Bad photography joke

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Just heard on Virgin Radio from England...


Q: What's the difference between a camera and a sock?

A: A camera takes photos and a sock takes five toes...



....hey, I don't write the stuff...

mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

m II <C@In.The.Hat> writes:

> ...hey, I don't write the stuff...

I think you have to have a British dialect for it to work.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http/www.cieux.com/ | http/www.civex.com/ is read daily.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 31 Jan 2005 10:16:35 -0800, Phil Stripling
<phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:

>m II <C@In.The.Hat> writes:
>
>> ...hey, I don't write the stuff...
>
>I think you have to have a British dialect for it to work.

...and an extremely wide latitude for humor.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
> On 31 Jan 2005 10:16:35 -0800, Phil Stripling
> <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>
> >m II <C@In.The.Hat> writes:
> >
> >> ...hey, I don't write the stuff...
> >
> >I think you have to have a British dialect for it to work.
>
> ..and an extremely wide latitude for humor.
>

I thought it was a little bit funny

Lisa

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:12:10 -0800, Lisa Horton
<Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>>
>> On 31 Jan 2005 10:16:35 -0800, Phil Stripling
>> <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >m II <C@In.The.Hat> writes:
>> >
>> >> ...hey, I don't write the stuff...
>> >
>> >I think you have to have a British dialect for it to work.
>>
>> ..and an extremely wide latitude for humor.
>>
>
>I thought it was a little bit funny

What did the spastic say to his dog?

"Down syndrome!"

Now that's funny. It defines 'politically incorrect' of course, and
offends lots of people, but, let not that stand in the way of humor.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <3qlla9tqf0.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>m II <C@In.The.Hat> writes:
>
>> ...hey, I don't write the stuff...
>
>I think you have to have a British dialect for it to work.

I don't think so.

I'm not aware of any British dialect that pronounces "Four" as "Fo"

I'd say the reqired accent is probably closer to one from New Orleans.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

johnf@panix.com (John Francis) writes:

> I'm not aware of any British dialect that pronounces "Four" as "Fo"

Listen to the Beatles. :->
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http/www.cieux.com/ | http/www.civex.com/ is read daily.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ctm5id$m1$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <3qlla9tqf0.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
> Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>>m II <C@In.The.Hat> writes:
>>
>>> ...hey, I don't write the stuff...
>>
>>I think you have to have a British dialect for it to work.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> I'm not aware of any British dialect that pronounces "Four" as "Fo"
>
> I'd say the reqired accent is probably closer to one from New Orleans.
>
New Orleans "poor". The finest English I have heard spoken here in the US is
by New Orleans upper class......

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

don't you mean narlins ?

bill



"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ctm5id$m1$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <3qlla9tqf0.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
> Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
> I don't think so.
>
> I'm not aware of any British dialect that pronounces "Four" as "Fo"
>
> I'd say the reqired accent is probably closer to one from New Orleans.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:06:24 GMT, "bill a"
<custom4173@sbcglobalDOTnet.invalid> wrote:

>don't you mean narlins ?
>
>bill
>
>

Nawlins

>"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:ctm5id$m1$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <3qlla9tqf0.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
>> Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any British dialect that pronounces "Four" as "Fo"
>>
>> I'd say the reqired accent is probably closer to one from New Orleans.
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"ZONED!" <no_email@please_post.net> wrote in message
news:41fea5b4.444375127@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:06:24 GMT, "bill a"
> <custom4173@sbcglobalDOTnet.invalid> wrote:
>
>>don't you mean narlins ?
>>
>>bill
>>
>>
>
> Nawlins
>
>>"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:ctm5id$m1$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>> In article <3qlla9tqf0.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
>>> Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of any British dialect that pronounces "Four" as "Fo"
>>>
>>> I'd say the reqired accent is probably closer to one from New Orleans.
>>>
>>
>
whore = "ho"
four = "fo"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <3qvf9dl05k.fsf@shell4.tdl.com>,
Phil Stripling <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>johnf@panix.com (John Francis) writes:
>
>> I'm not aware of any British dialect that pronounces "Four" as "Fo"
>
>Listen to the Beatles. :->

a.k.a "The Fab Four". Pronounced Four, not Fo.

In any case, Scouse pronunciation is most definitely "Faw".
(Listen to John singing "All Together Now" some time).
Birmingham, I'll concede, starts off "Fo". But it doesn't
stop there - the full pronunciation is more like "Fo-wer"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Jerry wrote:
> <C@In.The.Hat> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > A: A camera takes photos and a sock takes five toes...
>
> Actually, I kinda liked the joke!
>
> The joke makes a point.
> I tend not to use the term "take a picture". What I really do is
expose
> some film or some electronic light sensing device so that I can later

> have a picture. I may even capture light in my camera which allows me
to
> convert it to a photo later. I think one could even say they "make" a

> picture. When this has been done, I can then "take" the picture
> somewhere.
> However, at no time does my camera "take" anything!
I bet you're a wow at parties...

 

[Jerry]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<C@In.The.Hat> wrote:

[...]
> A: A camera takes photos and a sock takes five toes...

Actually, I kinda liked the joke!

The joke makes a point.
I tend not to use the term "take a picture". What I really do is expose
some film or some electronic light sensing device so that I can later
have a picture. I may even capture light in my camera which allows me to
convert it to a photo later. I think one could even say they "make" a
picture. When this has been done, I can then "take" the picture
somewhere.
However, at no time does my camera "take" anything!

;-)
Jerry


>
>
>
> ...hey, I don't write the stuff...
>
> mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Jerry wrote:
> <C@In.The.Hat> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> A: A camera takes photos and a sock takes five toes...
>
> Actually, I kinda liked the joke!
>
> The joke makes a point.
> I tend not to use the term "take a picture". What I really do is
> expose some film or some electronic light sensing device so that I
> can later have a picture. I may even capture light in my camera which
> allows me to convert it to a photo later. I think one could even say
> they "make" a picture. When this has been done, I can then "take" the
> picture somewhere.
> However, at no time does my camera "take" anything!
>
> ;-)
> Jerry

It takes souls... or so I've heard.

"Doctor, I think I'm a kleptomaniac - what can I take for that?"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Jerry wrote:

> However, at no time does my camera "take" anything!


You recycle the photons? Neat!




mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

And there I was thinking this thread would be a repository for a huge
list of photo jokes, that I can then plagiarise and use in classes...
But only one so far - so here's my addition:


What's the difference between a photographer and a large pizza?

A large pizza can feed a family of four.


By the way, I once had a copy of a tongue-in-cheek list of Ways To Make
Money With Your Camera, that had items on it like this:

1. Sell your camera. Leica's are particularly good here..

2. Hit someone over the head with it and steal their wallet. Nikon
F-series cameras are best for this because of their weight..

If anyone knows where I can find a full copy of this, it would be
appreciated.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Way to go JCD - that's it! I mighta known it had something to do with
Bob Atkins!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

So here it is, plagiarised, with deepest apologies to Bob and the
assurance it is reproduced here for educational purposes only:

How to Make Money Using Cameras
aka Creative Camera Use

by Robert M. Atkins

1. Sell it. Best camera for this type of work is a Leica, preferably an
unused "special edition."
2. Pawn it. Not as good as (1), but still not bad. Again, Leicas are
the best kind of camera for this work.
3. Lurk around in a dark alley, and when someone comes by, hit them
over the head with your camera and steal their wallet. Here the
superiority of medium format work really shines. Mamiya RB67s or Pentax
6x7s are very good. If you have to use 35mm, rumor has it that Nikons
work better than Canons. Under really difficult conditions, use a
sturdy tripod (always a good idea).
4. Sell pictures to your friends and colleagues. The best way here is
to follow them around in the evening and weekends. If you are lucky
you'll spot them doing something like going into a massage parlor or
being stopped by the police for DWI. Pictures of these events usually
sell for quite a bit more than the usual portrait work. 35mm is the
preferred format, and a long-range zoom is the lens of choice.
5. Sports Photography. Follow a prominent sports figure around all day,
every day, and take close-up pictures with a wide angle lens and flash
as often as possible. With luck and persistence you will be the victim
of an assault, for which you can sue. Even an out of court settlement
can be quite profitable. I'd suggest an inexpensive P&S camera for this
type of work.
6. There is no 6, 7, 8 or 9. What you gonna do? Sue me for article
fraud?
10. Become a pro by joining IFPO and sell yourself to people even more
gullible than you are. Make lots of money, retire, and write a book
about how to make money with your camera.


And here's another item that gave me a grin or two - a list of focal
lengths and their uses:

http/www.photo.net/mjohnston/column57/

 

[Vic]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8k1tv0hv0fj7fjto1cv0mnntnmb5tsqbg5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:12:10 -0800, Lisa Horton
>
> What did the spastic say to his dog?
>
> "Down syndrome!"
>
> Now that's funny. It defines 'politically incorrect' of course, and
> offends lots of people, but, let not that stand in the way of humor.

I think it's in the most extraordinarily bad taste, and if you think it's
funny then I think it's you that should be put down. I shall certainly not
stand in the way when a large truck is accidentally thundering in your
direction. 'Jokes' like that went out of fashion at least 10 years ago.
Where have you been? In a coma? I wish you were still there.