# A small piece of bicycle by Pascal Riben



## pascalriben

Toulouse, France - Click the picture!


----------



## timor

This picture is of curves only. And yet you caught unruly French cyclist outside the bike path.


----------



## pascalriben

timor said:


> This picture is of curves only. And yet you caught unruly French cyclist outside the bike path.



French don't like to follow path... in photography like on the road :mrgreen:

But they love ladies: so they love curves


----------



## timor

Are you French ?


----------



## pascalriben

timor said:


> Are you French ?



Oui!


----------



## timor

I am not, yet display similar qualities when comes to rules and curves. :lmao:


----------



## pascalriben

timor said:


> I am not, yet display similar qualities when comes to rules and curves. :lmao:



It could come quickly :mrgreen:


----------



## pascalriben

Thanks to limr for the "I like" :hail:


----------



## timor

You're welcome. But please, don't do that





pascalriben said:


> :hail:


 to me, man. I am not Queen of England (and Canada).


----------



## pascalriben

timor said:


> You're welcome. But please, don't do that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> :hail:
> 
> 
> 
> to me, man. I am not Queen of England (and Canada).
Click to expand...


I won't do that to the Queen of England (and Canada) if she doesn't "I like" my pictures


----------



## gsgary

:shock:  Digital in the Rodinal age


----------



## pascalriben

gsgary said:


> :shock:  Digital in the Rodinal age



?????


----------



## gsgary

pascalriben said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> :shock:  Digital in the Rodinal age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?????
Click to expand...


Its a joke dont you remember posting in one of mine Rodinal in the digital age

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## pascalriben

gsgary said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> :shock:  Digital in the Rodinal age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a joke dont you remember posting in one of mine Rodinal in the digital age
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


I remembered very well... but I'm afraid you didn't take care that this photo shot in... euh... 1999?... is a negative film :mrgreen:

But as it wasn't developped by myself, I don't now what developping agent has been used...


----------



## timor

pascalriben said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a joke dont you remember posting in one of mine Rodinal in the digital age
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remembered very well... but I'm afraid you didn't take care that this photo shot in... euh... 1999?... is a negative film :mrgreen:
> 
> But as it wasn't developped by myself, I don't now what developping agent has been used...
Click to expand...

Most likely metol. Standard developer in labs (is) was D76.


----------



## pascalriben

timor said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a joke dont you remember posting in one of mine Rodinal in the digital age
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remembered very well... but I'm afraid you didn't take care that this photo shot in... euh... 1999?... is a negative film :mrgreen:
> 
> But as it wasn't developped by myself, I don't now what developping agent has been used...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most likely metol. Standard developer in labs (is) was D76.
Click to expand...


I began myself with D76... Why do you still shoot in negative film? Even Salgado is shooting digital now !


----------



## gsgary

pascalriben said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remembered very well... but I'm afraid you didn't take care that this photo shot in... euh... 1999?... is a negative film :mrgreen:
> 
> But as it wasn't developped by myself, I don't now what developping agent has been used...
> 
> 
> 
> Most likely metol. Standard developer in labs (is) was D76.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I began myself with D76... Why do you still shoot in negative film? Even Salgado is shooting digital now !
Click to expand...


I do shoot digital but have nearly given up and gone back to film since getting 2 Leica's plus film looks so much better and is more fun

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## timor

Oh, I am using digital technology for family events etc. and it is a great technology for that. But for my own satisfaction I do film, the real thing, where everything depends on me, not on computer. Well, I use digital spot meter and digital enlarger meter and timer.  And I don't use D76 anymore.


----------



## pascalriben

gsgary said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...film looks so much better"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree
Click to expand...


----------



## gsgary

pascalriben said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...film looks so much better"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Digital is ok if you like the plastic look
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


----------



## pascalriben

gsgary said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Digital is ok if you like the plastic look
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plastic look? I'm afraid you don't know to edit or converse correctly your raw files.
> 
> Do you think really that Salgado or other photographers who work in B&W with digital camera like plastic look?
Click to expand...


----------



## sleist

Just to complicate matters ...

The Online Photographer: Digital File to Silver Print

Not sure if this means you're both right or both wrong.


----------



## pascalriben

I cannot be wrong... so we are both right!


----------



## timor

sleist said:


> Just to complicate matters ...
> 
> The Online Photographer: Digital File to Silver Print
> 
> Not sure if this means you're both right or both wrong.


 Non of that. This is just one more sign , that digital technology in creating pictures is still regarded by many as a simulation of photography. (That's what computers do...) To make a silver gelatine print from a digital file looks like an attempt to hide that fact. Why ? Better images ? I doubt that, even best FB paper has less dynamic range than cheap inkjet and is much harder to handle for proper results. Maybe is a coverup of non-human (or automatic ?) part in the process of creation ? Maybe is just the feeling, that digital file could be printed, all copies exactly the same, with speed of few hundred per hour ? By total ignorant ? This cannot be said about FB printing... Maybe there is a point of value in a "hand made piece by piece" objects as an opposite to "made automatically and in mass".


----------



## gsgary

pascalriben said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> Digital is ok if you like the plastic look
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plastic look? I'm afraid you don't know to edit or converse correctly your raw files.
> 
> Do you think really that Salgado or other photographers who work in B&W with digital camera like plastic look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont worry i know how to work with raw files i use Capture One Pro ill post a digital shot when i get home
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


----------



## gsgary

timor said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to complicate matters ...
> 
> The Online Photographer: Digital File to Silver Print
> 
> Not sure if this means you're both right or both wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Non of that. This is just one more sign , that digital technology in creating pictures is still regarded by many as a simulation of photography. (That's what computers do...) To make a silver gelatine print from a digital file looks like an attempt to hide that fact. Why ? Better images ? I doubt that, even best FB paper has less dynamic range than cheap inkjet and is much harder to handle for proper results. Maybe is a coverup of non-human (or automatic ?) part in the process of creation ? Maybe is just the feeling, that digital file could be printed, all copies exactly the same, with speed of few hundred per hour ? By total ignorant ? This cannot be said about FB printing... Maybe there is a point of value in a "hand made piece by piece" objects as an opposite to "made automatically and in mass".
Click to expand...


Also the photography art world have not taken to digital, i cant see a digital print going for £20,000

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## timor

gsgary said:


> Also the photography art world have not taken to digital, i cant see a digital print going for £20,000
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


Ha ! I can't see RC print going for much.


----------



## pascalriben

I have done a lot of work in the dark room and I have loved it a little bit and hated it a lot!

I like B&W film but you must deal with product smelling bad or with expensive laboratories and unfriendly people.

I don't think you can match the skill of a professional, working 8 hours - or more! - a day to enlarge photo in his professional darkroom.

And after, you have to found a place to take care of your negative films...

With digital, bie bie all these problems: you can do everything yourself, if you're motived, Photoshop for photographer is easy to learn. And digital is cheap - except for people who buy a new camera every 3 or six months. And you can save thousand pictures in a hard disk small enough to be put in your pocket. And you can make backup, etc.

Sure, you can find digital colder, but I'm not really interested by "beautiful B&W" (you can save a weak or even a bad photo with "beautiful B&W"). "Plastic look" usually results from to much noise reduction.

And digital is just at the beginning 

But I understand people who prefer film, even if I feel crazy for them !!!

For me, :heart: digital camera :heart: has changed my life: nothing less! And I'm not a geek or somebody not familiar with film.

Amen.


----------



## gsgary

pascalriben said:


> I have done a lot of work in the dark room and I have loved it a little bit and hated it a lot!
> 
> I like B&W film but you must deal with product smelling bad or with expensive laboratories and unfriendly people.
> 
> I don't think you can match the skill of a professional, working 8 hours - or more! - a day to enlarge photo in his professional darkroom.
> 
> And after, you have to found a place to take care of your negative films...
> 
> With digital, bie bie all these problems: you can do everything yourself, if you're motived, Photoshop for photographer is easy to learn. And digital is cheap - except for people who buy a new camera every 3 or six months. And you can save thousand pictures in a hard disk small enough to be put in your pocket. And you can make backup, etc.
> 
> Sure, you can find digital colder, but I'm not really interested by "beautiful B&W" (you can save a weak or even a bad photo with "beautiful B&W"). "Plastic look" usually results from to much noise reduction.
> 
> And digital is just at the beginning
> 
> But I understand people who prefer film, even if I feel crazy for them !!!
> 
> For me, :heart: digital camera :heart: has changed my life: nothing less! And I'm not a geek or somebody not familiar with film.
> 
> Amen.



I hope you don't think digital files will last as long as negatives, i have some 10 year old Cd's that cannot be read

and here is a digital B+W portrait of my sister in law using 2 windows as lighting


----------



## pascalriben

gsgary said:


> I hope you don't think digital files will last as long as negatives, i have some 10 year old Cd's that cannot be read
> 
> and here is a digital B+W portrait of my sister in law using 2 windows as lighting



Good portrait and she doesn't look "plastic" !

As for I know, I think digital files will last as long as negatives and even more: I don't save them on CD but on hard disks AND I change these hard disks frequently. This way, no problems.

Of course, when I'll be dead, if nobody change the hard disk... but this is an other story! And maybe before I die, with some improvements, you won't need to change hard disks?

And here is a film landscape shot in Venice in 2001 (you can click the picture) using a winter morning light


----------



## timor

Did you ever noticed me asking first how the picture was made and then expressing my opinion about it ? I am rather surprised, when you or someone else is revealing, that photo was made on film. But you just voiced all the reasons why, after it's introduction, digital produced so many photographers and 2-3 billion of pictures every day. However I don't think digital on high level is cheap. Top quality papers and inks cost a lot.


----------



## pascalriben

timor said:


> Did you ever noticed me asking first how the picture was made and then expressing my opinion about it ? I am rather surprised, when you or someone else is revealing, that photo was made on film. But you just voiced all the reasons why, after it's introduction, digital produced so many photographers and 2-3 billion of pictures every day. However I don't think digital on high level is cheap. Top quality papers and inks cost a lot.



?????? This post is for me ?


----------



## timor

pascalriben said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever noticed me asking first how the picture was made and then expressing my opinion about it ? I am rather surprised, when you or someone else is revealing, that photo was made on film. But you just voiced all the reasons why, after it's introduction, digital produced so many photographers and 2-3 billion of pictures every day. However I don't think digital on high level is cheap. Top quality papers and inks cost a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?????? This post is for me ?
Click to expand...

Sorry, yes. Maybe I should quote. I wrote it after this from you:
_"I have done a lot of work in the dark room and I have loved it a little bit and hated it a lot!

I like B&W film but you must deal with product smelling bad or with expensive laboratories and unfriendly people.

I don't think you can match the skill of a professional, working 8 hours  - or more! - a day to enlarge photo in his professional darkroom.

And after, you have to found a place to take care of your negative films...

With digital, bie bie all these problems: you can do everything  yourself, if you're motived, Photoshop for photographer is easy to  learn. And digital is cheap - except for people who buy a new camera  every 3 or six months. And you can save thousand pictures in a hard disk  small enough to be put in your pocket. And you can make backup, etc.

Sure, you can find digital colder, but I'm not really interested by  "beautiful B&W" (you can save a weak or even a bad photo with  "beautiful B&W"). "Plastic look" usually results from to much noise  reduction.

And digital is just at the beginning 

But I understand people who prefer film, even if I feel crazy for them !!!

For me, :heart: digital camera :heart: has changed my life: nothing less! And I'm not a geek or somebody not familiar with film.

Amen."

_


----------



## timor

Anyway here is something interesting about just images and how they are presented.
http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=9080
In conclusion doesn't matter how they are made. My opinion about your images is and will be always biased, not because of who you are, but because of who I am.


----------



## pascalriben

timor said:


> My opinion about your images is and will be always biased, not because of who you are, but because of who I am.



From this point of view, all opinions are biased !


----------



## timor

I can talk only about myself.


----------



## gsgary

timor said:


> I can talk only about myself.



Bias towards film ?

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## limr

pascalriben said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about your images is and will be always biased, not because of who you are, but because of who I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From this point of view, all opinions are biased !
Click to expand...


All opinions ARE biased. That's why they are called 'opinions'


----------



## pascalriben

limr said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about your images is and will be always biased, not because of who you are, but because of who I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From this point of view, all opinions are biased !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All opinions ARE biased. That's why they are called 'opinions'
Click to expand...


Correct :mrgreen:


----------



## timor

gsgary said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can talk only about myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bias towards film ?
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

No, biased towards what I see in the frame. Biased, cause I try myself to fill up that frame with some content and I know, how it goes. Take a look at the link I left for Pascal.
http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.or...ead.php?t=9080
It discuss the difference between my (or ours - people interested in photography) bias and general population point of view.


----------



## pascalriben

And what do you think of this? (sorry if you already seen it)
Why You Shouldn't Give Too Much Weight to Anonymous Online Critics


----------



## timor

pascalriben said:


> And what do you think of this? (sorry if you already seen it)
> Why You Shouldn't Give Too Much Weight to Anonymous Online Critics


 I know this, always makes me laugh. If you want to win those people start to shoot like Lik does. First, what buys people, are outrages colours. A little shot of dopamine with that, and the viewer is yours. Subject is secondary and far, far behind.


----------



## pascalriben

timor said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what do you think of this? (sorry if you already seen it)
> Why You Shouldn't Give Too Much Weight to Anonymous Online Critics
> 
> 
> 
> I know this, always makes me laugh. If you want to win those people start to shoot like Lik does. First, what buys people, are outrages colours. A little shot of dopamine with that, and the viewer is yours. Subject is secondary and far, far behind.
Click to expand...


----------



## The_Traveler

timor said:


> Oh, I am using digital technology for family events etc. and it is a great technology for that. But for my own satisfaction I do film, the real thing, where everything depends on me, not on computer. Well, I use digital spot meter and digital enlarger meter and timer.  And I don't use D76 anymore.



Ego triumphs all.


----------



## timor

The_Traveler said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am using digital technology for family events etc. and it is a great technology for that. But for my own satisfaction I do film, the real thing, where everything depends on me, not on computer. Well, I use digital spot meter and digital enlarger meter and timer.  And I don't use D76 anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ego triumphs all.
Click to expand...

? Explain.


----------



## The_Traveler

It appears to me that many people in photography are driven by the control issue, where they want to be really in charge of the process and they love the process as much as the end result. 
It's the nitty gritty of messing with things as basic as possible that they enjoy - where the individual gets hands on for the entire cycle; that's what really gets them wet.  
Shooting manual, developing film, _grokking_ the grain and the 'look'
This is shown at its most extreme by the large format people who just love the swings and tilts and special developing and the real thrill in the end result is the process by which it was done.


----------



## timor

The_Traveler said:


> It appears to me that many people in photography are driven by the control issue, where they want to be really in charge of the process and they love the process as much as the end result.
> It's the nitty gritty of messing with things as basic as possible that they enjoy - where the individual gets hands on for the entire cycle; that's what really gets them wet.
> Shooting manual, developing film, _grokking_ the grain and the 'look'
> This is shown at its most extreme by the large format people who just love the swings and tilts and special developing and the real thrill in the end result is the process by which it was done.


And what's wrong with that ?


----------



## The_Traveler

timor said:


> And what's wrong with that ?



Because it's not making art.
If that's ok with you, go for it.

Would you ever imagine a sculptor judging his work by the fact that he forged his own tools?
Photography lends itself to that kind of engagement with process - unfortunately.


----------



## gsgary

timor said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to me that many people in photography are driven by the control issue, where they want to be really in charge of the process and they love the process as much as the end result.
> It's the nitty gritty of messing with things as basic as possible that they enjoy - where the individual gets hands on for the entire cycle; that's what really gets them wet.
> Shooting manual, developing film, _grokking_ the grain and the 'look'
> This is shown at its most extreme by the large format people who just love the swings and tilts and special developing and the real thrill in the end result is the process by which it was done.
> 
> 
> 
> And what's wrong with that ?
Click to expand...


Nothing because it's the only way with film


----------



## gsgary

The_Traveler said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what's wrong with that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not making art.
> If that's ok with you, go for it.
> 
> Would you ever imagine a sculptor judging his work by the fact that he forged his own tools?
> Photography lends itself to that kind of engagement with process - unfortunately.
Click to expand...


To make art you need to be able to get the negative right for printing and then the art begins


----------



## timor

The_Traveler said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what's wrong with that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not making art.
> If that's ok with you, go for it.
> 
> Would you ever imagine a sculptor judging his work by the fact that he forged his own tools?
> Photography lends itself to that kind of engagement with process - unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Curious look at the art. Of course many artists make own tools. Artists of any kind are getting intimately acquainted with their materials, processes, with every detail of their doings as the art is not created by accidents. Who think so is dishonest with himself.


----------



## pascalriben

Once again, there are no rules 

So, I'm here to put everybody ok :violin:

HCB didn't edit himself his photos. But of course, he said to the... euh?... what is the word in english? in french we say "tireur", "tirer des photos"... to the man editing his photos what he wanted and it's well know that he loved grey and didn't love to artificially dramatize a picture by "pushing" the black (all english correction welcome :study.

Eugene Smith wanted edit himself his photos and was ready to do the same image 50 times to get exactly what he wanted, reason why LIFE at the end fired him out because he was always late to give them his work.


So...  (long time I was expecting to use this smiley...)


----------



## gsgary

I have a friend who is one of the best Armourers in the UK most of his tools he has specially made
He has a suit of armour in the Agincourt Museum
Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## The_Traveler

timor said:


> Curious look at the art. Of course many artists make own tools. Artists of any kind are getting intimately acquainted with their materials, processes, with every detail of their doings as the art is not created by accidents. Who think so is dishonest with himself.



Photography, because of its various and highly complex equipment needs, is curiously vulnerable to that kind of process worship.
Yes, I like my cameras and I choose the ones that I can get to do what I want - but it stops there.
I don't worship the cameras or the lenses or the monitors or the printers or the paper or the printing process or the matting and framing - all or some of that may be necessary for how I work now but clearly irrelevant and a minor part of the worth of any finished piece of art.
Would anyone look at a sculpture and saying, 'Man, that fine tooth 1 inch chisel really makes this detail work amazing'? Yet, we certainly do the equivalent in photography.

Technical ability and skill can be taught and learned, creativity less so and talent not at all.
So we generally start at the bottom, learning the skills so we can try to be creative and possibly discover and unleash our talent.
Being skillful means getting all the technical ducks in a row so you can do what you want.
Being creative means letting some of that control go, trying different things and being willing to fail.
Having talent is something that exercising creativity uncovers.

I think that too many people get to be skilled and then stop there, unwilling to attempt creativity for whatever reason and so circle around and around, honing their skills and maybe adding to their knowledge but never going further.


----------



## timor

The_Traveler said:


> I think that too many people get to be skilled and then stop there, unwilling to attempt creativity for whatever reason and so circle around and around, honing their skills and maybe adding to their knowledge but never going further.


 THIS is a different matter. Not every skilled photographer is an artist, but there is a few talented in the masses of camera bearers. Problem starts when everybody is told he is an artist. This process goes on in most camera stores and on many websites, everyone has little hypocrisy inside, right ? For me a photography is only a hobby and I think, no matter what I do with it, it is time well spent.


----------



## The_Traveler

timor said:


> Problem starts when everybody is told he is an artist. This process goes on in most camera stores and on many websites, everyone has little hypocrisy inside, right ?



These are two generalizations that I don't think you can back up; and I don't know what hypocrisy has to do with it.
It's the constant drum beat of technical chest-beating that I think detracts. 
If you, by that I mean the entire YOU, think that manual is good for you or film or Nikon or hdr, do it and stop making how you do something the measure of whether the final result is a success.

It's like being a rabid fan of some team. You liking that team means nothing, nothing.
What counts is what the team does.
You liking shooting in some way means nothing, the only thing, afaic, that counts is the final result.


----------



## pascalriben

Who had been think this post could go so far with a simple bicycle  (the plane didn't !).


----------



## timor

The_Traveler said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem starts when everybody is told he is an artist. This process goes on in most camera stores and on many websites, everyone has little hypocrisy inside, right ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *These are two generalizations that I don't think you can back up; and I don't know what hypocrisy has to do with it.*
> What you don't understand here ?*
> It's the constant drum beat of technical chest-beating*.
> Scared of technicalities ? In any case, I don't promote my ideas, Pascal asked, I answered, you jumped in calling me a Buddy Rich. Looks to me like you are beating the drum .
> *If you, by that I mean the entire YOU, think that manual is good for you  or film or Nikon or hdr, do it and stop making how you do something the  measure of whether the final result is a success.*
> Do yo see any of my pictures here ? Or for that matter, anywhere ? I am not bragging about it, you just jumping to conclusions based on 1 or 2 posts directed in any case to Pascal. BTW in film photography success is measured with sensitometry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's like being a rabid fan of some team. You liking that team means nothing, nothing.
> What counts is what the team does.*
> Looks to me, that you don't understand the idea of being a fan. I don't want you in my platoon if we go to war.
> *You liking shooting in some way means nothing, the only thing, afaic, that counts is the final result.*
> I know, I know. Lance Armstrong also thought this way. What really counts is being in harmony with oneself. How do you measure your final result ? There is one way; number of sold copies to general public. Congratulation for every case you sold more than 10 copies (printed, mounted) of your art. I honestly hope it's a truckload of congratulations. I like, when people succeed, in arts this is always a positive for all of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## timor

pascalriben said:


> Who had been think this post could go so far with a simple bicycle  (the plane didn't !).


I think the mechanism here is a mutual respect. Traveler and I feel, that if we post something, we deserve a reply. Will go on, until mods run out of patience.


----------



## pascalriben

timor said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who had been think this post could go so far with a simple bicycle  (the plane didn't !).
> 
> 
> 
> I think the mechanism here is a mutual respect. Traveler and I feel, that if we post something, we deserve a reply. Will go on, until mods run out of patience.
Click to expand...


No problem... by maybe during this time, you could take photos? 

Of course, if you're at work... it's a different story :mrgreen:


----------



## timor

pascalriben said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who had been think this post could go so far with a simple bicycle  (the plane didn't !).
> 
> 
> 
> I think the mechanism here is a mutual respect. Traveler and I feel, that if we post something, we deserve a reply. Will go on, until mods run out of patience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem... by maybe during this time, you could take photos?
> 
> Of course, if you're at work... it's a different story :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Actually I can take some shots at work, but cause it is all the same, they are mostly "experimental".  For my technical chest-beating.


----------



## pascalriben

timor said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the mechanism here is a mutual respect. Traveler and I feel, that if we post something, we deserve a reply. Will go on, until mods run out of patience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem... by maybe during this time, you could take photos?
> 
> Of course, if you're at work... it's a different story :mrgreen:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I can take some shots at work, but cause it is all the same, they are mostly "experimental".  For my technical chest-beating.
Click to expand...


???


----------



## timor

Post #56


----------



## pascalriben

timor said:


> Post #56



Hum... This thread has escaped to me...


----------

