Photo tips for Antarctica?

nospam <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <87lk95daac.fld.RemoveThis@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> If you had tried a few seconds earlier, you'd have seen
>> nothing at all! And a few seconds later it was the right
>> image.
>
>i did see nothing at all in two browsers, so i downloaded it, and
>that's when i was able to determine what it was. it looks like a real
>jpg is there now.

It threw me for a loop too when I first tried looking at
it. Then I noticed it was downloading nearly 2Mb to get
it! Opps. It's a 100K or so file...

Whatever, I wrapped it with an index.html file so that
it has a bit of commentary along with it.

http://web.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/misc

Also note that I made sure the JPEG file has full EXIF
data too. Just be aware that it took significant work
with The GIMP to make that image worth looking at. It
was shot with an 800mm lense on a foggy/misty day day,
and while that is not a "great" image now, the original
was so bland as to be less than worthless...

But, it demonstrates a point fairly well. It was taken
about 3/8 of a mile from my home. That guy spent most
of the day out there, even though his PhD thesis had
nothing to do with thermodynamics. Incidentally, he was
just one of *many* people out jigging in the past few
days, and not one of them has enough academic or
professional credentials to keep warm!

There is no need to theorize on what people might wear
in these conditions when it is easy to describe exactly
what they *do* wear. Easy from here, that is...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

In article <87lk95daac.fld.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com> wrote:

> If you had tried a few seconds earlier, you'd have seen
> nothing at all! And a few seconds later it was the right
> image.

i did see nothing at all in two browsers, so i downloaded it, and
that's when i was able to determine what it was. it looks like a real
jpg is there now.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

In article <87d4uhd76a.fld.RemoveThis@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com> wrote:

> It threw me for a loop too when I first tried looking at
> it. Then I noticed it was downloading nearly 2Mb to get
> it! Opps. It's a 100K or so file...

i was wondering about that too.

> Whatever, I wrapped it with an index.html file so that
> it has a bit of commentary along with it.
>
> http://web.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/misc

that doesn't load because web.apaflo.com can't be found. i think you
meant www.apaflo.com, which does load.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:36:25 +1100, "Tack" <Tack DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote:
:
: "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com> wrote in message
: news:87ir4fi8mi.fld@apaflo.com...
: > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
: >>
: >>This entire thread just turned into a killfile entry ... what a joke.
: >
: > Unfortunately, I think you are precisely correct.
: >
: > --
: > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
: > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
:
:
: AND I really wanted peoples opinions on the lens I was looking at

I think you may safely conclude that the principal contributors to this thread
know little or nothing about the lens you're interested in. And after all the
vacuous bluff and pigheaded bluster, would you believe them if they said they
did?

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Nov 11, 6:59 am, Robert Coe <b....DeleteThis@1776.COM> wrote:

> And after all the
> vacuous bluff and pigheaded bluster, would you believe them if they said they
> did?


Not that I agree or disagree with your assessment, but, since you
yourself said that you've watched them "bash each other with technical
arguments which most of us grasp dimly at best", ie, you don't
understand what they say, what exactly do you base this opinion on?

Not to be argumentative, but...
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Robert Coe <bob DeleteThis @1776.COM> wrote:
>I'll be damned! One of the combatants actually answered my question. (The
>other one sneeringly hinted that I'm insane, but I'll not take offense. To

Nobody "hinted" that you are insane. And I *do* take
offense at such dishonesty.

You proposed something you claimed was a "sanity check",
and I pointed out that the _proposal_ was not sane.
Don't call it a sanity check if you don't want its
sanity rated!

>paraphrase the late Adlai Stevenson, I can wait for my answer until Hell ...
>er ... freezes.) And I have to say that he does appear qualified to comment on
>the physics of this little argument. I actually worked at MIT for a while
>(more than a few years before Dr Clark was there, but who's counting?), and I
>live in the Boston area, so I have a soft spot for the 'Tute. I say this round
>goes to Roger. ;^)

There are no rounds, Robert. It is also hilarious to
see anyone suggest that a PhD thesis such as the one
Roger Clark did make him anything close to an expert on
*living* in an Arctic environment. Near as I can tell,
Roger has never spent a week in an Arctic environment,
and probably wouldn't be able to either stay warm or
keep a truck running without help (that any 12 year old
kid here could provide) if he were dropped off here
tomorrow. That does not reflect anything other than not
having experience in the Arctic, which is obviously a
condition common to most people alive today. I'm
astounded that he or you would take such offense at
being so described.

I will say that claiming to have expertise on Arctic
environments based on the qualifications that Roger
cites is a *ridiculous* on its face.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:07:02 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username.RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote:
: Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
: >> Any change in activity changes that gradient and that makes
: >> it a challenge to manage.
: >
: > Says Roger, armchair expert on Northern Environments.
:
: You've launched multiple insults, but you are really ignoring
: facts. Call me an armchair expert if you want but I
: work with far colder temperatures than the coldest temperatures
: that your ever heard of on earth, and I do it most weeks
: every year. My thesis was:
: Spectroscopic studies of water and water/regolith mixtures
: on planetary surfaces at low temperatures: Ph.D. Thesis,
: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1980.
: Translating that, I studied compounds at temperatures ranging
: from -260 F to 70 F, including the effects of water,
: and radiative transfer.
: Today I studied water clathrates from -321 to -98 F.
: I've worked in cold conditions in various work environments,
: from standing working at a telescope (10 hours of no activity)
: in -10 to -20 F, hiking in mountains in similar temperatures
: and high wind conditions. That plus designing equipment to
: work in cold temperatures down to -452 F.

I'll be damned! One of the combatants actually answered my question. (The
other one sneeringly hinted that I'm insane, but I'll not take offense. To
paraphrase the late Adlai Stevenson, I can wait for my answer until Hell ...
er ... freezes.) And I have to say that he does appear qualified to comment on
the physics of this little argument. I actually worked at MIT for a while
(more than a few years before Dr Clark was there, but who's counting?), and I
live in the Boston area, so I have a soft spot for the 'Tute. I say this round
goes to Roger. ;^)

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:37:21 -0800, acl <achilleaslazarides RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
: On Nov 11, 6:59 am, Robert Coe <b... RemoveThis @1776.COM> wrote:
:
: > And after all the
: > vacuous bluff and pigheaded bluster, would you believe them if they said they
: > did?
:
:
: Not that I agree or disagree with your assessment, but, since you
: yourself said that you've watched them "bash each other with technical
: arguments which most of us grasp dimly at best", ie, you don't
: understand what they say, what exactly do you base this opinion on?
:
: Not to be argumentative, but...

Note that I didn't pretend to know which one of them is right. (I'm not crazy,
no matter what Floyd says.) But they can't both be right. It's obvious that at
least one of them is bluffing.

And now that they both say they've bowed out of this pissing contest, what are
the odds that they can resist the temptation to jump back in? ;^)

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Robert Coe <bob.DeleteThis@1776.COM> wrote:
> Whether he's
>right about that I'm not qualified to judge.

Then you probably should not be making so much noise.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:51:38 -0900, floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote:
: Robert Coe <bob DeleteThis @1776.COM> wrote:
: >I'll be damned! One of the combatants actually answered my question. (The
: >other one sneeringly hinted that I'm insane, but I'll not take offense. To
:
: Nobody "hinted" that you are insane. And I *do* take
: offense at such dishonesty.

As they say in legalese, "Res ipsae loquitur."

: You proposed something you claimed was a "sanity check",
: and I pointed out that the _proposal_ was not sane.
: Don't call it a sanity check if you don't want its
: sanity rated!
:
: >paraphrase the late Adlai Stevenson, I can wait for my answer until Hell ...
: >er ... freezes.) And I have to say that he does appear qualified to comment on
: >the physics of this little argument. I actually worked at MIT for a while
: >(more than a few years before Dr Clark was there, but who's counting?), and I
: >live in the Boston area, so I have a soft spot for the 'Tute. I say this round
: >goes to Roger. ;^)
:
: There are no rounds, Robert.

Oh, sure there are. Otherwise you wouldn't be back in this fray a day or two
after you said you were done with it. My guess is that we could keep you in
this thread until Christmas if we had the time, energy, and interest to try to
do so.

: It is also hilarious to see anyone suggest that a PhD
: thesis such as the one Roger Clark did make him anything
: close to an expert on *living* in an Arctic environment.

I don't believe I heard him claim to be one. What I did hear him claim to be
is an expert in cryogenics who thinks that your technical explanation of the
physical behavior of thermally insulating garments is bullshit. Whether he's
right about that I'm not qualified to judge.

: Near as I can tell,
: Roger has never spent a week in an Arctic environment,
: and probably wouldn't be able to either stay warm or
: keep a truck running without help (that any 12 year old
: kid here could provide) if he were dropped off here
: tomorrow. That does not reflect anything other than not
: having experience in the Arctic, which is obviously a
: condition common to most people alive today. I'm
: astounded that he or you would take such offense at
: being so described.

You aren't listening. I don't take offense. I don't care in the least how you
describe me, Roger, my sanity, or the sanity of my call for you and Roger to
state your academic and professional credentials for this war of words. And
I'm certainly no Arctic survivor; the farthest north I've ever been is
Trondheim, Norway. (It was January and as cold as a polar bear's ass, but it
wasn't the Arctic.)

I'm not sure I heard Roger take offense at that (i.e., being characterized as
unqualified to survive in the Arctic) either. His beef, as I understand it, is
with what he sees as your ignorance of the physics of coping with cold
conditions and with your willingness to extrapolate from your allegedly flawed
understanding in the advice you give to a potential Antarctic traveller.

: I will say that claiming to have expertise on Arctic
: environments based on the qualifications that Roger
: cites is a *ridiculous* on its face.

Well, he does appear to have a PhD in low-temperature physics and to be
employed in that field. You, as far as I can determine, are an electrical
engineer. (If that's a misconception, you're free to correct it.) Readers of
this newsgroup can make of that what they will.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Nov 12, 6:45 am, Robert Coe <b... DeleteThis @1776.COM> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:37:21 -0800, acl <achilleaslazari... DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> : On Nov 11, 6:59 am, Robert Coe <b... DeleteThis @1776.COM> wrote:
> :
> : > And after all the
> : > vacuous bluff and pigheaded bluster, would you believe them if they said they
> : > did?
> :
> :
> : Not that I agree or disagree with your assessment, but, since you
> : yourself said that you've watched them "bash each other with technical
> : arguments which most of us grasp dimly at best", ie, you don't
> : understand what they say, what exactly do you base this opinion on?
> :
> : Not to be argumentative, but...
>
> Note that I didn't pretend to know which one of them is right. (I'm not crazy,
> no matter what Floyd says.) But they can't both be right. It's obvious that at
> least one of them is bluffing.

I honestly think that neither is wrong, in a sense. At least as far as
actual practical advice is concerned. Now once the discussion drifted
over into vapour pressures (incorrectly used) and temperature/moisture
gradients, yes, one of the two appeared to be claiming different
things in different posts, so can't be right.

Anyway, threads such as this are usually amusing to follow but
frustrating to take part in.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:13:46 -0900, floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote:
: Robert Coe <bob.RemoveThis@1776.COM> wrote:
: > Whether he's
: >right about that I'm not qualified to judge.
:
: Then you probably should not be making so much noise.

Good advice. Everybody but you and I has apparently moved on.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:08:25 -0700, Paul Furman <paul- RemoveThis @-edgehill.net> wrote:
: TH O wrote:
:
: > It would be so much easier if we just didn't read this nonsense and
: > added all these individuals to our newsreader's killfile (aka message
: > filters). It's like the Hatfields and the McCoys here.
:
: Already filtered to be marked as read. BTW I didn't give any advice on
: cold weather photography, just pointed out a troll hiding under yet
: another name. I would use the 70-200 over the 70-300 because it simply
: takes better pictures. A friend went to Iceland & bought that lens just
: for the trip and the only other lens he had was the kit lens. He took
: some great shots. I have the Nikon equivalent.

Those are Canon lenses, aren't they? Aren't all Canon lenses made only for the
standard Canon mount? So how is there a "Nikon equivalent"?

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica?