Chimping defined

"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 06:20:59 GMT, Paul Heslop
> <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >ASAAR wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3 Feb 2007 16:19:02 -0800, Annika1980 wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> Take 10,000 shots of Condoleezza Rice
> >> >>
> >> >> You have a person with no sense of beauty :O)
> >> >
> >> > You couldn't wipe the ugly off of her with CS3.
> >>
> >> She has no one but herself to blame. She uses so much petroleum
> >> based makeup they named a tanker after her. The Condoleezza Maru
> >> ain't yer average Rice boat.
> >
> >heh heh
>
> Hey, it could be worse--if Hillary wins Janet Reno could be back.

I'm so glad I'm English :O))

but then again... we have Ann! (contains govt health warning)

http://www.ironjohn.com/skegness/ima...ortrait-33.jpg


--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

On Feb 4, 1:32 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
here)@cox..net> wrote:
> ASAAR's just mad because Condi told the entire world about his
> little...ahem..."secret":http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/condi.jpg

Condi was describing Clinton at that moment.
Oh yeah, and that's width.

Paul Heslop wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 06:20:59 GMT, Paul Heslop
>> <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>> On 3 Feb 2007 16:19:02 -0800, Annika1980 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Take 10,000 shots of Condoleezza Rice
>>>>>> You have a person with no sense of beauty :O)
>>>>> You couldn't wipe the ugly off of her with CS3.
>>>> She has no one but herself to blame. She uses so much petroleum
>>>> based makeup they named a tanker after her. The Condoleezza Maru
>>>> ain't yer average Rice boat.
>>> heh heh
>> Hey, it could be worse--if Hillary wins Janet Reno could be back.
>
> I'm so glad I'm English :O))
>
> but then again... we have Ann! (contains govt health warning)
>
> http://www.ironjohn.com/skegness/ima...ortrait-33.jpg

And Camilla. Although not quite in the same arena, I suspect, being
ignorant of who Ann is or how ubiquitous.

--

John McWilliams

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:%W6xh.12319$4W5.7418@newsfe10.phx...
> Rich wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 12:14 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> When another photographer looks at his review screen and makes little
>>> oo-oo-oo noises, points excitedly at the lcd, and invites other
>>> mammals over to look also, that is chimping.
>>
>> As opposed to someone who shoots thousands upon thousands of frames,
>> only to do the same back home on the computer.
>> Both sort of denote a hack.
>
> So scrutiny of a day's shooting at home = a hack??
>
> That would mean every single professional digital shooter is...a hack.
>
>
Every photographer, digital or film would have to fall into this definition
of hack. Unless the OP of the hack comment just shoots and prints theirs
without looking at them first, he probably falls into his own "hack"
category.
Rob

Scubabix wrote:
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:%W6xh.12319$4W5.7418@newsfe10.phx...
>> Rich wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 12:14 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> When another photographer looks at his review screen and makes
>>>> little oo-oo-oo noises, points excitedly at the lcd, and invites
>>>> other mammals over to look also, that is chimping.
>>>
>>> As opposed to someone who shoots thousands upon thousands of frames,
>>> only to do the same back home on the computer.
>>> Both sort of denote a hack.
>>
>> So scrutiny of a day's shooting at home = a hack??
>>
>> That would mean every single professional digital shooter is...a
>> hack.
> Every photographer, digital or film would have to fall into this
> definition of hack. Unless the OP of the hack comment just shoots
> and prints theirs without looking at them first, he probably falls
> into his own "hack" category.
> Rob

Right...except film shooters don't get to review the "day's" shooting, under
most circumstances... They usually only get to review *yesterday's* or last
week's shooting (development time being what it is...). :)

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:54:38 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04
@aol.com> wrote:

>Scott W wrote:
>
>> Interesting definition of a hack you have there. I have to note that
>> National Geographic photographers typically shoot over 10,000 frame
>> for a assignment, I guess they are hacks.
>
>Take 10,000 shots of Condoleezza Rice or Janet Reno in one sitting and tell
>me with a straight face you're not a hack.

Just infatuated.


--
The New York Yankees signed a
deal with China Monday to expand
baseball into the world's largest
nation. The people of China meet
the first test of what it takes
to be great baseball fans. They
are not fussy at all about what
goes into a hot dog.