bickster

But you appear to be guessing TSV, it's actually documented in books. This is not finger pointing at Ellis either, I didn't say he shouldn't have done it, there is a very good argument to say that he was right to do it. This was Ellis Pre-Bendall era Villa Ask any Villa fan over a certain age, just like Mike did with his dad and they'll tell you the original spelling was the correct English version of the word not some made up word

Beg to differ - as long as I can remember we have been Villains with an "i" - I have no proof that this was anything other than a corruption so I checked my old man and a 87 year old member of our supporters club and they concurred that as far back as they can remember we have always been the VILLAINS......... Like another poster I believe that the term VILLANS was inspired by ellis as he felt Villains was derogatory. So I suppose you could argue that officially we are the Villans but personally I and many others will always refer to us as the Villains You would be correct Mike, My understanding is that we were always Vilains until the club decided to change it with the growing problem of footbal hooliganism in the early 70's. Ellis and the rest of the board then decided to change is to Villans to attempt to make a distinction between fans of AVFC and those of a criminal bent. Simply put the term Villan is Ellesian

If I was going to be offended by peoples comments I wouldn't post pictures, feel free to comment on anything I post, positive or negative. The only way to improve anything is to listen to the negative, you may on reflection, think the negative comments are wrong, that is also part of the critical process

Yep I agree Pete, I did it deliberately, an example of bad editing as it were. I see it all the time and it makes me cringe to be honest. Its unnatural because it was taken in the middle of the day so the shadows on the buildings reflect that but the sky has been edited with a graduated filter to attempt to turn it into a sunset scene and it just doesn't work. Its there to show that not all editing is good. Editing only works if its believable

Its actually on the sea front in Menton (1KM away from Italian Border), the only place in Europe where lemons grow all year round apparently and also the place where that Webb-Ellis bloke died And gives me an opportunity to see what people think of this........ Menton from the hill

trouble is it was taken in the land of the cheese eating surrender monkeys in an area so close to the border it has often been controlled by the army with 5 reverse gears

which version, if you don't mind me asking? Which leads me on to................. Well those that are anti it are living in a dream world of perfection to be honest, for the following reasons Digital Photography at the high end is actually designed for manipulation, cameras are designed in many instances to under expose slightly, many images have to be manipulated to get the true picture you shot in the first place I also don't see the difference between adding a graduated filter in front of the lens and doing it in an editing programme such as photoshop, neither is a true reflection of the scene in front of the camera. Neither Cameras nor film can truely represent the full gamut of colours visible to the naked eye in one shot, the sensor // film that can do this either doesnt exist or is so prohibitively expensive it isnt economic t produce one. Film has a wider gamut but its still nowhere near the range of the human eye Even in the days of film there has always been "manipulation" in the dark room, dodging and burning areas, using the "incorrect: chemicals to produce color shifts Black & White digital should never be shot in B&W for instance, it should be shot in color and converted post capture, you lose to much info from the image shooting in B&W Manipulation has always taken place, the purist argument is utter tripe and in this day and age is usually the argument of the old dog that won't learn new tricks Take the wave photo above as an example, the first one can be considered to be the "pure" photo, even though it was shot in color, converted to mono and had the levels changed. The second image has merely been toned and had a further levels enhancement on the wave to add more drama to the scene. Which is best - you decide, I prefer the second one and the interesting thing is, I've done nothing a traditional film photographer wouldn't have done, its just the equivalent of burning in the wave in the dark room

Wave Watching (redone now toned with a bit more drama added to the scene)

I just bought the D300 to go with my D2Xs, Can't justify buying the D3 really (wish I could), the D300 is superb though. As both have the same processor essentially yours will be just as good as mine at 1600 / 3200 ISO. Never seen such good cameras at such high ISO's

Nah Nice (I'm still going through my Nice shots, took nearly a thousand shots!) And here's another one Wave Watching

Mr Square Head

right thats the politics dealt with, here's something I've been ruminating on for over a week and I'm still undecided whether I like it or not Now obviously the upper phot is the original and the lower is the arty one, I'm thinking of printing the lower one on fine art paper and framing it

Obviously, the camera gives us away You mentioned elsewhere that you 'know your rights'. I'd be interested (as I suspect would others), what exactly ARE a photographers rights if an over-bearing pig comes bothering you ? Wouldn't be O/T in this thread me thinx. If you want an explanation thats short and simple, there isn't one but what I can give you is a link to a PDF, that I carry around with me in my Photography bag in case the need arises to consult it clicky for 2 page pdf file

Just to keep the water theme going .............. Really like something about this tbh, tried getting rid of the whatever it is hanging off the wall on the rhs, didn't look as good with an empty space, I also know theres a small amount of bush in the bottom left hand corner but I'm not sure whether I want that gone either (it offers an idea of scale) but opinions greatly accepted as there's something I like about this a lot but know its not quite right. Mono is definitely the way to go with this one though (imo obviously) but is it the right mono conversion, do I need to tone down the blacks a bit or darken the whites maybe? Edit: another question, is it straight or have I gone to far in trying to correct the distortion? You look at something for long enough and you really can't tell

Obviously, the camera gives us away

Nice Trekka Just to keep the nautical theme going a couple from Nice near miss Nice Breakers Both from the recent trip to Nice

After the Flood - Talk Talk

Spot on that John! I think Barry would be foolish to move to Warzone Anfield, unless he wants to put his feet up and just play in the league cup , make the odd league start and play from the bench at Centre Forward (Just look at where Carragher plays!). The other question has to be. Will Benetiz actually be the manager at Anfield for that much longer, he is so embroiled in the battle of words, one of the owners has asked him to step down, they've already admitted to seeking out alternative managers. At the moment I'd think you'd need lobotomising before you agreed to a move to Anfield such is the state of things away from the pitch

Notice how he wasn't booked for his two footed lunge as well today

Is there a ghost - Band of Horses

Please Sir I don't want a detention for my insolence but it was the edge of the centre circle not the D The rest of your report is most excellent though sir, have an apple sir

Really is a dilemma this one for me, sha winning could do us a favour but would probably keep them up. Tough decision

Pagan Angel & a Borrowed Car - Iron & Wine

I was going to tactfully ask who had pressed the wrong button?

I predict a landslide result