One of the worst offenders is "its" and "it's". It's is a contraction for "It is", so try that out whenever you think "it's" is correct, and it's not correct for possessive use.
venturer9 wrote:
I am not anti Gay at all, I have had Gay friends since the mid 50's, and knew at least two "Couples" Lesbians, who lived together. One of my fellow employees at NASA in 1958 was the one of the first single young men who was openly Gay and suffered no major trauma because of it...
But in answer to your question of "Who Does it Hurt" is pretty easy to answer..
1) it hurts the Many Members of that Particular Denomination who believe in the Biblical admonition against homosexuality.
2) it hurts the many members of many denominations who also will be faced "More than Likely" with their particular denominations doing the same thing...
In both #1 & #2 those members who believe that it is wrong, will be faced with the necessity of deciding whether or not they should leave and go to another more fundamental church...
3) It will, on occasion, hurt a family who may or may not agree with the change in their church. How? In my personal experience, one of my children came to me and said... "Dad, when I was over at the park, I saw two guys kissing.... GROSSSS........" So then I was forced to explain in terms he could understand, what the deal was...
So, it will hurt a whole lot more than you might expect...
Mike
I am not anti Gay at all, I have had Gay friends s... (
show quote)
A lot of racists were "hurt" when laws against interracial marriage were struck down. Too bad.
I feel an 85 on a full frame camera is not as long as I like for portraits, at least for head and shoulders shots. The classic portrait lens for film cameras was the 135. I use an 85 on a DX camera as my main portrait lens, which is more like the 135.
It's an important issue because straight people engage in the same sex acts, but are never prosecuted. It's only used to harass gay people.
robertjerl wrote:
For the wall to not have had a small gate like that would have been the unusual thing. They were a standard feature on large defensive walls, easier to defend from a surprise attack than the main gate when you had to let anyone in or out while the large main gates were closed for security at night.
You also have the accumulated changes and mistakes by numerous translations and editions over 2000 years.
It's not that such a gate might not have existed, but was it named "The Eye of the Needle" and was that what Jesus was talking about. No way to know.
robertjerl wrote:
actually you are mistaken, I had a friend in the army who is now a Lutheran Priest, he had majored in ancient languages and this quote came up once. He said that when you looked at the oldest records you found it said "The Eye of the Needle" and that was the nick name of a small gate in the wall of Jerusalem that you had to come through if you wished entry after the main gate was locked for the night. People on foot, no problem; donkey, cow, horse led by rider on foot, no problem; camel, too tall, had to be trained to get on knees and shuffle through "The Eye of the Needle". Difficult, but not impossible to accomplish. Thus getting a camel through the eye of the needle became a way of saying something was hard to do.
actually you are mistaken, I had a friend in the ... (
show quote)
Well, I looked that up, and several sources said there was no evidence that such a gate ever existed. I guess that the problem with the Bible, you can't really tell what it meant after all this time.
I'm another who doesn't use a UV filter. I saw a response about using a lens cap, which I do until I'm ready to shoot. But I don't think anyone mentioned a lens hood, which also provides protection for the lens, but also reduces lens flare. I use Nikon Lenses, and most came with a lens hood.
I'm not a Christian, but I know Jesus Christ's attitude towards rich people - "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.
Registering the copyright with the copyright office allows you to get statutory damages instead of actual damages (which are harder to prove) if you successfully sue someone. The cost and time required to register all your images, when it's highly unlikely that you will ever sue anyone for copyright infringement, doesn't seem worth it.
amehta wrote:
You'll be fine at ISO 400. I would not go higher than that, though, since you are in control of the lights.
Like I said above, he should do a test for himself to see the quality difference, and not just take someone else's word for it.
I wouldn't give anyone hi-res files unless they are for publication and you have an agreement for that. If people want prints, you should sell them prints. If they are for sponsors, they should pay for them - they are the ones with the money. If you are trying to make a living at it, you have to charge enough to make a profit and not "help folks out."
Back in the film days, there were many photographers, especially art photographers, who felt it was very important to do their own darkroom work. Others, like Henri Cartier Bresson, had other people do their printing, obviously to their specifications. The same is true now with digital. It's whatever each individual photographer feels is best for them. I always did my own B&W darkroom work, while sending color work to a lab because I wasn't comfortable doing my own color printing.
With digital, I feel I am good at postprocessing, and doing my own is an important aspect of getting the quality of work I want. If other photographers don't want to do their own for whatever reason - they don't like it or don't feel they are good at it, or just make more money having someone else do it, no problem.
I think you are a little confused and unclear on the concept. You automatically own the copyright on any photo you take. You can register the copyright with the copyright office, which gives you an advantage if it comes to taking someone to court for stealing your image, but unless a lot of money is involved, it's probably not worth the effort.
You can put the copyright information on the image, that's the watermark. But any image you put on the internet can be stolen, watermark or not. You just have to accept that. Even if you catch someone stealing your images, there's not much you can do but ask them to take it down or give you a credit. Again, legally there's not much that can be done if they haven't used it to make enough money to get a lawyer interested.
Not enough information. How will the images be used? For people to print? For publication? for web site use? And then there would be followup questions for each of these. The quality of the photos and the amount of demand for them also affect the price.
Putting a watermark with copyright info on your images won't stop anyone from stealing them if they want to. They can probably clone it out anyway, unless you put it across important parts of the image, in which case it probably is detracting from the photo. One alternative is to use a border and put the copyright notice there. Also, the copyright info should be in the EXIF.