On Jul 1, 1:52*am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message
> <cf7ef4e9-fdad-4ca7-a9c4-c7edc44e4...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
>
> >On Jun 30, 11:23*am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
> >> >"This group" is nyc.transit.
>
> >> This group is rec.photo.digital
>
> >Then answer the question. How short could an exposure be during the
> >Civil War?
>
> Which civil war?
>
> If Iraq any speed you like.
On Jul 1, 1:57*am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message
> <2b9c2507-d9ed-4f46-a3ca-758a2c34e...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
>
> >> You really are a stubborn person.
>
> >> Google Gaspard-Felix Tournachon, he had a balloon in 1858 that had its own
> >> darkroom on board.
>
> >> See: *http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/nadar.htm
>
> >And that would _really_ have been practical in a battlefield
> >situation!
>
> >How does the proximity of the darkroom cut down on the necessary
> >length of exposure?
>
> IT doesn't but you can process as soon as the picture is taken and if it
> is no good take another etc.
>
> Also it is better to drop packs of printed photos to the ground unit
> that glass plates. :-)
>
> As for a balloon being practical in 1858.... I doubt there were any
> weapons that could reach it and to harm. * Most field artillery was not
> able to point skyward. * Most muskets and rifles only had a shot range
> and would loose power quickly going straight up.
"Muskets"? We're _not_ talking about the English Civil War.
Why won't you answer the question of how long the exposure had to
last, and then explain how the balloon was kept steady for that length
of time in a battlefield situation?
> I'm having a bit of trouble imagining
> a tethered balloon being of much use in a
> battlefield situation.
It would be like an observation tower. Even if the balloon was safely
tethered behind friendly lines, you'd still get a much better view of
the enemy.
But although photography from a balloon was -possible- at the time of
the U.S. Civil War I don't think it was actually done by the military.
And if you had a tethered balloon it would have been much faster
simply to have a balloonist shout out the info to his friends below,
or just drop a written note to the ground.
"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-7085F7.09475629062008@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just
> to
> check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends
> of
> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The
> signs
> said something along the lines of ...
>
> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
> I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily
> taken
> out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos or
> used
> its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled over
> the
> bridge.
>
> What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
> photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
> weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with
> that
> friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't see
> why
> this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I could
> easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several
> vantage
> points and the authorities would never know.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:05:17 GMT, GK <ontheair247@atverizondot.net>
wrote:
>Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>>
>> "No photography or video. Strictly enforced."
>>
>
>Well it seems the NJ Yank My Crank has similar rules about taking photos
>or shooting film, but they claim its to prevent obstruction of traffic.
>The rules n regs are under
>19:9-1.22 Filming, photographing or videotaping on Authority property
>prohibited, except as authorized
>
>which is on page 33 of their pdf: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/TPREG.pdf
>
>GK
So, how would my setting up a videocamera on a tri-pod in the
passenger side floorboard of my car and taking a drive - as I am
prone to do down here in the South - over the bridge obstruct traffic
other than to add a car to the traffic count that otherwise might not
have been there?
--
"I love this country...
...and the freedoms we used to have..."
--George Carlin
In article <WuZjNbDZhcaIFAaf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>In message <48697ac5$1@darkstar>, Eugene Miya <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu>
>writes
>>In article <fMFBFMQld6ZIFAhu@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
>>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
>>>people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
>>>photography were a few governments.
>>>
>>>Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.
>>
>>No, not really.
>>
>>Go find a US Yellow-Pages(tm) and look up "Aerial Surveys" or
>>"Surveys/Surveying".
>>It's how topographic maps are made.
>>Satellites in large part aren't used to make maps.
>
>Fair enough. Though it does mean flying over some one else's air space.
Find "Eisenhower 'Open Skies'". The idea goes back decades.
Every country has cartographic interests. Every country has to learn to
balance its civilian needs from its military needs.
>>>Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
>>>the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
>>>so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..
>>
>>Ask in Iraq.
>
>I have.
Then you should realize as Google has pointed out that all these sources
already exist independent of them. The risks exist else where on the
net and if you are really concern, security through obscurity isn't
going to help you.
>>>can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
>>>the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.
>>
>>Google is merely an index to preexisting commercial source matter
>>(marginal quality at that).
>
>And that changes what I have said? I said google, streetmap, multi map
>and others several times. I just wrote google because it is pointless
>writing the list every time
Having data vs. pointing to data:
The people who point are less invested in data quality than the people
who stewart that data. When you have data, you can cut it off.
If you want to turn every country into military states, close and
compartmentalize data and information, shut down libraries because they
have books on basic chemistry which write about poisons, explosives,
economic manufacturing processes, etc., then you can express your
Orwellian opinions.
>>Ah Ordinance Survey mapping country eh.
>>Things are different in the USA.
>
>Every thing is different in the USA. (usually from the rest of the
>world)
"ChrisCoaster" <ckozicki@snet.net> wrote in message
news:4c7ab035-98b4-4402-8d9d-b00e1207670d@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 3:20 am, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ef7d9ad8-0f7d-47fc-8c07-91cab104f753@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This is ridiculous. Lou Dobbs should see this thread. He'd laugh so
> > hard he'd end up on a FU#*$ng CATHETER!!!
> > Pretty soon, we'll all be limited to taking pictures only within the
> > confines of our own homes - not even our yards - and you'd better make
> > sure you turn off that TV in the background behind your grandson
> > holding the cat!
>
>> Watch that blood pressure old boy. As I pointed out the restrictions
>> refer to photography for COMMERCIAL purposes only. Such
>> limitations have been the norm since the birth of the artform. NYC
>> requires permits to be obtained for such shoots as does the
>> national parks service
>>
>> http://www.nps.gov/npnh/parknews/com...ill-photograph...
>>
>> Keith
_________________
> Are you SURE about that, skippy?!
Darn tooting
> Do you even KNOW if you have the right to BREATHE while reading this
> message?!
Sure do
> 6 years, 9 months and 3 weeks ago you LOST your rights as a HUMAN
> BEING in this country, as have we ALL.
So what happened here in Britain 6 years, 9 months and 3 weeks ago ?
> So why don't you start using your upper brain and the ones between
> your legs - that's right, it's called GUMPTION - and do something
> about it!!!!
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:75aa8ab1-c305-4125-86a5-16c5016f947b@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 1:57 am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message
>
>> As for a balloon being practical in 1858.... I doubt there were any
>> weapons that could reach it and to harm. Most field artillery was not
>> able to point skyward. Most muskets and rifles only had a shot range
>> and would loose power quickly going straight up.
> "Muskets"? We're _not_ talking about the English Civil War.
Muskets were still in widespread use during the American
civil war. The standard Union firearm of the war was the
Springfield rifled musket. Almost 1.5 million of these muzzle loading
firearms were produced.Both sides used the British made Enfield
Rifled Musket. The most common Confederate long arm was the
Richmond musket
On 30 Jun, 18:56, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Then answer the question. How short could an exposure be during the
> Civil War?
Wet plate was the usual process by this time, it was in use from 1851
I think until about the 1880s. It was much faster than previous
processes, with exposures typically being a few seconds. I think you
might have got it down to a second in bright sunlight. Glass plates
for printing needed more exposure than Ambrotypes and Tintypes, which
were plates which were viewed directly by having a black backing which
made the image appear to be a positive.
Even with exposures this short it would have been difficult to keep
the camera still in a balloon basket. To make matters worse you'd
have to carry a darkroom tent with you, and coat, sensitise, expose,
develop fix and wash the plate within a few minutes before it dried.
It would then be varnshed, but this could have been done later.
Wet plate photography is actually seeing something of a revival at the
moment; there are almost certainly more people doing it today than at
any time in the last 100 years or so.
Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge 
Linear Mode
