text:
. Please
Did you miss your
activation email?
September 05, 2015, 12:51:34 PM
Luminous Landscape Home
Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters
About This Site
the so called minuature formats
Pages: [
Bottom of Page
Topic: the so called minuature formats (Read 22270 times)
Sr. Member
Posts: 5484
the so called minuature formats
September 28, 2005, 07:04:45 PM »
It is interesting that Michael wraps up his recent essay with a reference to the introduction and eventual dominance of the "so called miniature format", the 24x36mm of 35mm film cameras. Interesting because he otherwise rejects the idea that smaller formats have virtues for professional and enthusiastic amateur photographers. His predictions turn largely on two ideas
a) expectations of the FF price penalty getting below US$1,000
the claim that cost is the only advantage of a smaller format (as if the downsizing progression from LF to MF to 35mm film format was solely for cost reasons.)
His strange weight comparions of the very robustly built and three year old E-1 to the new unsealed body of the 5D is a bit strange; for a different spin, compare the new lightest Four Thirds body (the new Olympus E-500, at 479g) to the new lightest FF body (the 5D at 895g): about one pound difference.
But the big missing point is lenses, and how they will increase the size and weight of the larger format kit needed to realize most of the claimed advantages, if suitable lenses exist at all.
1) You get absolutely no advantage from a larger sensor unless you also use a longer focal length, to spread the image over more sensor area. Using the same focal length as with a smaller sensor and then cropping more means that you use only a portion of the larger sensor of the same size as the smaller sensor. (Meanwhile you have to compose for a heavy crop in the viewfinder.)
2) Using a longer focal length but the same effective aperture diameter (f-stop increased in proportion to focal length) helps only with image quality at close to minimum ISO speed, requiring a lower shutter speed than with the smaller format due to the higher f-stop. When instead the larger format uses ISO speed a stop or more above minimum, the smaller format with its lower f-stop can use a lower ISO and yet the same shutter speed, and this lower ISO balances out the noise/DR advantages of the larger sensor when sensors are compared at equal ISO.
3) That leaves only using larger focal lengths and larger aperture diameters: for example, using equal f-stop despite the longer focal length. This only applies when the larger format can use a larger aperture diameter than the fastest lens available for the smaller format at the equivalent focal length, because if the smaller format can match aperture diameter, we are back in case (2).
Simple optics and physics says that this high speed advantage requires bigger front elements and lenses that are heavier and probably more expensive, and also leads to very shallow DOF (often a disadvantage, believe ot or not!)
What will sports/action/wildlife users choose? Probably telephotos are the main realm where high speed is of great importance, and beyond about 85mm for primes and 200mm for any lenses for 35mm format, the speed advantage only exists for only a very few heavy, expensive lenses, like a 400/2.8. Shorter but brighter telephoto lenses for use wit hteh smaller formats, like the new Nikon 200mm f/2, can probably eliminate most or all of this high speed/low light/low DOF performance difference. As to price and weight, comparing that Nikon 200/2 to a 300/2.8, or a 400/2.8 to a 600/4 suggests that there is no significant price or weight penalty to this "shorter but brighter" telephoto lens strategy,and in fact probably abit of a size and weight advantage. Any performance difference that remains will continue to cost and weigh a lot.
Only wide to short telephoto focal lengths have a likely long-term advantage from larger apertures in 35m format; a realm where I expect most photographers will find few problems with the speed of the smaller DSLR formats.
To me, case (2) always has been and probably always will be the main larger format advantage: more dynamic range, finer tonal gradations, and maybe more resolution, by using low ISO for optimal quality and generally higher f-stops and lower shutter speeds than with smaller formats.
P. S. I do not see the existing lens pool holding back smaler DSLR formats much. For focal lengths beyond about 60mm, 35mm format lenses work equally well (though differently) with smaller formats, since such lens designs naturally throw an image circle big enough for the 35mm frame size. So the transition to smaller formats does not obsolete many lenses. It typically require getting one or two new shorter ones, and in exchange, the longest one or two lenses might become dispensable.
Anyway, a majority of DSLR buyers have never previously owned a 35mm format SLR, and so have no legacy lenses.
John Camp
Sr. Member
Posts: 1312
the so called minuature formats
Reply #1 on:
September 28, 2005, 08:13:23 PM »
I've noticed on a number of forums that people are using the phrase "legacy formats," and to me that signals a critical shift in thinking (if that shift might also reflect on the way camera manufacturers may be thinking.) I see little advantage to "full-frame" sensors, and quite a few for the smaller sensors. (I will grant that there are some definite advantages to legacy size cameras for people who need to strongly manipulate depth of field; but this will eventually be rendered less important by Photoshop.) It would be a curious reversal if Canon someday found itself to be the "new medium format" camera: much more expensive both as a camera body and a system, and carrying much more weight, and often relegated to specialist photo applications -- fashion and landscape -- while cameras with non-legacy sensors (perhaps not only APS-C, but possibly even with a 6x7 or 5x4 ratios) become the "new 35s" used for all photo journalism/action/street shooting, and even fashion and landscape where huge print sizes are not required. The Sony P&S zoom cameras will never have the flexibility of a fully exhangeable-lens system, attractive as they may be -- and if they were smaller, I would find them very attractive indeed. They will eventually wind up like the film point-and-shoots; there were, in that category, some extremely able cameras, if you can remember back that far...
I will have to say that I've always found Michael Reichmann's specific loyalty to the legacy-sized sensors to be odd, given that much of his most critical shooting is with a different format (and he's always seemed fair-minded enough that I would NOT attribute this to any connection with Canon.) Well, I suspect we will see, and really, rather quickly. By 2008, who knows...?
Sr. Member
Posts: 9171
the so called minuature formats
Reply #2 on:
September 28, 2005, 11:40:24 PM »
But the big missing point is lenses, and how they will increase the size and weight of the larger format kit needed to realize most of the claimed advantages, if suitable lenses exist at all.
Look! The bottom line is this. The smaller format will always have the advantage of being lighter, but always at the cost of a sacrifice in image quality. If someone can design a smaller format that is significantly lighter than a larger, heavier format but offers equal (or close to equal) image quality at a similar price, then such a camera will have a huge competitive advantage in the market.
The D2X almost fell into that category. Image quality is almost on a par with the heavier 1Ds2 and the savings in weight (as well as price) can justify, for many, that slight loss in image quality and increased noise at high ISOs. That's fine. I'm all in favour of the consumer having a choice, but ultimately, with equal technological development amongst formats, comparing the latest with the latest, the larger format will always retain an inherent image quality advantage.
The issue therefore revolves around the size of the various trade-offs. Is the weight advantage significant but the image quality loss only marginal, or vice versa?
It seems to me, the Olympus 4/3rds format is really a competitor to the APS-C format. Affordable FF 35mm could well knock it out of the market, as Michael predicts.
You argument that lenses longer than 60mm have a sufficiently large image circle for a larger format, even though they might have been designed for a smaller format, is working against your main premise here. Again you are shooting yourself in the foot.
To make this clear, I'll give a concrete example. Let's say I'm mainly interesting in shooting wildlife and sporting events where the smaller format such as the 4/3rds and APS-C supposedly have an advantage. I consider 300mm to be my most used focal length and I look around for systems that support an excellent 300mm lens.
I'm impressed with the Zuiko 300/2.8 for the 4/3rds system, but I'm concerned that the FoV might be too narrow (effectively that of a 600mm lens on FF 35mm), however a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens. The size of the sensor cannot change that fact.
I consider the Canon 300/2.8, also a very fine lens, up there with the best that Canon produce, if not
best. I'm torn between the Canon 1Ds2 with 300/2.8 prime lens, and the latest 8 megapixel Olympus 4/3rds with Zuiko 300/2.8 lens.
I compare the specs. What do I find? Lo and behold, the Zuiko 300/2.8 is actually
than the Canon 300/2.8; 3.3KG as opposed to 2.55KG for the Canon. I don't know what the street prices for these 2 lenses are, but the RRP prices are about the same, with the Canon perhaps being marginally cheaper.
Now I'm not going to quibble about a few grams. A 1Ds2 plus 300/2.8 lens is going to be insignificantly heavier or lighter than an Olympus/Zuiko 300/2.8 combination and therefore not a factor in my deliberations.
The point has been made many times in this forum; it makes no difference if the camera's sensor does the cropping or the image editing program. Cropping is cropping.
The difference between these two systems is one of cropping choice. With the olympus/Zuiko 4/3rds system, I've got less choice. The sensor crops the image circle to a far greater degree than does the FF Canon/300mm combination. I would therefore much prefer to use the 1Ds2/300mm combination,
unless, of course, the cropped 1Ds2 image is inferior to the Olympus 4/3rds image
And here's the rub. I haven't seen any direct comparisons, but I'd be prepared to accept that currently the 8mp Olympus image would be sharper and more detailed than the cropped 4mp 1Ds2 image. If this wasn't the case, there'd really be no reason for the 4/3rds system to exist.
However, this latest article of Michael's is addressing trends and future scenarios. The current advantage of the 4/3rds format in my example above is partially offset by the choice of a wider FoV with the FF format, with any lens. Furthermore, the resolution advantage of the 4/3rds format will continue to be eroded as it becomes economically viable to produce FF sensors with higher pixel densities.
Full Member
Posts: 120
the so called minuature formats
Reply #3 on:
September 29, 2005, 10:21:59 AM »
That makes little sense. If you wanted a 300mm FOV you'd be looking at a 150mm lens for the Oly, not 300.
Jason Elias
Posts: 49
the so called minuature formats
Reply #4 on:
September 29, 2005, 10:46:37 AM »
I've just come fron handling a new Canon 5D at the camera store where I do business. As a current XPan (film) user, I've just been waiting for the right digital camera. For me, this is a full frame digital camera and Canon appears to have built this model for people like me. Kudos to Canon for giving so many of us-what we have been waiting for-at a price many of us can live with. Imagine, giving customers what they desire, and are willing to spend their dollars on-what a concept! This is not a question of legacy to me-I'm just thrilled to have this choice at this price point. Who wouldn't like it to be less expensive, but that also will follow.
Posts: 23
the so called minuature formats
Reply #5 on:
September 29, 2005, 01:59:55 PM »
I agree with BJL's initial comments on this topic - even given that the price difference between FF and 1.5x sensors drops, that is not necessarily enough to relegate the 1.5x to the low quality consumer market.
I believe that the 1.5x cameras will provide image quality that is
good enough!
That is the key word here - I dont need better, I am confident that within a couple of years, we will have an 11Mpixel 1.5x sensor on the market at the same price as todays 20D/350D, with the same or lower noise. That is what these cameras gave us over their predecessors - 33% more pixels at the same price and the same noise.
At 11Mpix and the noise of the 20D, I dont need anything else, but I have these advantages over a FF set-up:
You can cover the same zoom range with cheaper, smaller, lighter lenses - I own a 10-22, 17-85, 28-135 and 100-400. To cover the same range on a FF camera (effective 16mm to 560mm), would cost and weigh lots more.
The camera is also smaller, cheaper, lighter
I believe that within a few years, people who used to shoot medium format will move to FF (these are the people who really need extreme quality). People who used to shoot FF will move to 1.5x sensors - Its good enough, and to get better is just not worth the extra cost and weight.
Full Member
Posts: 201
the so called minuature formats
Reply #6 on:
September 29, 2005, 03:05:13 PM »
I have never thought of Michael as being dishonest in any of his analysis. I do feel he assigns a bit of "hero" status to some of his interview subjects. Adobe (Knoll), Phase (Raber?), and Canon (?)has been pulling at his heart strings. He appears to give them the benefit of doubt in any issues regarding them.
I have always approached the subject of FF vs DX as an economic issue. I have no doubt that technology will advance in many ways (hardware and software)where we reach a point of "good enough and then some" with reduced format sensors. It appears the huge installed base of 35mm lenses are a powerful reason for the infrastructure to leverage off of that base.
DX is very good already and will likely continue to get better. The edge to edge sharpness issue is probably the FF archiles heel. I can even see a small amount of differential in the DX world. It approaches unacceptable with FF.
All the above can be solved as new FF lenses, sharp edge to edge, are possibly introduced. Far more important with wide so the entire line doesn't need to be revamped. These babys will cost a pretty penny though.
All this has been discussed endlessly. BJL has provided valuable insight into the optical side. Others have contributed on other issues.
But, in the final analysis, it comes down to money. Sure FF will come down somewhat in cost, but DX/AP-C will always be less expensive and deliver acceptable quality at a lower price to the customer. Technology only makes it better. I can see the day of a 12-15 mpxl camera going for $500 in basic trim and it will be DX long before its FF. The market will flatten when that occurs as high quality becomes universal and improvements will be based on other issues like in the old days.
Maybe Nikon will produce a FF camera but it will be to compete with Canon for the Medium format customer. That customer base can grow well beyond the 'blad days as it shares infrastructure with 35mm systems
Medium format is becoming marginalized and less and less economic. 35FF digital will replace it. I suppose med format can replace large format, but the cost differental is enormous. Large format film is cheaper than 35mm/DX digital at the pro level, just not as versatile. When med format digital unit volume drops below a certain level it will implode in on itself. Just not enough units to fund R&D etc. In the meantime 35mm based digital camera are closing in.
In the end its all about economics, no matter what our heart tells us.
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
Posts: 350
the so called minuature formats
Reply #7 on:
September 29, 2005, 03:53:23 PM »
In the end its all about economics, no matter what our heart tells us.
It's also about physics. With todays senors we are aproching the diffraction limit, and if you want more pixels you will have to have a larger senors.
So even if we some day in the future can make senors with no noise in any size we wish, the diffraction limit will set a barrier and make it meaningless to make them smaller.
You can cover the same zoom range with cheaper, smaller, lighter lenses - I own a 10-22, 17-85, 28-135 and 100-400. To cover the same range on a FF camera (effective 16mm to 560mm), would cost and weigh lots more.
In a FF camera with the same pixel density as the smaller sensor, you could cover the same range with 16-400mm lenses and get the same or better image quality. You would only need a 560mm if you want beter quality than the smaller senor can give you. A 400mm on a FF will give the same image after cropping i PS as the smaller sensor. :cool:
Ronny A. Nilsen
The Quiet Landscape - www.ronnynilsen.com
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
Posts: 1736
the so called minuature formats
Reply #8 on:
September 29, 2005, 04:07:30 PM »
What will sports/action/wildlife users choose?
As you say, for most everyone else, especially those who don't have huge studios and want to keep their legacy lenses for the purpose that they were bought or don't want to buy a new bunch on DX/AFS lenses - Crop sensors are a serious pain in the tuchus and to heck with them.
If I was going on safari then I would take a 20D no question, for a wedding or portrait session you just try and tear that FF DSLR away from me!
Full Member
Posts: 201
the so called minuature formats
Reply #9 on:
September 29, 2005, 04:35:35 PM »
In the end its all about economics, no matter what our heart tells us.
It's also about physics. With todays senors we are aproching the diffraction limit, and if you want more pixels you will have to have a larger senors.
So even if we some day in the future can make senors with no noise in any size we wish, the diffraction limit will set a barrier and make it meaningless to make them smaller.
At what point is enough, enough?
At 300 dpi, just how big are you going to print. I'll admit my average print has moved up to 13x19 and 18x24 compared to 8x10 and 11-14 in the film days but...
Hardly worth playing with 30-40 meg files, that turn into monster Tiffs, especially with the way some folks just hammer on the shutter release. The amount of processing is out of control. Some digital trained folks shoot more in a month that I did in a decade in the film days. I already spend too much time in processing...
I disagree that DX/APC sensors are approaching the limits...
Maybe some of the P&S but not DX. You're being too theoretical.
Sr. Member
Posts: 9171
the so called minuature formats
Reply #10 on:
September 29, 2005, 06:55:46 PM »
That makes little sense. If you wanted a 300mm FOV you'd be looking at a 150mm lens for the Oly, not 300.
The point I'm trying to get across is one that's been misunderstood from the day the first APS-C DSLR hit the market, and it's this. A 150mm lens or a 300mm lens is just that, whatever camera it's attached to. I can never get a field of view greater than the inherent image circle thrown by the lens, whatever the focal length of the lens, but I can reduce the FoV as much as I want by cropping.
Whilst it's true that a 150mm lens on a 4/3rds format produces the same FoV as a 300mm lens on a FF frame 35mm camera without more cropping than has already taken place in-camera, there's nothing to stop me continuing to crop the image in Photoshop. The more I crop, the narrower the FoV becomes. Why stop at the degree of cropping already done by the camera's sensor? Answer: because the more you crop, the lower the image quality.
A cropped image from a 150mm lens ultimately can never have the same quality as an uncropped image from a 300mm lens, if both lenses are of similar quality. As sensors continue to have greater pixel density to a point beyond the resolving capacity of the lenses used, and as the prices of FF 35mm sensors fall, the APS-C camera becomes a less attractive proposition.
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
Posts: 350
the so called minuature formats
Reply #11 on:
September 29, 2005, 07:10:05 PM »
I disagree that DX/APC sensors are approaching the limits...
Maybe some of the P&S but not DX. You're being too theoretical.
It depends on subjective factors ofcourse, but for me my 20D has small enough pixels. If I stop down to f/22 or smaller the effect is visible.
Take a look at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm to see a visualisation of the size of the airy disk.
Ronny A. Nilsen
The Quiet Landscape - www.ronnynilsen.com
Sr. Member
Posts: 5484
the so called minuature formats
Reply #12 on:
September 29, 2005, 08:39:18 PM »
It's also about physics. With todays senors we are aproching the diffraction limit, and if you want more pixels you will have to have a larger senors.
If diffraction got to be a problem at even the largest apertures of lenses (as it possibly is with 8MP 1/1.8" sensors), then there would be a problem. DSLR's are not even close: the D2X is diffraction limited only at about f/11 and beyond.
That leaves diffraction problems only when one stops down to get lots of DOF. Changing to a larger format requires using a higher f-stop to achieve that same DOF, making the diffraction effect equally great.
That is, once again, comparing different formats at equal effective
aperture diameter
(focal length divided by f-stop) gives equal DOF and equal diffraction effects on equal sized prints; no advantage to either larger or smaller formats.
One difference is that since the larger format is then using a higher f-stop, it must use either a higher ISO speed or a lower shutter speed, vaporising its supposed noise/speed advantage.
Sr. Member
Posts: 5484
the so called minuature formats
Reply #13 on:
September 29, 2005, 09:02:59 PM »
The bottom line is this. The smaller format will always have the advantage of being lighter, but always at the cost of a sacrifice in image quality.
Exactly: lighter, cheaper, and in some situations less image quality, but in others, no noticable difference.
This is the same trade off that 35mm film offered in comparison to the earlier larger roll film formats, and 4"x5" sheet film in comparison to the older, larger 5"x7" and 8"x10" sheet film formats. In each case, smaler not only survied but evedntualy dominated ove teh older, bigger formats. So clearly the advangtages of small can be sufficient for healthy survival sometimes, contradicting the simplistic "bigger formats give better image quality and so will eventually dominate" argument.
Please explain why 35mm (and 4"x5") did so well despite their "size disadvantage".
Your comparison of Four Thirds and 35mm both with 300/2.8 lenses shows that you have totally missed or ignored one of my main points: a larger format needs to use longer focal lengths, or the extra sensor area is completely wasted.
Another point about cropping and focal length needs: the Canon 35mm format DSLRs have all consistently had distinctly lower sensor resolution (wider pixel spacing) than contemporary far less expensive smaller format DSLRs. For that reason also, they must use longer focal lengths to record about the same amount of detail from a subject.
And why compare to Four Thirds in particular? I used Nikon DX for my main examples, since that is clearly the current pre-eminent "smaller than 35mm" DSLR format. Nikon DX is above all the one that the one that Canon's 35mm format has to vanquish in order to fullfill your apparent desire that photographic enthusiasts be denied DSLR options that are smaller, lighter and less expensive than 35mm format, while also clearly exceeding 35mm film quality overall, as the D2X already does.
John Camp
Sr. Member
Posts: 1312
the so called minuature formats
Reply #14 on:
September 30, 2005, 12:11:58 AM »
A cropped image from a 150mm lens ultimately can never have the same quality as an uncropped image from a 300mm lens, if both lenses are of similar quality.
I either don't understand this, or don't understand your argument, one or the other. I'm willing to take a further explanation of either.
An APS-C image is NOT cropped. It's the full size of the APS-C. It simply uses less of the lens' circle. So what? The FOV in an APS-C at 200 is the same as in a FF at 300. So what?
The APS-C isn't cropped, nor is it the same thing as a crop, because -- and this is the crux of the question, or the problem -- the sensors are not the same. All of the D2x's pixels are in the APS-C sized sensor; most of the Canon's are outside of that similar area on the Canon's sensor. So a D2X has much more resolution and sharpness over the APS-sized area, does it not?
I really don't understand this focus on "crops," or even what is meant by that. A crop is when you have an image and cut the edges off of it, either on paper or in Photoshop. You simply throw away pixels; the pixel density doesn't change. If the pixel density across a ff sensor were the same as across an APS-C, *then* the APS-C with the same FOV would be the equivalent of a crop.
But they're not the same. Anmd most reviewers would suggest that the quality of a 200 D2x and a 300 1DsII are extremely close -- so close that something other than resolution or sharpness might very well be the deciding factor of which you buy. If you want fast long lenses, lighter weight, less cost (and, for the time being, anyway, better corner sharpness in wide angle lenses) then you go with the D2x. If you want more easily manipulated depth of field, better high-ASA performance, or (according to some reviewers) slightly greater DR, then you might want to go with the 1DsII.
But crop? Not a factor.
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
Posts: 350
the so called minuature formats
Reply #15 on:
September 30, 2005, 02:39:08 AM »
It's also about physics. With todays senors we are aproching the diffraction limit, and if you want more pixels you will have to have a larger senors.
If diffraction got to be a problem at even the largest apertures of lenses (as it possibly is with 8MP 1/1.8" sensors), then there would be a problem. DSLR's are not even close: the D2X is diffraction limited only at about f/11 and beyond.
That leaves diffraction problems only when one stops down to get lots of DOF. Changing to a larger format requires using a higher f-stop to achieve that same DOF, making the diffraction effect equally great.
There is another reasons for wanting to stop down, and that is to control shutter speed. ::
So for me (not you or anybody else) I feel that I am aproching (not passing or indicating that it's problem on current DSLR's) the diffraction limit. I am not thinking of a particular camera here, we are talking about cameras in the future and the direction we are headed in.
It's not unlikely that we in, let's say 5 years, have cameras with different size sensors but with about the same pixel size that is close to diffraction limit of say f/5.6.
Then you can chose your image resolution based on sensor size the same way we have up to now done so by choosing different film formats.
And if you have been unlucky and bought a FF camera and want the benefits a redused sensors gives to your images, you can always put som duck tape covering part of your sensors and focusing screen to get the improved image quality.
The paragraph above is ment as humor, but it illustrates that in the long run image quality is tied to sensor size the same way it has been with film. But for most people a redused size sensor will give more quality than they need (and probably does already).
Ronny A. Nilsen
The Quiet Landscape - www.ronnynilsen.com
Full Member
Posts: 152
the so called minuature formats
Reply #16 on:
September 30, 2005, 03:17:48 AM »
What I did mind in this whole thing, at least watching the Olympus SLR forum on dpreview, is that Michael was again unfairly attacked, as if he insulted a leader of some cult, and now the followers are out for revenge. The similar thing happened to Mike Johnston, and now he stopped writing his columns, which is a great loss for the photographic community. People take cameras way too seriously, it seems.
I, personally, can't tell if it's better to invest in full frame 35mm sensor and lenses, or in 4/3 sensor and lenses. It probably depends on what one finds to be good enough. A couple of years ago Michael said that 3MP Canon D30 equals 35mm film, and that 6MP D60 is actually better than 35mm film. OK. So let's see, Olympus makes an E1 body with 5MP (which I own, BTW), and this body is generally agreed to have picture quality similar to Canon 10D, which should be better than 35mm film. In reality, when I compare A3 prints between E1 and my Minolta film gear, film has less clarity, and the amount of detail is either similar, or E1 is better. That goes hand in hand with Michael's estimate. So what do I have here? I replaced my film gear with equally powerful digital gear, and saved lots of money and time on processing and scanning. Why would I complain about limitations of the 4/3 format? That would be the case only if 135 film wasn't enough, and I wanted to upgrade to medium format.
Technically, Michael is right - bigger sensor will give you better quality of information per pixel, all other things being equal. However, are they? I mean, Canon FF cameras are obviously lens limited. Only the best lenses give optimal results, and that usually means L primes. So if you want to extract all that extra resolution the sensor allows, you have to shoot with primes, like with medium format. Fine, but that is not very convenient. On the other hand, Olympus makes great 4/3 zooms, with excellent resolution. 4/3 is sensor limited, while 35mm is glass limited. Sure, I guess when Canon makes a 24MP 35mm sensor, Olympus will have to stop at 12 - what a major tragedy that would be. However, let say, for argument's sake, that Olympus releases a 12MP sensor camera with resolution and DR better or equal to Nikon D2X. Would anyone have reason to complain about limitations of reduced format? I don't think so, as 12MP Nikon equals 6x6 Velvia scan, from what I've seen. The only way up is through medium format backs, not small format cameras. Michael himself has two systems - Canon and Contax. What's the problem if someone builds one system around 4/3, and another around a 35mm or even a 645 sensor? Why would 4/3 be limiting, if it allows me to pack 28-400mm range in two reasonably compact lenses, and get quality similar or identical to that of Canon L glass and a 10d body? I am very pleased with the results I produce with my E1. Yes, I can hardly wait for them to release a professional grade body with better resolution and noise performance. However, I'm not getting into seizures over it all. I use what I have, and try to improve my photography, as I did with 35mm film. I'm not into insane consumerism. If a 3 MP camera equalled 135 film three years ago, then I guess it still does today. So why would I treat a great 5MP camera as obsolete and outdated, when it actually still does outresolve 35mm film, still makes great pictures, and there always were better, bigger format cameras around? Well, just my two cents, anyway.
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
Posts: 1736
the so called minuature formats
Reply #17 on:
September 30, 2005, 06:58:48 AM »
Attacking Michael seems to be the national sport on forums after his essays, as if somehow he isn't entitled to his own opinion. MR must have thick skin or more rightly just not care about what people say and say and say..........while he's in an exotic location like China taking photos with the new equipment. I know which side of the ring I'd prefer to be in!
Full Member
Posts: 152
the so called minuature formats
Reply #18 on:
September 30, 2005, 07:43:10 AM »
Attacking Michael seems to be the national sport on forums after his essays, as if somehow he isn't entitled to his own opinion. MR must have thick skin or more rightly just not care about what people say and say and say..........while he's in an exotic location like China taking photos with the new equipment. I know which side of the ring I'd prefer to be in!
I know what you mean, and I know Michael says he has thick skin, but I do feel that unfair criticism really hurts him, which is quite normal. Actually, I would doubt his sanity if he were indifferent to it all, as it is not just criticism, but consists of very malicious personal attacks and slander, most of which would be prosecuted in courts, if Internet weren't such a mess. I stopped writing on dpreview forums because Phil Askey ignored my complaints about venomous personal slander by a user. I just didn't want to be a part of a place maintained by a man who de facto supports such behavior and earns sponsorship money from all the slander generated traffic.
The second part that irritates me are attacks on MR's photography - always and without exception by those who either produce or consume kitsch and cat/dog/child snapshots. I guess photography is subjective, and this leaves room to all kinds of idiotic opinions, but the problem with those people is that they have such immature and primitive taste, that they cannot discern between photography that looks good on 700x500 px resolutions on screen, and stuff that is printed big and hung on a wall, to complement the room atmosphere. I know what kind of stuff they'd call "good" - extreme kitsch, with simplified composition and maxed colors. Well I invite them to hang this stuff in their place, and make it look like Gipsy circus. Whew, I feel better already.
Sr. Member
Posts: 9171
the so called minuature formats
Reply #19 on:
September 30, 2005, 07:47:19 AM »
A cropped image from a 150mm lens ultimately can never have the same quality as an uncropped image from a 300mm lens, if both lenses are of similar quality.
I either don't understand this, or don't understand your argument, one or the other. I'm willing to take a further explanation of either.
An APS-C image is NOT cropped. It's the full size of the APS-C. It simply uses less of the lens' circle. So what? The FOV in an APS-C at 200 is the same as in a FF at 300. So what?
The APS-C isn't cropped, nor is it the same thing as a crop, because -- and this is the crux of the question, or the problem -- the sensors are not the same.
Okay! Here's the further explanation. All lenses project a circular image inside the camera. Basically a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens because it projects an image circle 50mm in diameter. A 100mm lens projects an image circle 100mm in diameter, although clearly there are exceptions such as wide-angle lenses. Also lenses can be optimised in the design process for better performance at particular f stops or a specific range of f stops and for better performance closer to the centre than to the edges.
When I use a 50mm lens with a full frame 35mm format camera, the diagonal of the FF sensor (24mmx36mm) is approx 44mm. I'm essentially cropping a circular image 50mm in diameter to get a rectangular field of view with a diameter of 44mm. That's not a sigfnificant crop, but a crop nevertheless.
When I use that same 50mm lens with, say a Canon D60, I'm unavodably cropping the circular image (50mm in diameter) to a much greater degree. The diagonal of the APS-C sensor is approx 29mm. Place a rectangle with diagonal of 29mm against a circle with diameter of 50mm and you should appreciate just how much cropping is taking place.
Now I could keep on cropping that 50mm circle by using an even smaller sensor (such as the Oly 4/3rds sensor), or I could achieve the same effect by cropping the image in Photoshop. There's essentially no limit to the amount of cropping I could do. Want a cheap 1200mm lens? No problem. I'll take a shot with a 1Ds2 with a 50mm lens and crop the 24mmx36mm image to 1mm x 1.5mm in Photoshop. Voila! Same FoV as a 1200mm lens.
I've taken an extreme example, but the principle is sound (unless BJL would care to dispute this
However, it sometimes takes an extreme example to clarify a point. I think it should be easy to appreciate that any image so severely cropped to achieve the same FoV as one would get actually using a 1200mm lens is not going to be anywhere near the same quality.
Likewise, one can't expect a 50mm lens on a D60 to produce image quality as good as an 80mm lens on a 1Ds2. Because these two cameras have the same pixel density, there is no image quality advantage for the D60 under any circumstances with any lens that might fit both cameras. There are only image quality disadvantages for the D60.
The notion that a 600mm lens on a D60 is equivalent to a 960mm lens on a 1Ds2 is pure illusion. However, a 600mm lens on a D60 will produce an image of equal quality and FoV
the 1Ds2/600mm image has been cropped in Photoshop to the same size.
Now you might ask, why would one want to crop the 1Ds2 image? Well, if that's your longest lens and you are shooting wildlife there might well be no option. The point here is that nothing would be gained by using a D60 for the same shot. Cropping is cropping, whether it's done by the camera or in Photoshop.
Pages: [
Top of Page
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
Site & Board Matters
=> About This Site
=> Rantatorials
=> Luminous Landscape Video
Raw & Post Processing, Printing
=> Adobe Camera Raw Q&A
=> Adobe Lightroom Q&A
=> Apple Aperture Q&A
=> Capture One Q&A
=> Other Raw Converters
=> Colour Management
=> Digital Black & White
=> Digital Image Processing
=> Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks
Equipment & Techniques
=> Landscape & Nature Photography
=> Landscape Photography Locations
=> Compact System Cameras
=> Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear
=> Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs and Large Sensor Photography
=> Pro Business Discussion
=> Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques
=> iPhone and Mobile Photography
=> Digital Asset Management
=> Motion & Video
=> Combocams
=> Computers & Peripherals
=> The Wet Darkroom
=> Digital Projection Tools and Techniques
=> For Sale
=> Beginner's Questions
The Art of Photography
=> Michael's Phlog
=> Discussing Photographic Styles
=> But is it Art?
=> User Critiques
=> The Coffee Corner
Powered by SMF 1.1.21
SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Lula Theme
- based on
Page created in 0.059 seconds with 18 queries.


text:
Uji Organic Matcha - Although this is the lowest priced matcha we carry, the quality is nonetheless quite good for the price, making it a great bargain. From Uji, located near Kyoto, this matcha is grown with only natural organic fertilizers and no agricultural chemicals. It is certified by JONA (Japan Organic & Natural Foods Association) and carries the JAS mark. Try some today!
Net weight 30gm, this product makes approximately 24 servings per can.
Compare product with:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Whooo Is Whooo
Event Type: Children's Program
Age Group(s): Families
Date: 10/22/2013, 10/23/2013, 10/24/2013, 10/25/2013, 10/26/2013, 10/27/2013, 10/28/2013, 10/29/2013, 10/30/2013
Start Time: All Day
Stop at the Youth Services desk to pick up a pamphlet to play the 'Guess the book character' game. This activity has moved indoors for the remainder of October. Check back with us after your walk around the Youth Services room to pick up a small prize and enter your name for a chance to win a book. Have fun!Map - Click here


text:
Dave Granlund cartoon on Santa.
TLC is highlighting yet another subculture with its upcoming special,�My Husband's Not Gay.The one-hour program, which airs�Sunday, Jan 11�at 10/9c, follows a group of Mormon men who are happily married to women — but are...
Friday's Amazing Race finale was pretty sweet. Food scientists and PhD students
As the United States and Cuba move toward normal relations, Americans are getting closer to one day freely visiting the island and sipping tall rum cocktails by the sea.
The ex-girlfriend of Sammy Davis Jr. is the latest woman to come forward with sexual assault claims against�
Dear Dave,
While the holidays can be an exciting time, there are someimportant things to consider to help keep you and your guests safe thisseason.
- Events Calendar


text: Switzerland County: Yesterday afternoon at approximately 5:00 p.m. a two vehicle crash left one dead in Switzerland County. According to Trooper Matt Holley a 1988 Toyota pickup truck driven by 49 year old James A. Williams of Vevay was northbound on East Enterprise/Markland Pike and a 1999 Ford dually truck pulling a 25 foot flatbed trailer driven by 42 year old Steven W. Gregory of Dry Ridge, KY was southbound. As the two vehicles entered a curve in the roadway, the Toyota travelled into the southbound lane and was struck in the driver's door by the Ford dually. Williams was pronounced dead at the scene and Gregory only suffered minor bruising. The crash remains under investigation. Tpr. Holley was assisted at the scene by Switzerland County Sheriff's Department, Jefferson Craig Fire Department, East Enterprise Fire Department, and Switzerland County Coroner's Office.


text:
Columbia Parks and Recreation
Creating Community through People, Parks and Programs
Browse GoColumbiaMo.com Skip top Navigation. Translate this page
4500 Bethel Street
Park Hours: 6 am to 11 pm
Park Fishing Hours: 4:30 am - 11 pm
40 Acres
1 - Medium shelter, reservable, lighted
1- Large shelter, reservable, lighted
2 - Non-Reservable shelters
Restrooms (open year round)
2 - ADA drinking fountains
1 - Baseball/softball practice field
1 - Fishing pond
0.46 mile gravel lake trail
2 - Horseshoe pits
Open field area
12 - Tennis courts, 8 lighted (Includes 4 tennis courts owned by Columbia Public Schools), 8 courts also lined for age 10 and under
1 - Volleyball court (sand)
J. W. Ficklin Shelter
Dr. Charles A. Leech Shelter
Cosmo-Bethel Tennis Shelter
Non-reservable shelter (adjacent to tennis courts)
Cosmo-Bethel Playground Shelter
Non-reservable shelter near playground
Note: This park received Federal funds from the National Park Service. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior (address below) strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in the departmental federally assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or handicap.
Director, Equal Opportunity Programs
U. S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
P. O. Box 37127
Washington, D.C. 20013-7127


text:
Push your driving skills to the limit with an exciting rally driving experience.
We have a great selection of driving experiences available, and as well as our sports car experiences we also have some interesting rally driving experiences. Take some of the quickest cars in the world off-road and see if you handle the muddy paths of the World Rally Championship tracks. Rally driving cars are less glamourous than sports cars, but much more familiar to regular drivers, it's more like taking a souped up car off a country road and onto gravel tracks.
You won't need to be a world-class driver to get involved though, anyone with a UK licence can take part. It's even possible to take a rally car where a licence is not required. There are also separate sections for junior driving experiences. While you can use these cars on a track, the more popular image of the rally driver is someone who drives off-road. There are locations all across Great Britain and two tracks available in Northern Ireland too. If you're going on a rally car experience make sure you wear loose, comfortable clothing and sensible shoes you'd be happy to drive in.
Although it is more known for the British Grand Prix, you can also have a great rally driving experience in Silverstone. You can also take a ride around the home of the British Superbikes Championship, Brand's Hatch. There are also some spectacular tracks to try out in Scotland, and elsewhere in the UK. Take a look through our wide choice of rally driving experiences and you're sure to have a memorable off-road racing experience.
22 Products found in Rally


text:
As the University of Notre Dame football team wakes up the echoes, it seemed like a good time to read a few of the late Notre Dame professor Ralph McInerny's Notre Dame mystery novels. I was immediately hooked. Through Amazon I was able to purchase all 13 of them (most are out of print) this fall and am about to finish reading the final one.
Obviously these aren't lengthy books (averaging 200 to 250 pages), and it is not like reading the books for which Professor McInerny is academically most famed. He was America's best-known Thomas Aquinas expert and author. He also wrote some 40 Father Dowling mysteries.
Beginning with "On This Rockne" and ending with "Shamrock," the format is basically the same: The core story is introduced, as are the Knight brothers — Phil the detective and his 300-pound brother, Roger, who holds the Huneker Chair of Catholic Studies at Notre Dame and aids him in solving the mysteries. At almost the exact midpoint of each book a murder is committed.
The second half of each book is the solution for which there are at least four very plausible suspects. One book has the last-minute surprise in the second-to-last sentence of the book. No solution is a shock, and all have adequate clues: no "air drop" murderers. The books are very logical. But the murder really isn't the point of these books, though they add some suspense. It's the joy of the journey.
These mysteries are a blend of an entertaining story, in a Notre Dame setting,
written by an author who has excellent command of the English language and who randomly educates through mixing facts and humor with a conservative worldview.
As a combined set, they are an education on the politics of academia from McInerny's perspective, exaggerated for literary effect. The faculty senate is dominated by liberal professors who can't teach and mostly want to write obscure papers to present to professors from other places. They hate Notre Dame, especially football, and its Catholicism most of all. Some of the administration figures are presented in a less-than-bumbling way, but if Father Carmody didn't keep coming out of retirement from the Holy Cross House to secretly bail them out, Notre Dame would have collapsed.
The titles are puns off the themes, such as "Emerald Aisle," in which two students get engaged, book the Sacred Heart church for a wedding years ahead and separate. The mystery starts when both want to use the hard-to-book reservation with different mates.
"Irish Gilt" centers around a proposal to honor Father John Zahm, who the book notes came to Notre Dame from Huntington when he was 15. You indirectly learn about the life of Zahm, after whom Zahm Hall is named.
Kirkus Reviews said: "Most readers will be converted to die-hard Notre Dame fans and possibly Catholicism." That is a bit extreme, but these books would add greatly to your knowledge of both.


text:
16 CFR 23.26 - Misuse of the words
prev | next
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word "flawless" as a quality description of any gemstone that discloses blemishes, inclusions, or clarity faults of any sort when examined under a corrected magnifier at 10-power, with adequate illumination, by a person skilled in gemstone grading.
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word "perfect" or any representation of similar meaning to describe any gemstone unless the gemstone meets the definition of "flawless" and is not of inferior color or make.
Title 16 published on 2015-01-01.
No entries appear in the Federal Register after this date, for 16 CFR Part 23.


text:
The Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) has launched web licensing for dogs and cats owned in Campbell, Monte Sereno, Mountain View and Santa Clara.
In order to renew an existing license or purchase a new license you will need a rabies vaccination certificate, a spay/neuter certificate if applicable and a payment method.
Visit the SVACA website or call (408) 764-0344 for more information.
City of Santa Clara
The City of Santa Clara is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Thank you for visiting the City of Santa Clara website.


text:
For a president who rarely shows emotion, Barack Obama's surprisingly personal blast at Republican critics of Susan Rice, his U.N ambassador, suggested two things. One, Obama genuinely admires Rice and thinks she's being unfairly criticized for giving an controversial explanation of the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack that later didn't hold up. And two, he may well intend to name her his second-term secretary of State, as some reports indicate.
Obama made a fair point when he said Rice "had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received." All Rice did was to carefully articulate on the Sunday TV talk shows what the administration knew at the time, "based on the best information we have to date," as she put it.
But there are other issues with Rice's record, both as U.N. ambassador and earlier as a senior Clinton administration official, that are all but certain to come out at any confirmation hearing, many of them concerning her performance in Africa. Critics say that since her failure to advocate an intervention in the terrible genocide in Rwanda in 1994 — Bill Clinton later said his administration's unwillingness to act was the worst mistake of his presidency — she has conducted a dubious and naïve policy of looking the other way at allies who commit atrocities, reflecting to some degree the stark and emotionless realpolitik sometimes associated with Obama, who is traveling this week to another formerly isolated dictatorship: Burma.
(TIMELINE: The Rise and Fall of David Petraeus)
Most recently, critics say, Rice held up publication of a U.N. report that concluded that the government of Rwandan President Paul Kagame, with whom she has a long and close relationship, was supplying and financing a brutal Congolese rebel force known as the M23 Movement. M23's leader, Bosco Ntaganda, is wanted by the International Criminal Court for recruiting child soldiers and is accused of committing atrocities. She has even wrangled with Johnnie Carson, the assistant secretary of State for the Bureau of African Affairs, and others in the department, who all have been more critical of the Rwandans, according to some human-rights activists who speak with State's Africa team frequently.
Rice claimed she wanted Rwanda to get a fair hearing and examine the report first, and her spokesman, Payton Knopf, says that "it's patently incorrect to say she slowed [it] down." But Jason Stearns, a Yale scholar who worked for 10 years in the Congo and wrote a book called Dancing in the Glory of Monsters, says "that is not common practice with these reports. Even when Rwanda did get a hearing, all they did was to use it to smear the report and say how wrong it was." The report has since been published.
Mark Lagon, a former assistant secretary of State under George W. Bush and a human-rights specialist at Georgetown, has generally positive things to say about Rice's tenure as U.N. ambassador, especially her leadership in the intervention in Libya against Muammar el-Qaddafi and her revival of the administration's failing policy on Darfur. But he too says she has fallen short on Africa. "In recent months, there is documentary evidence of atrocities in the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo], and their umbilical cord is back in Rwanda. These issues have not been raised in the Security Council, and Susan has fought the U.N. raising them in the Security Council," Lagon says.
In September, Rice also delivered a glowing eulogy for the late Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, whom many rights activists considered to have been a repressive dictator.
Recently, during a meeting at the U.N. mission of France, after the French ambassador told Rice that the U.N. needed to do more to intervene in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rice was said to have replied: "It's the eastern DRC. If it's not M23, it's going to be some other group," according to an account given by a human-rights worker who spoke with several people in the room. (Rice's spokesman said he was familiar with the meeting but did not know if she made the comment.)
If true, that rather jaded observation would appear to echo a Rice remark that Howard French, a long-time New York Times correspondent in Africa, related in an essay in the New York Review of Books in 2009, which was highly critical of Rice. In the article, headlined "Kagame's Secret War in the Congo," in which French calls the largely ignored conflict "one of the most destructive wars in modern history," he suggests that Rice either naïvely or callously trusted new African leaders such as Kagame and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda to stop any future genocide, saying, "They know how to deal with that. The only thing we have to do is look the other way." Stearns, the author, says that during Rice's time in the Clinton administration "they were complicit to the extent that they turned a blind eye and took at face value Rwandan assurances that Rwanda was looking only after its own security interests."
Knopf, Rice's spokesman, says "she clearly has relationships, some of which are very close, with African leaders, and Kagame is one of them. Her view and our view is that these relationships have given her an opportunity to influence events."
At the same time, however, Knopf says Rice has been tough and forthright in criticizing Rwandan abuses, and backed a "very strong statement out of the Security Council in August about M23." (The statement, though, did not refer to Rwandan support directly.)


text:
- Mike Aparicio
- Guatemala City
- Guatemala
This conversation is closed.
Is Freedom of expression growing?
Is there an obvious conflict of opinion about Expression and Communication Freedom, with strong ethical implications.
What do you think?
I think it is highly relevant to have a conversation on the topic!
Do you?
Aug 23 2013: it seems that it is growing around much of the world due to the technology of the information age, while in my country of north america it is shrinking.
Aug 24 2013: I agree. With a few words you said it. The only missing fact is it also is shrinking in small nations under Uncle Sam's power.Aug 22 2013: I think it is; if not, look at TED! It is all about expressing yourself. If you compare freedom of expression nowadays, with how it used to be in the past; then I think it is more than clear how it has changed. For example, go to the times when Copernico, Kepler or many scientists had their own ideas and realizations about how this Universe works. In that time, if you told what you thought, the church would just punish you by simply killing you if you didn't took back what you said.
So yes, in my opinion freedom of expression is growing, what I don't know is the rate at which it is doing thisAug 19 2013: If there is a conflict between the two, then I think that indicates a flawed understanding of freedom of communication.
It is not possible to have freedom of communication if there is also censorship of expression of opinion. Although it would be nice for all the world to agree, the simple fact is that we don't.
I am not suggesting that hateful rhetoric is a good thing but people must start understanding that this kind of thing reflects, not on the targets of such speech, but the speaker.
It is notable (to me anyway) that many people take offense at what others (often outside their community) say or do and expect some kind of apology or statement withdrawal. Sometimes, it's more powerful to ignore offensive statements than it is to let them get a rise out of you, even if you feel you are defending something.
Live and let live. Diversity is a great thing. Conformity is not.
Johnny Atman
Aug 16 2013: Hi Mike,
- +1
You have cast the bait, and the fish are nibbling.
But back to the question.....
I wonder if we can start by truly seeking to find out what Freedom is, not the word, but the act of Freedom. Freedom in action. Because without understanding Freedom, what are we expressing?
I don't claim to be an expert in anything, the cemeteries are full of experts. But one thing I know: for Freedom to exist, there has to be NO FEAR. And most people in the world are afraid. Afraid because there is a social construct called WRONG and we are afraid of trespassing and if we do, we are followed by GUILT. So if we are afraid, we cannot be free, and if we cannot be free, the question is irrelevant.
So, how does one become free of Fear, so that one can attain INTEGRITY, from which Freedom can attest? Can one be honest, as in word so in deed? Can the individual transform inwardly, so that this transformation will be expressed in relationship with others, and perhaps perpetuate?
There is no greater deception than self-deception. "To thine own self be true", we are invited. But few listen, and even fewer take the chance. Honesty, inwardly, is the healing act that alone can restore INTEGRITY. And where there is INTEGRITY, even Death has no say.
A human Being, (as opposed to a human talking) is a threat to all forms of control, because he/she has no fear thus cannot be controlled. Only a mind with INTEGRITY knows what is TRUE, as opposed to right and wrong. Right and wrong are concepts that even the LAW has issues with, because there is no clear cut, leaving room for interpretation. TRUTH has no need to be interpreted as it is self evident.
But alas! there is no profit in being honest and having integrity. So right and wrong rules, and so does fear. Freedom, meanwhile, remains a dream, whilst deception is an every day reality.
So what is there to express, my dear friend?
Aug 17 2013: Very good!
I would say: "Courage is there to be expressed"!
Fear is the main tool for repression.
Fear of Tax collectors, fear of scientific monopolies, fear of Judicial Systems, fear of social opinion and censorship, fear, fear, fear....
Sheldrake for instance.... You have seen what happens to him.
He is a courageous man, expressing very valid observations and realities.
When certain things are said, even the supposedly most democratic circles get stiff and find reasons for suppression and reaction.
Hurrah to courageous Freedom Fighters!
Aug 17 2013: I am on your side, my friend. I lived under dictatorship for 19 years after which I left as a refugee. I came to Australia, and let me tell you, under dictatorship we were repressed by the government, here we are repressed by our own greed, selfishness and apathy. Here, we repress one another.
Under dictatorship I had real friends, fighting for the same cause. Here, there are no real friends, everyone is for himself. Real sad. I could trust people with my life under dictatorship. Here, I can't trust them with my shopping bag.
Sheldrake is a courageous man, and there are some others like him. But very few. At the time of the Vietnam War, people were marching in the street. The Iraq and Afghanistan war, even more atrocities, but few people in the street. There is a lack of unity around the world, at least that is my perception. But things will change as we reach another economic stalemate, and that is the right time for uprising.Aug 29 2013: This is a response to Bernard White's mention of Jehovah's Witnesses exercising their rights to freedom of expression in regards to blood.
You might be interested in watching this 6 minute video posted by PBS last month on exactly that very same topic.
The wonderful thing about freedom of expression, to me, at least, is that when individuals have an open mind, and are willing to listen to other's points of view, then understanding takes hold of the individual.
Ignorance is a terrible thing.
Being freely able to interview people, and then being free to air a program educating the public on issues that are misunderstood by many, is a wonderful thing.........imho :)
If you want more detailed information on this Bernard, you might want to view the youtube series of medical videos.
Here is a link to the first one of the series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDg69rJ36OAAug 23 2013: I will have to answer with a question, why we have to be offered what we call freedom expression or what so ever as if someone is doing us a favour by allowing us to do or say what we feel.
I believe they have robbed us our life by controlling us, conditioning us, what I say now onwards should be based on my cultural basis, educational background and what community at large thinks
The world has become small in that some people a trip around the globe it's like they are just checking / visiting their back yard, but these persons do they have to conform to all the norms of this native countries that they have travelled must they limit their vocabulary because the natives may dislike what they transmit, maybe they might learn something out of their vocabulary also the native are not bound by any laws to follow or respect what is being said unless someone has made such laws, now someone / or act must come to our rescue in the sense of freedom of expression.Aug 22 2013: In the USA, it is not only growing, it is metastasizing. Paranoia is caution overgrown. Lust is libido overgrown. Braggadocio is courage overgrown. Virtue is in the median. That being said, it is not the place of government to fix the situation. We can only hope that there is something to the idea that, over time, the benefit of moderation becomes self-evident by contrast with the damage done by excess. Yes, have rallies and make speeches. Experiment with art and music. Eventually, though, realize that not everyone will consider you to be brilliant, and they have as much right to dislike your expression as you have to express yourself.Aug 20 2013: Not sure whether Freedom of expression as a whole is growing or not . What I feel is because of the availability of media like Internet we are able to express our thoughts / beliefs to a greater audience , earlier people could express those only among her/ his known circle of people.
The other point is that as people now have access to lot more information their own thoughts / beliefs can be influenced by those which earlier used to shaped up by thoughts and beliefs of their own surroundings if s/he was not curious enough and open enough to explore different books .
Not clear what it means by " conflict of opinion about expression and communication freedom ". Also what it means by " "strong ethical implication " of "Expression or Communication freedom" ? Would you please clarify with some real examples ?Aug 19 2013: I follow your thoughts 100%!
Aug 20 2013: To whom is your comment addressed? Certainly not me Mike?Aug 18 2013: Great interesting topic! :-)
I guess one thing which is important is this : "Does the Freedom of expression include the license to offend?"
And is a freedom of Intolerance, a form of "Freedom of Expression"? For instance, recently I have been reading "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" (By Sam Harris). This book preaches the idea that we should be intolerant of religious beliefs, due to the belief that they aren't based on rational reasoning and can be harmful. (Not sure how much I agree). Just thought that was something worth noting.
I mean to expand this topic, you could argue that a "jehovah witness" shouldn't have the freedom to express his/her views if it is harmful... (e.g denying blood transplantations).
Great topic by the way! I could go on forever, but I feel I would bore you and would waffle too much.
Aug 19 2013: No boredom at all Bernard!
Offending is basically an UNTRUTHFUL subject. The problem is most of the time the offended is the one creating the offense by feeling offended. Some oriental cultures get offended by women showing their faces. Should we NOT express our thought on it because, folks would become offended?
I would be much more worried about "rational reasoning" than from religious beliefs!
What is "rational"? Actually rational thinking can only be as a the thinker's state of mind is!
Should Religion communications be banned or restricted because some one "rationally thinks" it is harmful?
Where is the rationality in such distorted reasoning?
What would be disastrous would be the end of faith!. And it is happening. Now people don't trust their neighbors. Faith in their good will is lost. Do we believe banks are honest this days? No! We have lost faith on the banking system. Society... Is there faith in society? Legal systems is introducing what is called the "Enemy Penal Rights Code". No more acceptance of the presumption of Innocence. Each day, the notion of being guilty and having to prove your innocence is growing. Loss of faith in the good nature of human kind.
So faith is not only, accepting and believing in Spiritual Powers, God and our Spiritual Nature. Faith is a VITAL state of mind for our well being.
Loss of Faith is indeed VERY HARMFUL!Aug 29 2013: Bernard, I posted some links for you on top of this conversationAug 17 2013: Yes the Freedom of expression is growing but if you are asking to have the Freedom to say anything without someone questioning the statement, that is not Freedom but a degree of dictatorship of someone asking the world to accept or tolerate anything I say. It could be racially intolerant, biased beyond belief, insulting.,
I believe you can say anything if you are willing to accept the consequences and are willing to fight for your opinion.
Aug 17 2013: Hi Wayne,
I am wondering if we misunderstand what Freedom stands for.
My take on it is that Freedom is where FEAR is not.
Meaning Freedom is the ability to speak the TRUTH.
Not profanities and endless arguments or insults.
What is TRUTH, might you ask?
Certainly not what this world will try and make you believe.
You must find that out for yourself.
Be a Light unto yourself. Not follow like sheep.
You will know it when you are completely and absolutely Honest with yourself and others.
Then, from there you can speak, from the Heart, or the Truth.
But like I have mentioned before, TRUTH benefits no one, but lies do.
Truth benefits only in relation to SANITY. Not your bank account.
And most people would like to benefit one way or another.
But mostly, TRUTH benefits ALL.
Means we do not get divided by lies.
Truth cannot divide, but Lies can.
Truth serves all Humanity, but Lies serve the few.
Until we all learn to speak the Truth, there will be no Freedom because there will be no Strength and Unity.
Aug 17 2013: and who will decide the truth - I was in a Philosophy of Religion course and we were discussing the Book of Job - an individual who was taking the course stated that here is what Father XXX said and that is the only true interpretation of the Book of Job. I have no problem saying that was that individual's truth and does not bother me. What does bother me was the claim that it was the truth and the truth.
I feel that through discussion and the exchange of ideas do we come closer to understanding - ultimate truth i will let others try for, understanding is what i hope for.
Aug 17 2013: Hi Wayne,
Thank you for your participation in the dialogue. This is not about right or wrong, as right and wrong implies choice, and when dealing with TRUTH, it is only one, one truth, not two, you cannot choose. Only a confused mind chooses. The Truth is not according to anyone, but to itself. We only need to mirror the Truth, or witness it. In that, there must be no self interest, or any attempt to distort. Our Ego, or expectations, distort it because we see what we expect rather than what is. "To expect, is to anticipate, therefor to miss the Obvious" - I have coined this phrase.
I am not asking you for a second to believe what I say. See for yourself, and do not depend on anyone or anything in finding the Truth.
But the doorway to it is Sincerity, Honesty, Integrity, Authenticity.
The TRUTH cannot be imposed, as it happens with a BELIEF.
Only an honest, sincere mind can know the TRUTH. There is such thing, when honesty restores Innocence i.e. "Unless you are like one of these children you shall not enter the kingdom of my Father". The Truth is not decided, the truth is REVEALED to the mind that is sincere and not warped by lies. The TRUTH is self evident, it does never seek to be justified or excused. Only assumptions, speculative guesses that we hold onto and call BELIEFS need to justified.
Words can never substitute the TRUTH. They can point in the direction of it, but the TRUTH is revealed to a mind that is STILL. The Moon can reflect clearly in the still waters, but in the unsettled waters, the moon appears warped. So with the TRUTH.
And what warps the mind is fear, thinking, division in the psyche.
Try it out.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8)Aug 18 2013: i have tried and it is not for me. Let us agree to disagree.Aug 18 2013: Plain agreement John!
The TRUTH from an expression standpoint, should be the honest and clear expression of our own thoughts or ideas, without negative intentions in them.
FEAR is used to repress the Free Expression of those ideas, as the TRUTH many times challenges obscure forces or personal egotistic interests.
When I consider Freedom of Expression being diminished, is because in most systems the Law is used to forbid certain concepts to be told or communicated. Other times, is the supposed "Power of Science" which makes strong efforts to restrict ideas which clash or friction with orthodox and accepted paradigms.
In many countries, where Big Pharma is powerful, its efforts have achieved the creation of restrictive laws against practitioners of alternative medicine, including the creation of severe penalties for them. Not only the right to express alternative views on the illness and healing are being curtailed, but the individual rights to choose those alternatives is suppressed by the same means. You cannot make a choice when you don't know about alternatives.
It is said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"...
Some good folks, fervent believers in the indisputably science dogmas, are very resistant and belligerent when confronted with contradictory concepts, labeling them as "pseudo-scientific" because they are supposedly using the "language of science".
So it seems freedom to use the "language of science" is also restricted to selected groups and elites! By the same it would be justifiable Lawyers would restrict "Legal Language" to law practitioners; mathematics only for mathematicians, and chemistry jargon just for chemists!
It is almost happening! Mainly in highly developed countries and "in the name of Society and its interests"!Aug 17 2013: If there is no tolerance or acceptance of ideas,
freedom of expression looses its significance.
I would rather like to know ,
Is tolerance or acceptance of ideas is growing?
Aug 17 2013: Definitely, not to my impression!Aug 17 2013: need to clarify this, any idea? and if one argues against the idea, is that intolerance?Aug 17 2013: Yep, I speak for myself. I believe a number of things must shift in new directions. The only way to do this is through expression.
Aug 17 2013: I agree, but does it imply there is not a growing repression to many new and old ideas?
Aug 18 2013: I do believe there is a growing repression to the freedom of expression today. There are many synonyms for the word complain people also use. That is how many people deal with problems instead of understanding what is being expressed. I often hear an older generation saying, "why complain? It does no good." I disagree with both parts of this quote. The definition of complain has lost it's meaning in such a negative way that it has become a way to disregard what, why, and how people suffer. If you believe the meaning of the word "does no good" then you are willing to submit to whatever happens ...happens beyond any of your control and not worth trying to change what is wrong without any answers to a problem.
Has the "serenity prayer" become popular lately or has it just been from my experiences only? I can't stand it to be frank and honest. It's so drastically negative if you really think about it. Especially the very end ...the very open ended end. I imagine this prayer coming from a slave masters mouth ALL THE TIME.Aug 16 2013: You need some definitions Mike. Let's start with the country about which you are asking. Is it the USA, or Cuba, or Guatemala, or North Korea, etc.? Also define the distinction you are making between "Expression" and "Communication Freedom".
Aug 16 2013: Well Edward:
My question is really eclectic in nature. You might take it as global.
I think of "expression" as the faculty to convey our own ideas and emotions to the external world.
"Communication" in the sense of the ability to transfer, pass and receive information from external sources, either with the idea of spreading it or to collect it.
Is that clear enough?
edward long
Aug 16 2013: Thanks for your patient explanation. I do think the answer will vary with the political climate of the nation being discussed. In some nations freedom of expression is growing, while in others it is suffering loss if not total suppression.
- +1
Aug 17 2013: All right Edward!
I see your point! I suspect what is implied is the idea countries like mine might be more repressive than highly developed countries.
You might be surprised on the contrary!
For instance, in Guatemala there is no fear to write articles on alternative medicine, neither doctors suffer from repression for advising usage of traditional natural medicines or treatments.
It seems 1st world countries control too much what is said about many subjects.
Remember in the US, long time ago, all kind of medicines were advertised and people could speak and publish articles about the benefits or herbs and other things.
On the other hand, in 3rd world countries political expressions or social conflict communications get exposed to the dangers of being attacked on the street to be silenced! although President assassinations are not that frequent as in major countries.
In 1st world countries, repression takes place by being disbarred, licences cancelled, defamation in scientific circles, labeled as Quack, and of course, if herbal products which once were known and still are good for certain illnesses, are labeled with the ability to cure something, very quickly they will get the FDA and other authorities on top of their heads.
Internet sites are forced to publish disclaimers, when speaking of medicine properties, and if you happen to appear in a show or Internet forum explaining about psychoactive substances you will be banned and removed instantly!
All in the name of "society" or science. Are governments and scientific institutions adopting a paternalistic attitude, even with the possibility of spanking someone here and there?
It looks to me as a return to monarchic tyrannies....Aug 18 2013: Nothing implied about Guatemala. I mentioned it simply because you live there. Your views seem well thought-out as though based upon personal experience. Thanks for sharing them. Perhaps off-topic, but do you think marketing claims that are unproven, exaggerated, and even known to be false should not be minimized with regulatory controls? Do you see such control as "monarchic tyranny"?
Aug 19 2013: Edward: You are using three words which are quite relative.
Is it OK then to restrict expressing ideas on unproven things?
The first to fall would then be scientific assertions, which get "proved" and later contradicted.
I think unproven things should be taken as seriously as "proven" ones.
Have scientists proved the Self is a product of brain activity? Totally unproven!
So, "monarchic tyranny" should ban all talks on the subject...
What is the measure for an exaggeration? How can we really know if a fact is exaggerated if communications on the subject would be restricted? Maybe the "exaggeration is really something astonishing, ironic or never thought about before!
But: Aren't we entitled to decide if something is exaggerated or not? Do we need Government offices to tell us what is exaggerated and what is reasonable?
"Known to be false?"
Known by whom? Falsity is also a relative word. The idea of Government protecting the "interests of society" could be false. At least it looks like!
So if the system "knows" something is "false" it is OK to set boundaries on it's discussion.
Are we so lucky of having censors taking care of what we are given as "true"or "false"? Where is our criteria?
We don't need it then!
What today is unproven, might be proved tomorrow. What is now exaggerated might be simplistic tomorrow, what is false today might be true tomorrow....
Who really knows?Aug 19 2013: RE: "Edward, you are using. . . ". Words have meaning Mike. The three expressions should be interpreted in their common , reasonable application. "Unproven" means a claim or assertion which has no historical supporting evidence. "Exaggerated" is a specific application of the term "unproven". "Known to be false" means a claim or assertion is in clear disagreement with accepted-as-true data (which certainly can change). Again, do you think no claims or assertions deserve to be referred to by any of these terms? Do you advocate for a policy of 100% unrestricted public dissemination of claims or assertions?
Aug 19 2013: Hi Edward!
I am sure we both understand the meaning of those words.
Precisely because of those meanings is I find unacceptable to apply "restrictions".
Who is the viable authority to restrict based on which criteria?
True science claims to be unable to prove a thing. It is possible to demonstrate the feasibility of something or the high probability of being certain about a theory. But to "prove" it beyond doubt is impossible. Except for pure mathematics.
I could start listing here hundreds of cases where "proven" scientific concepts ended up contradicted by new discoveries. I guess those who discovered the error and launched a radically different theory initially thought the original theory was unproven!
If you think censorship is justifiable, could you please answer the questions on my previous post?
I do advocate for Freedom of Expression. If someone thinks a claim is unproven, exaggerated or false he is entitled to say it and to publish it but not to endorse political powers to repress it!
Such repression can prevent discoveries, rectification of errors and further research into the unproven, exaggerated or supposedly false.
That is my view!Aug 19 2013: RE: "...I am sure we both understand..." Would you throw yourself, or a beloved family member, from a high cliff on the basis that it cannot be proven beyond doubt that you will die? For all intents and purposes some things are proven. Only in the etherial world of philosophy can it be ruled logical to hurl yourself into the abyss and not expect to die. Imagine someone claims to have a process to change lead into gold. They claim any investment will be returned 100-fold. Do you really oppose the regulation, or repression as you call it, of such a blatant lie meant to rob the ignorant and unsuspecting? Do you really advocate for the rights of such charlatans?
Aug 19 2013: Hey Edward!
You really are pulling the subject to the limits!
We can see movies, read books and even talks about "throwing yourself into the vacuum and fly". Should we ban all those?
I don't think any sensible person, forum, or entity would sponsor a "serious" conference on the advantage of flying without wings! Lol!
But it is anyway happening within performing arts and I don't see why they should be "persecuted"...
Common sense "proven" things are not the scope of my conversation. It would be really silly from my part. Please don't take me as a radical.
On the other hand, serious medical magazines speak of the "wonders of chemotherapy and radio"! No matter their actual rate of survival is seriously inflated and twisted. At the same time, non orthodox treatments, supported by hundreds of testimonials, known to work, are forbidden and repressed from publication.
Also, I don't think an idiot who actually is capable of believing "lead can be turn into gold" should be "protected" by governments, in the sense of forbidding such claims.
If it actually happens and the subject is a dummy enough then there are Laws against swindlers and con artists. Let the Law act.
I don't see why if a fantasy fan writes and publishes methods to actually convert lead or cheesecake into gold should be censored.
We must not accept all laws are fair and just. There are serious mistakes in legislation. The problem now is the introduction of the concept of "conspiracy and intention to commit a crime".
If you speak the word "bomb" in an airport it will lead you to kiss the ground and have 4 gorillas on top of you, no matter you were telling to a friend the story of Hiroshima!
Daring to think against the established trend of thought is becoming a bad behavior, and we are subject to repression (not yet by the arms of Law) but repression anyway.
Do you think Rupert Sheldrake deserved the humiliation he got just by challenging the supremacy of current science?Aug 20 2013: RE: "You really are pulling the subject. . ." I'm just trying to get your answer to a simple question I have asked you twice now: Do you really advocate for the rights of such charlatans? (The charlatans to which I refer are those typified in my examples above, NOT Sheldrake, or any actual person!). Your question as posted, and your comments herein seem to indicate you oppose any form of regulation of expression. You can put it to rest by saying yes or no to my question. Permit me one final attempt please: Do you oppose any and all regulatory effort regarding free expression of information? Please have the last word (I do hope that word ie either "yes" or "no"). I am withdrawing to the sidelines from where I will watch for your answer. Thank you for a vigorous, if trying, episode of free expression!Aug 16 2013: There are typically settings in which you can express any opinion you like on any subject and places that are not available for that purpose.
If you start lecturing on any subject in a movie house while people are trying to watch the movie, you will likely suffer negative outcomes. But starting a thread on it on an open forum is typically an available opportunity.
The notion that science is a belief system or involves a variety of belief systems is put forward quite often in TED Conversations and I assume elsewhere as well. Some people will find it interesting and others may be bored of the subject from seeing it so often. So you would get positive, neutral, and negative responses to this or any commonly raised topic.
Aug 17 2013: Yes Fritzie!
People can get bored of whatever subject. Is then boredom a good reason to stop speaking?
Then we are just finding another facet of expression restriction based on someone's boredom!
But you are right. Have you seen how boring the atheists can get by trying to dissolve the ideas on God?
Or commercial scientists, finding anything not fitting their own theories as "pseudo-science" ?
Or evolutionists trying to force the acceptance of the largest and crudest belief of all, about the wonders of the universe happening by "thermodynamic chance"?
Creationism ideas are now being attacked and repressed. Truly. Of course by totally blind people incapable of seeing Beauty, Complexity and Order as an absolute product of Creation.
You will see how what I am saying right now will be subject to shark attacks.... Ready?Aug 16 2013: Are we really free to express ideas which challenge scientific paradigms?
Probably we will not be subject to a straight rejection but we will experience negative outcomes of varied magnitude.
What if I wish to propose the notion of science containing a variety of belief systems...
How would you react?
I am very interested in discussing the topic!
Aug 19 2013: I think that we are free to express our ideas which challenge scientific paradigms.....but it takes a bit of courage to stand up to what are deeply help scientific beliefs.............or any beliefs, for that matter.
- +1
There is quite a bit of misinformation and manipulation of information and data out there.
It is humanly impossible to know everything about every topic in the entire inhabited earth.....one recent example?........the aspartame conversations here on TED...........who to believe?
It is a good thing we may enjoy a bit of common sense and that we may have the ability to choose for ourselves what we find works for us.
As someone who lives in the United States, I am thankful that there is freedom of speech here, and that I am able to enjoy asking people questions, and listening to their explanations and insights on all sorts of subject matter. Also wonderful is the ability to pick up books and magazines on all sorts of subjects and learn.
It is really a wonderful priviledge.
Aug 19 2013: Thanks Mary!
I share most of your views,
I might not agree on what you say about Freedom of Speech in the USA,
Actually it appears to be, but there are lots of repressive methods in place for any communications having to do with what FDA supposedly knows better than anyone.
Also, not necessarily repression comes from the government alone but in some instances it is very crude.Aug 27 2013: Mary, I have more concerns now than I ever had before that the freedoms you speak of are being diminished. We now know of the breaches in privacy in our phone conversations, drone spying in the US, secret courts, total lack of the transparency we were promised, media promoting political agendas without affording dissenting voices, etc ....
I find it interesting to watch Fox and any other channel and see what is important enough for lead stories .... write those down and go to BBC, China Today and RT and see what the lead stories are there. Is it possible that we are being manipulated by the media, spin doctors, and the administration.
I have lost faith in our leadership at the top and in both houses. I try to be a Independent and do read and evaluate party agendas. The problem I have is the issues brought up are about getting votes and should be about the problems facing the country.
Mary, I agree that we still have more freedoms than most .... I have concerns that those are in jeopardy.
Aug 27 2013: Yes Robert, I can see how you, as well as many others are losing faith in the leadership of this country. And many worldwide are losing faith in their country's leadership as well.
I have never had faith in human leadership Robert.
I have always seen humans as imperfect individuals who sometimes hold jobs that need super powers.......lol
I suppose that my faith has a lot to do with my perception of leadership.
If you will allow me, there is a scripture that states that we should "not put our trust in nobles, nor in the sons of earthly man, since no salvation belongs to them, and eventually they die..." (Psalms 143:3-4, I paraphrased)
And additionally, we are instructed to be in subjection to the superior authorities, who are placed in their relative positions by God. (Rom. 13:1, 3-5, 7).
So, the way I understand it Robert, is that while I am a law abiding citizen, I do not faith in humans fixing the problems that affect our world. I don't really worry about politics, because I have a different kind of faith, in a different kind of government that will be established in the future.
If humankind truly had the ability to correct what ails us, we would have done it a long time ago, when there were less humans on earth.
Then we would have established a peaceful world, filled with compassion and kindness.
Do you think that today, with over 6 billion humans on earth, all speaking different languages, human governments can solve our problems?
It seems that as time goes on, corruption increases. Like you, I also fear that many freedoms are in jeopardy.......who will step in and clean house? We'll have to wait and see.
Fritzie -
Aug 27 2013: Mary, you raise an important point that humans are human and sometimes in jobs that would seem to require super-powers. When compromises need to be made, or when the best path to solution is not clear, those outside of the arena in which problem-solving is taking place often do not perceive accurately the challenges on the ground, including lack of complete knowledge of the implications of different actions. Rather, so many are quick to assume malevolence or laziness in those with the primary responsibility to act.
- +1
I think answers to many problems are far less clear than the public thinks, and not realizing that is a major source of divisive finger-pointing in many arenas.
Aug 27 2013: Wonderful observations.
Those in leadership roles always face challenging situations, and many times, like you say, there are many details which are unknown to the general public.
It even happens in the family unit........where the father/mother is trying to deal with an issue, and the kids wonder why they don't do this or that, when in reality, solving the issue is a difficult task, requiring much thought and a good amount of insight.
I have a lot of respect for those who take the lead........however they might do it, in politics, or in organizations. It is not an easy job, and I am thankful that I am not in their shoes.Aug 27 2013: I do not always admire the character of the one at the helm of something, and I expect you don't either, but I don't think we should blame people for not having all the answers to complex problems or for trying gambits sometimes that fail.


text:
Donavon Frankenreiter (born December 10, 1972, Downey, California) is an American musician and surfer. He is a long-time friend of Jack Johnson and his debut self-titled album was released in 2004 on Johnson''s Brushfire Records through Universal Music and made the Australian ARIA Top-40 charts in April 2004.
This area is intended for discussion only. If you have a question about your order, or require customer service you can get in touch via our Customer Service Area. Comments enquiring about existing orders, including personal details, or with questions will be deleted.


text:
|News » Archives
Lady Bucs return to action Friday night
Thursday, December 14, 2006
CAPE GIRARDEAU, Mo. (Dec. 14, 2006) - After a 13-day layoff, the ETSU women's basketball team continues its five-game road trip as they face Southeast Missouri State Friday evening. Tip is scheduled for 8:30 EST inside the Show Me Center.
Since opening the season losing three straight games, the Lady Bucs have been on a roll by winning four of their last five, including three straight. Senior Brooke Wilhoit (
This will mark the third-ever meeting between both programs with ETSU winning the previous two. The most recent win came last season inside
A live video stream of the game will be available by clicking the link above or visit www.ovcsports.tv for more information. For game notes please click the link above or visit www.ETSUBucs.com for updated statistics.


text:
These premium espresso beans are covered the finest couverture dark, milk, and white chocolate by using special revolving kettles. Dilettante's special way of combining espresso beans and chocolate makes for a unique and delicious flavor combination. This unique Dilettante Blend has a variety of beans individually covered in dark, white, and marbled chocolate perfect for a variety of guests at any party or gathering especially in this large bulk size!
Dragees are chocolate covered candy made in special revolving kettles. The term dragee is French in origins and describes the method in which we coat our dried fruits, nuts, and espresso beans. Dilettante chocolate covered dragee candies use fruits and nuts. Chocolate covered fruits and nuts are chocolate covered candy free from compound coating and only use the highest quality chocolate. These dragees are the chocolate connoisseur's ultimate snack.
Here at Dilettante, third-generation Master Chocolatier Dana Taylor Davenport uses master formulas that are selected from the notebooks of Dana's grandfather, Earl Remington Davenport and his great-uncle, Julius Rudolph Franzen, Master Chocolatier and Pastry Chef to the crowned heads of Europe.
The more you buy, the more you save with our "Mix and Match" quantity discounts. Discounts are automatically calculated for you in our shopping cart based upon the table below:
Choose from several different items or combine case purchases for additional savings. Discounts only available for online purchases on a per order basis and exclude shipping costs.


text:
Prices and availability are subject to change from the time and date that you print this page.
9/5/2015 11:13:37 AM. For Customer Service, please call 800.967.6696
The Story
Ultra-soft, fluffy flannel dusters have been gently cleaning up fine furniture, silver and automobiles since the 1940s. Fine yellow cotton dusters are finished with red blanket stitching and imprinted with a charming vintage Ritz logo.
Details and Dimensions
Set of two dusters. 16"Wx20"D
- 100% cotton
- Machine wash
- Made in China
Item Number: 86459
Overall DimensionsWidth: 16" Depth: 20"
Return/Exchange Policy
We will accept returns and exchanges of non-furniture items if:
- Non-furniture items are returned within 90 days of customer receipt.
- A valid proof of purchase is provided (see below).
- Non-furniture items are returned in good condition—unused and unwashed.
If you discover an item has a manufacturer's defect or was damaged during transit, we will accept the item for return or exchange with proof of purchase. Without proof of purchase, the item can be exchanged only for the same item. A valid photo ID is required.
We are unable to accept any items for return or exchange without proof of purchase. Items purchased as final sale cannot be returned, exchanged or repaired.
Items must be returned to the store brand where the purchase originated or by mail (if the item was ordered online or by phone and received by mail). Purchases made outside the U.S. may only be returned to the purchase location.


text:
- Home
- On Court
- About Ana
- Club Ana
- Multimedia
- Contact
- Shop
- Sponsors
Ana today took part in an autograph session at the Mastercard Latin America booth at the Sony Open Tennis in Miami.
Images are now in the Galleries section.
Ana's fourth round match against Petra Kvitova is scheduled to take place sometime after 3pm local time (8pm Central European Time) on the Grandstand court on Monday.
Click here for live point-by-point scoring from Crandon Park.
Photos by Manuela Davies / doubleXposure.com.


text:
Terms & Conditions.
Some product exclusions may apply. See product page details for more information. Clearance items are final sale. Price matching does not apply to this or any promotion. Offer is valid until September 13 at 11:59 PM PST. May not be combined with any other offer/discount (unless specified), including invitation credits, promotional gift cards and/or special discount links. Discount applied upon checkout. Log in to your account to see your savings.
Add some whimsical old-school charm to your Christmas tree with an adorable felted ornament. This Retro Modern Owl ornament features bright colors and softly textured feathers. Almost too cute to store away at the end of the season, this Cody Foster keepsake makes a great contribution to a white elephant holiday exchange party.
This product has no reviews yet. Be the first to review this product. Write a review
Enjoy 10% off your first order*


text:
finafaustina posted an update 3 years, 3 months ago
hello nae chingu… good night…
Sweetdreams eonni. Goodnight.
The hot and sexy girls are in town! Go After School go! Drum roll please for the coolest girl group! After School is the best!
692 (See details)
Fan club Post Guide
Here is "Post Guide" explaining how to upload video / photo and adjust thumbnail photo. This will help write posts in fanclub easily. Click here to see the guide Close
Sorry. No data so far.
©2010 Korea.com Communications Co.,Ltd. All rights reserved.


text:
Working for a cause you believe in makes for a great workplace.
We don't only make sure food and other stuff is up to our fantastic organic standards we do a lot more besides. So there's bound to be a job that fits your talents. We're always looking for people who are inspired by the cause and passionate about making things happen.
If you're interested in finding out more about working at the Soil Association, take a look around and explore our vacancies below, or find out more about our people and our benefits. And if there are no suitable vacancies at the moment but you'd like to get involved, we're always on the look out for volunteers.
Our Future Growers scheme provides comprehensive training in organic horticulture, with participants working alongside organic experts who are passionate about training the next generation and passing on their skills and knowledge.
Find out more about our future growers scheme
The Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics are currently recruiting for a Project Manager, for more information please visit the Compassion in World Farming website.
More from our bloggers
Related links
Organic farming
Organic animals
Organic food
Organic textiles
Organic beauty
Organic standards
Organic principles
Buy organic
Grow organic
Visit an organic farm
Eating out
Join a local group
Practical skills
School food
Early years food
Hospital food
School food in Scotland
Future growers
Community supported agriculture
Land Trust
Sustainable food cities
GM - Genetic Modification
Keep Britain Buzzing
Not in my Banger
Save our Seeds
Save our Antibiotics
Out to Lunch
Cottoned On
Labelling Matters
Become a member
Donate to us
Fundraise for us
Include us in your will
Choose our partners
Members area
Sign up to e-news
Who we are
What we do
Our history
Annual review
News and media
Contact us
We wish to thank the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation for supporting the development of our website