk/hmcablerelease.htm
Seems like you can pick ones up on ebay for £5-£10 anyway.
>> I suppose another alternative would be to use some sort of clamp to hold
>> down the shutter button, then you can use the black card trick while
>> attaching it and removing it.
>
> Uh-oh, carpentry and metalwork were my two worst subjects! :-D
Or just get a small clamp from a DIY shop. Like this one:
http://www.roger-russell.com/cameras/clamp.jpg
Depending on how much the shutter button is recessed you might need to
blu-tak something on to it so that the clamp works - but shouldn't be too
hard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Soldering the plugs is never easy. Not only are they small, but the
>> stainless finish on the tags often resists bonding with solder. It can
>> take a lot of heat and time with the iron to get a metal bond. By then
>> your cable insulation is damaged.
>
> You can scratch the tags finish with a cutter blade before soldering.
The key to soldering this sort of thing is to use hollow core
solder with acid flux, or use paste flux. It doesn't hurt to rough
it up either, or to tin the end of the wire with solder first.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message news:46d5299b@news.povray.org...
>>> On my camera (Canon 300D) the remote shutter release is just a stereo
>>> 2.5mm jack, easy to pick up from electronics stores and wire up 2 simple
>>> switches if you can solder.
>>
>> Hmmm, <looks at camera>. Pentax *iST DS here. I can see it is a coaxial
>> socket, but my impression is the bore is too small for a 2.5mm jack.
>> Squinting into it with a magnifying glass, I think I can make out sleeve,
>> ring and tip contacts. I think I have some in my old electronics junk
>> box, so it won't be too hard to check.
>
> A quick google seems to suggest it actually uses the same 2.5mm plug as
> mine...
>
> http://www.digicaminfo.btinternet.co.uk/hmcablerelease.htm
>
> Seems like you can pick ones up on ebay for £5-£10 anyway.
Yeah, I found this today:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Shutter-Release-For-Pentax-ist-D-DS-DS2-DL2-MZ-6-ZX-L_W0QQitemZ230164995316QQihZ013QQcategoryZ43443QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
$8.99 Australian plus $6.99 postage.
>>> I suppose another alternative would be to use some sort of clamp to hold
>>> down the shutter button, then you can use the black card trick while
>>> attaching it and removing it.
>>
>> Uh-oh, carpentry and metalwork were my two worst subjects! :-D
>
> Or just get a small clamp from a DIY shop. Like this one:
>
> http://www.roger-russell.com/cameras/clamp.jpg
>
> Depending on how much the shutter button is recessed you might need to
> blu-tak something on to it so that the clamp works - but shouldn't be too
> hard.
If either one costs basically just a few dollars, then might as well pick
the one designed for the job. Besides, as I look at my camera sitting next
to the keyboard, I can see potential difficulties with a clamp, possible
scratch or damage to the camera, etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:26:36 +0100, Tim Cook
<z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:
> Tried taking a pic when it was fully in shadow but was too dark to find
> thru camera. :(
Thanks for the inspiration
http://flipc.blogspot.com/2007/08/hello-autumn.html
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:26:36 +0100, Tim Cook
> <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:
>
>> Tried taking a pic when it was fully in shadow but was too dark to find
>> thru camera. :(
>
> Thanks for the inspiration
> http://flipc.blogspot.com/2007/08/hello-autumn.html
Oh noes, my NAME is on the internet, in plain public view! *puts on
tinfoil hat*
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
don't you know that with just one piece of information about you, like
your abbreviated first name, They can find out every detail about your
entire life and steal your identity/soul/ham sandwich?
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> don't you know that with just one piece of information about you, like
> your abbreviated first name,
Ah, your full first name is actually "Timothy" I'll tell the internet ;)
> they can find out every detail about your
> entire life and steal your identity/soul/ham sandwich?
>
as long as they don't steal your top hat.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:04:47 +0100, Tim Cook
<z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:
> don't you know that with just one piece of information about you, like
> your abbreviated first name, They can find out every detail about your
> entire life and steal your identity/soul/ham sandwich?
Not my ham sandwich! The fiends. Oh and you know studies have shown that
tinfoil hats increase the power of any brain-altering rays. The original
premise was a scam concocted by the CIA/NSA/MJ12 to make anyone who
thought they'd need mind protection more susceptible to it.
Thoughts on the photos by the way?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:24:31 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> Not my ham sandwich!
Absolutely, and let me just say, it was delicious..... ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:03:23 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
>Oh noes, my NAME is on the internet, in plain public view! *puts on
>tinfoil hat*
The fact that I read your "About Me" page before makes this all the more humorous...
http://bellsouthpwp.net/z/9/z993126/e_about.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.txvdy5lwc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:04:47 +0100, Tim Cook
> <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:
>
>> don't you know that with just one piece of information about you, like
>> your abbreviated first name, They can find out every detail about your
>> entire life and steal your identity/soul/ham sandwich?
>
> Not my ham sandwich! The fiends. Oh and you know studies have shown that
> tinfoil hats increase the power of any brain-altering rays. The original
> premise was a scam concocted by the CIA/NSA/MJ12 to make anyone who
> thought they'd need mind protection more susceptible to it.
>
> Thoughts on the photos by the way?
Thet are most lovely! I particularly liked the moon filtered through trees.
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:46d6a40d@news.povray.org...
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:26:36 +0100, Tim Cook
>> <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Tried taking a pic when it was fully in shadow but was too dark to find
>>> thru camera. :(
>>
>> Thanks for the inspiration
>> http://flipc.blogspot.com/2007/08/hello-autumn.html
>
> Oh noes, my NAME is on the internet, in plain public view! *puts on
> tinfoil hat*
Don't panic, Flippy was obviously talking about Tim the Enchanter and Brian
of Nazareth.
;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:30:26 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:24:31 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Not my ham sandwich!
>
> Absolutely, and let me just say, it was delicious..... ;-)
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo and it had just the right amount of mustard too.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:40:28 +0100, Brian Elliott
<NotForSpam@AskIfUWant> did spake, saying:
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
> news:op.txvdy5lwc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> And lo on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:04:47 +0100, Tim Cook
>> <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> don't you know that with just one piece of information about you, like
>>> your abbreviated first name, They can find out every detail about your
>>> entire life and steal your identity/soul/ham sandwich?
>>
>> Not my ham sandwich! The fiends. Oh and you know studies have shown
>> that tinfoil hats increase the power of any brain-altering rays. The
>> original premise was a scam concocted by the CIA/NSA/MJ12 to make
>> anyone who thought they'd need mind protection more susceptible to it.
>>
>> Thoughts on the photos by the way?
>
> Thet are most lovely!
Ta muchly.
> I particularly liked the moon filtered through trees. :-)
They came out better then I thought, or to be more precise of the
half-hourish spent arranging and taking the shots I got at least four I
was happy with :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:03:05 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:30:26 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:24:31 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>> Not my ham sandwich!
>>
>> Absolutely, and let me just say, it was delicious..... ;-)
>
> Noooooooooooooooooooooooo and it had just the right amount of mustard
> too.
Yes, it most certainly did. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
