Hi Chris,
No patience required for this shot, there are lots of boats on the move this
time of year. Thanks for looking.
--Graham
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Barker" <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 07 June 2005 06:27
Subject: [OM] Re: #172
>
> Presumably, as they were carrying out repairs, the inside of the
> tunnel was bigger than normal and they were able to extract the part
> from it.
>
> For some reason I did not receive your post about No 172 Graham. But
> it is a cracking shot: the circle on the bank repeated by the circle
> of the tunnel and the (implied) circle from the curve of the bridge.
> And, because you used such a wideangle lens you have the feeling of
> encirclement of the whole scene by the lens. This not to mention the
> sharpness and delightful contrast of the whole image.
>
> Did you have to lie in wait for the narrowboat, or was it a
> travelling companion which you had charmed into the shot? ;-)
>
> Chris
> ~~ >-)-
> C M I Barker
> Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
> +44 (0)7092 251126
> www.threeshoes.co.uk
> homepage.mac.com/zuiko
>
>
> On 7 Jun 2005, at 05:01, Brian Swale wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > Graham wrote
> >
> >>
> >> The circle on the bank is a section from the middle tunnel removed
> >> during
> >> repairs. The protrusions on the inner circle mark the water level. It
> >> doesn't look deep enough for long boats, high enough for headroom
> >> or wide
> >> enough for two boats to pass but all three are obviously factored in.
> >>
> >> Olympus OM2 SP : Zuiko 21mm f2 : green filter : Kodak T400CN
> >> http://www.geebeephoto.com/2005/05172.htm
> >> Graham
> >> http://geebeephoto.com
> >>
> >
> > Now, I'm no mathematician, but I can visualise things very well.
> >
> > If that thing on the bank is a circle, and it looks like it, and it
> > once was part
> > of the inside wall of the tunnel, presumably the rest of the tunnel
> > has the
> > same set of dimensions. In order to extract it from the tunnel,
> > the inside
> > diameter of the tunnel would have to be not only equal to the exterior
> > diameter of the ring, but actually slightly larger.
> >
> > So that supposition appears to be a physical impossibility, unless the
> > section was removed vertically through a hole from above..
> >
> > Interesting problem.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > ==============================================
> > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> > List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> > ==============================================
> >
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|