Jump to content

peak4

Members
  • Content Count

    1,306
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

210 Neutral

About peak4

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I can remember an exchange on Twitter a few years ago. Basire's Dream was questioning someone he'd seemingly never heard of before. One of the better foot in mouth examples I've seen. Fortunately I took a screenshot before they deletes their tweet. Ken Miffybon @Kmifbon Dec 18, 2018 Hahahaha! You just asked the former head of legal of the EU Council, and possibly Europe's most illustrious EU law professor, if he read the Lisbon treaty. I just fell off my chair. He's as close as it gets to "did you read it?" - "no, I wrote it!" You made my morning.
  2. The author of that article of course was Brendan O'Neill from Spiked; a magazine with obscure American funding, and a re-incarnation of the Revolutionary Communist Party. The second vote was on a later version of the Lisbon treaty, with various alterations added as a result of the original Irish result, and after listening to input from other countries. The later version and vote was overwhelmingly carried in Ireland held on 2 October 2009, and the proposal was approved by 67.1% to 32.9%, with a turnout of 59% Wiki It looks to me like a true democracy at play here. The Treaty of Lisbon after the Second Irish Referendum HoC Library In a referendum on 2 October 2009 the Republic of Ireland voted by 67.1% to 32.9% in favour of ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon, having voted against its ratification in June 2008. Politically, the second vote was predicated on concessions agreed by the European Council in December 2008 and confirmed in June 2009 as “guarantees” to be formalised in a protocol attached to the next accession treaty. The positive Irish vote was welcomed by the EU institutions and other Member States, but Poland and the Czech Republic still have not completed ratification. This paper looks at the background to the referendum and other ratification developments.
  3. I though last night I'd seen a comment that this topic might be better discussed in the Photography Interest group forum, but it seems very quiet there these days. I did add a couple of photos last month to see if they sparked any interest, but without much success. https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/479289-ir-photography/?tab=comments#comment-8780055 Briefly touching on dynamic range of digital cameras/images, it's not just about skin tones. I can recall in the earlier days of digital photography, just how hard it was to capture good detail in both black and white in the same photo. Consider a trip to Fairburn Ings nature reserve; I'm quoting that as it's one of the few places I know where there were regularly black swans amongst the white. In a single image of a black swan, you could capture good feather detail, similarly with a single image of a white swan, with slightly different exposure. Trying to get one of each in the same frame, and capturing feather details in both was difficult if not impossible; try and find good early digital images of magpies for instance. Even in film days it was problematic, which is why the really good photographers were experts in dodging and burning in the darkroom when printing; look at Ansel Adams photos of the Yosemite Valley. Extrapolate that to crowd photos of a mixed black and white population, and it becomes clear that many images show one group in a more favourable light; I'm using that expression deliberately. It's less of an issue these days, as sensor dynamic range is greater, and for those who process from raw rather than just using out of camera jpg files, much of the photo processing software make the boosting of dark tones, and pulling back blown highlights much easier.
  4. It's maybe getting too late in the evening for a difficult and complex question, particularly when it's not well defined. Even more so at the moment when we have many commentators who seek to use the actual topic of racism as a means to divide people, rather than exploring solutions. I'd be interested to know how long ago Norbert's conversation took place, and the actual photographic experience of the other person(s) in the discussion. Undoubtedly some photographers will use the medium as an extension of their own racism, but obviously that doesn't reflect the photographic process itself. This article explored the use of a particular Polaroid film by the South African police force for example Racism' of early colour photography explored in art exhibition The Guardian Can the camera be racist? The question is explored in an exhibition that reflects on how Polaroid built an efficient tool for South Africa's apartheid regime to photograph and police black people. To take issue with one of Norbert's original comments, that film is linear; that most certainly isn't the case. I spend quite a lot of time behind a camera, though never for portraiture; each film stock represents different parts of the visible spectrum in different ways. It's a bit hard to demonstrate these days, due to the lack of film stock availability, though something like DxO Optics Film Pack gives very good digital approximations of a wide variety of older films for modern digital cameras. Even in digital photography, the visible dynamic range is less than the human eye, though it's getting better as technology progresses. I wonder if the original conversation centred, even inadvertently, around "Shirley Cards"?? The “Shirley Card” Legacy: Artists Correcting for Photography’s Racial Bias National Gallery of Art Longish article but worth reading if anyone is genuinely interested on the topic Printing machines were only being calibrated to the appearance of Shirley and other white women. Pictures of people with darker skin were often poorly rendered, particularly if people with different skin tones were photographed together. Calibrating the machines to prefer lighter skin tones could even make people with darker skin unrecognizable. These poorly printed images have hidden the faces of Black subjects, including from their loved ones and future generations. It's further explored here The Racial Bias Built Into Photography New York Times via archive.is Again a longish article, but worth exploring. Sarah Lewis explores the relationship between racism and the camera. Can a photographic lens condition racial behaviour? I wondered about this as I was preparing to speak about images and justice on a university campus. “We have a problem. Your jacket is lighter than your face,” the technician said from the back of the one-thousand-person amphitheater-style auditorium. “That’s going to be a problem for lighting.” She was handling the video recording and lighting for the event. The phrase hung in the air, and I laughed to resolve the tension in the room then offered back just the facts: “Well, everything is lighter than my face. I’m black.” “TouchĂ©,” said the technician organizing the event. She walked toward the lighting booth. The word "Racist" to me normally has negative discriminatory overtones, but sometimes it's completely unintentional by the one being accused, though that doesn't lessen the impact on the subject who feels discriminated against. Flash gets mentioned earlier, and also in at least one of the above links; it's obviously very relevant with regard to correctly illuminating different skin tones. Lighting generally is what it's all about, particularly with portraiture; we're not just putting a flash on the camera and shooting away. If anyone's interested, one of the masters of lighting is Damien McGillicuddy, who's Youtube channel is worth a look, though it's a bit limited in some ways. Do a search on the internet, or look Here for other stuff or on Instagram .
  5. Maps are here https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/schools-childcare/school-catchment-checker
  6. I'm not sure if this belongs here or on the Conservatives thread, though it would likely get hidden too quickly there; Quite a good thread, rolled up by Threadreader for those without a Twitter account. Plenty of links to follow within for further evidenced explanation. This thread explores the crisis the NHS is facing, how the crisis came about, why it has not been fixed and what we should do to fix it. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1730244798223724925.html Can anyone remember what happened around 2010 that could be so significant? If you don't like Twitter threads, see The Metro amongst others, for attribution of the same graphic, but note the date Hate the NHS? Well, apparently Britain now has the BEST healthcare system in the world In July, we launched the Rational Policy-maker’s Guide to the NHS in Parliament 
 The report pointed out that the Conservatives inherited the best healthcare system in the world

  7. That would probably explain it, before the ACPO guidelines; I can recall someone, in a red top paper, with the usual sad face holding up a 31mph ticket from North Wales, but have never re-found it.
  8. I appreciate it's going off topic, but do you still have the paperwork showing 34mph? Sites such as Pepipoo (currently offline) have never managed to find a case prosecuted below the original ACPO guidelines, which say prosecutions should only start at 10% + 2mph, so 35 in a 30, 46 in a 40 etc.
  9. Do you mean those petty regulations we helped write and approve when we were members?
  10. There is of course another problem looming over the next few years Why 7 million UK smart meters will stop working and what it will mean New Scientist Household smart meters give a live summary of energy usage and its cost – but the planned switch-off of 2G and 3G mobile networks means that some 7 million devices in England, Wales and Scotland will stop working, warns a government committee.
  11. Good to see it finally being considered for a constructive use; I spent several happy years working there. I even proved that I can organise a p*** up in a brewery.
  12. Well some of them anyway; Home Office granted 275 visas to nonexistent care home, report finds The Grauniad ‘Shocking’ system for awarding care worker visas leaves people at risk of exploitation, inspection report says The report found the whole regime of allowing care homes to sponsor visas to bring in workers from overseas was “shocking” in its implementation, and the net effect was “a system that invited large numbers of low-skilled workers to this country who are at risk from exploitation”. The report was produced by David Neal, who was sacked as the chief inspector of borders and immigration last month after he was embroiled in a row with the government over concerns he was raising about the Home Office. Neal drew attention to the case of 275 certificates of sponsorship granted to a care home that did not exist, and 1,234 certificates granted to a company that stated it had only four employees when given a licence. “In just these two examples, up to 1,500 people could have arrived in this country and been encouraged by a risk of hardship or destitution to work outside the conditions of their visa,”
  13. For those who haven't a clue what the opening post is about, The Sun has covered it reasonably well LOVE AT ALL COST Kate Garraway’s crippling financial battle over Derek’s care which ate up GMB salary
 & the celeb pals who’ve stepped up
  14. The whole article seems to be here, though it's a day earlier Farmers warn of food shortages as green schemes take land out of use Vegetable and grain supplies could be hit because new environmental subsidies make it more profitable to switch fields away from commercial produce
  15. Hmmm, As an aside, I'm not sure that I agree that our representatives are styled as Team GB, rather than Team UK, though Northern Ireland athletes can choose to represent Team GB or Team Ireland. Yes I appreciate there's more to it than the obvious.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.