Interesting perspective, is that shot from a roof or something?
the sushi bar is in a basement. handrail for the stairs are bottom right.
i thought it was noise, esprcially around the "a h h", but the was fake snow inside the window at one time.
love this lense . . .
i thought it was noise, esprcially around the "a h h", but the was fake snow inside the window at one time.
love this lense . . .
ooh 17-40. Rental or did you just buy?
my wife bought a 60d. the 17-40 was sitting in the case, and i said "i should get an EF lens". she said 'Merry Christmas' . . .
Thats one hell of a christmas present! I have a friend who had one (until he sold it to fund a 5D MK2, lucky bastard), it is a really sweet lens.
How is the 60D turning out? Ive heard a lot of mixed emotions about it, with the articulating screen and non-metal body.
A couple recent shots for a photo project. I think Ive lost all capacity to shoot landscape oriented pictures: my entire first flickr page with the exception of one picture is all portrait orientation. Weird.
Feeling blue by G. Moser, on Flickr
A cold player by G. Moser, on Flickr
How is the 60D turning out? Ive heard a lot of mixed emotions about it, with the articulating screen and non-metal body.
A couple recent shots for a photo project. I think Ive lost all capacity to shoot landscape oriented pictures: my entire first flickr page with the exception of one picture is all portrait orientation. Weird.
Feeling blue by G. Moser, on Flickr
A cold player by G. Moser, on Flickr
Did they Section 44 him?Uzique wrote:
he got locked up for 8 hours one day for taking photos at the event without a license/permission... police are very harsh on it
One of my mates who studies photography was over there at the time and happened to get caught up in it for half a day. He was inside some area that was locked down, and was unable to get out. Thankfully he had his "media" vests in his photobag, so he just chucked it on and walked around taking photos of the chaos
fucking hell... I didnt know the protests were that violent.
And wouldnt one think vandalism and violence makes it worse?
And wouldnt one think vandalism and violence makes it worse?
noice 
honestly photographers are the fucking leeches of the world.
*present company in this thread excluded.
I'm talking about professional photographers. lel
*present company in this thread excluded.
I'm talking about professional photographers. lel
Picture #5 - "Dumbledore would not put up with this shit"liquidat0r wrote:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/london_tuition_fee_protest.html
Haha
'kin 'ell, liq. I only saw a few of those pictures in other articles, the tame ones of people quietly picketing. Hell, a lot of news sources here wouldn't shut up about the fucking royal car. Really never saw the style of anarchy in the U.K. ones that make it look like France where those students are always burning something.
Seriously, just arrest all the ones with balaclavas.
mcminty we need a batch of those media vests printed up so we can take our big guns to events without questionPrivateVendetta wrote:
Seriously, just arrest all the ones with balaclavas.
people wear balaclavas because the police use surveillance equipment/techniques that are technically only legal in combatting terrorism... they snapshot people's faces, identity 'ringleaders' later (as they see it), get the forensics in... and then come knock at your door the next day. wearing fashion accessories is not illegal.PrivateVendetta wrote:
Seriously, just arrest all the ones with balaclavas.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
or if you go there to specifically make trouble, you wouldn't want anyone to know what you look like.
might be me being naive, but if you don't smash shit up and encourage violence, then why would it matter what you look like? Being a 'ringleader' to a protest isn't bad, someone has to provide the impetus.
might be me being naive, but if you don't smash shit up and encourage violence, then why would it matter what you look like? Being a 'ringleader' to a protest isn't bad, someone has to provide the impetus.
you put altogether way too much trust and faith in the police
they have no reason to be taking pictures of people's faces, storing them on databases, investigating personal backgrounds etc. when all you are doing is exercising your democratic right to protest, peacefully and legally.
they have no reason to be taking pictures of people's faces, storing them on databases, investigating personal backgrounds etc. when all you are doing is exercising your democratic right to protest, peacefully and legally.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
There is a face covering regulation:Uzique wrote:
people wear balaclavas because the police use surveillance equipment/techniques that are technically only legal in combatting terrorism... they snapshot people's faces, identity 'ringleaders' later (as they see it), get the forensics in... and then come knock at your door the next day. wearing fashion accessories is not illegal.PrivateVendetta wrote:
Seriously, just arrest all the ones with balaclavas.
"a person wearing a garment or other object intended by the wearer as its primary purpose to obscure the face in a public place shall be guilty of an offence."
Which can result in a fine, or an order to leave to the area, which can subsequently result in arrest. It's often used during protests or football matches etc. So wearing fashion accessories can be illegal.
different context/intent
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
If you are at a protest such as these, the police can legally order you remove a face covering.
How is context different from any other protest.
If you there to peacefully protest, there should be no need to cover your face, even if you are being "observed" by the police.
The intent of a person wearing a balaclava or something similar is quite clearly in this situation to disguise their identity which is exactly what the regulation I mentioned is meant to stop.
How is context different from any other protest.
If you there to peacefully protest, there should be no need to cover your face, even if you are being "observed" by the police.
The intent of a person wearing a balaclava or something similar is quite clearly in this situation to disguise their identity which is exactly what the regulation I mentioned is meant to stop.
Last edited by coke (2010-12-11 19:21:05)
i'm talking about the police abusing that legal precedent to justify the databasing and surveillance of tons of innocent people... with or without balaclavas. i know these laws exist, but the point is that the metropolitan police have abused and conveniently interpreted said laws for these student protests to act out of their normal powers.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
It happens all the time though, I know for sure I'm probably still on several of these databases, simply for attending football matches.
Look I'm no fan of the police or of changes to the tuition fees, but these protests have played right into the hands of the government, because the violent and mindless actions of a minority, instead of a peaceful and open protest, the general public have been presented with scenes of what they see as thugs in balaclavas fighting policeman, destroying public and government property and even desecrating war memorials...
A large proportion of people who perhaps had no vested interest in the debate will have undoubtedly turned a deaf ear to the message that these protests were supposed to have put across.
And whilst I agree that in some respects the videoing/photographing of people can be exploited, it is undoubtedly a useful tool in both identifying and then providing evidence against those who have been the worst of the unlawful protesters.
Look I'm no fan of the police or of changes to the tuition fees, but these protests have played right into the hands of the government, because the violent and mindless actions of a minority, instead of a peaceful and open protest, the general public have been presented with scenes of what they see as thugs in balaclavas fighting policeman, destroying public and government property and even desecrating war memorials...
A large proportion of people who perhaps had no vested interest in the debate will have undoubtedly turned a deaf ear to the message that these protests were supposed to have put across.
And whilst I agree that in some respects the videoing/photographing of people can be exploited, it is undoubtedly a useful tool in both identifying and then providing evidence against those who have been the worst of the unlawful protesters.
Last edited by coke (2010-12-11 19:43:24)
They are not going to win any support by acting like thugs.
Is a 300% increase in tuition a good idea? Probably not. Even if you do need to raise rates, you should do so incrementally. It sucks having to pay more, but no one can ignore economic costs forever. Yet, violently protesting will only give the opposition the upper hand. Ghandi and MLK had the right idea. If the government will not use force abusively, peaceful protests are the best way to seek change.
Is a 300% increase in tuition a good idea? Probably not. Even if you do need to raise rates, you should do so incrementally. It sucks having to pay more, but no one can ignore economic costs forever. Yet, violently protesting will only give the opposition the upper hand. Ghandi and MLK had the right idea. If the government will not use force abusively, peaceful protests are the best way to seek change.
Maybe you don't put enough faith in them.Uzique wrote:
you put altogether way too much trust and faith in the police