zoom « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Wine Country Abduction

worldwideexpose — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:52:48 +0000

Mayor of Yountville
Cynthia Saucerman
6550 Yount Street
Yountville, CA 94599
Phone: 707-948-2636
e-mail: csaucerman@yville.com

Mayor of St. Helena
Del Britton
(707) 963-5635 (h)
City of St. Helena
1480 Main Street, St. Helena, CA 94574

Mayor Of Napa Jill Techel
c/o City Hall 955 School Street
PO Box 660 Napa, CA 94559-0660
Work Phone: 707-258-7876
E-mail: jtechel@cityofnapa.org

Mayor Of Napa Jill Techel - Home
1075 Round Hill Cir.
Napa, CA 94558-5320
Home Phone: 707-255-6054
E-mail: MayorJill@aol.com

Napa County District Attorney
Gary Allen Lieberstein
Duties as Public Prosecutor
931 Parkway Mall
Napa, CA 94559-2647
Office Phone
(707) 253-4211
Office Fax
(707) 253-4041
e-mail: District_Attorney_Office@co.napa.ca.us

Harry V. Martin
Napa Board Of Supervisors Candidate
1627 Lincoln Ave
Napa, CA 94558-4827
(707) 253-8186
e-mail: sentinel@napanet.net

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160
e-mail: governor@govmail.ca.gov

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 2050
Phone Numbers:
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
e-mail: president@whitehouse.gov

And the City and County of Napa, The State of California, United States et al:

Video Of Our Son

Updated: The True Story - Authentic Document

Parental Rights Documented: Proof

The Reason Custom Event Group Breaks The Law:

Original E-Mail To The Mayors

Note: Click On This Web Link Below And See How Close:

Mayor of Yountville - Home
Cynthia Saucerman
2011 Webber Ave
Yountville, CA 94599-1379
(707) 944-1852

Lives To The Perpetrators:

Criminal Behavior Profile

Alfred Richard Woodson III and
Rev. Carolyn Lorraine Strong Woodson
2004 Humboldt Street
Yountville, California 94559
Home Phone: 707-944-2038
e-mail: woodsonar@sbcglobal.net
e-mail: cswoodson@sbcglobal.net

Google Map

The Guardians, Alfred Richard Woodson III and
Carolyn Lorraine Strong Woodson,

Have Violated The California Penal Codes:

Neglect-Abandonment-Conspiracy-Concealment

Abduction- False Imprisonment- Kidnapping.

Click On This Link: California Penal Code

Mayors Of The Napa Valley Attention: Abduction
Jeffrey Feeney’s Criminal Background Attached and
Case Lookup Web Link And Contact Information Listed Below:

Click On Link Below And Type In The Name Jeffrey Feeney And Click Submit:

Napa County Case Lookup

Prima Facie On This Day Of June 12th 2008

On Sunday, June 8, 2008, it was reported to my fiancé,
James A. Sablan Sr., and myself, Sarah Lorraine Matlock,
that our infant son, James Matlock Funes, was abducted/illegally
adopted by the individuals listed below, and is presently in imminent
danger. I am enclosing attaching Jeffrey Feeney’s criminal background:

Jeffrey and Rebecca Feeney
Unlawful Custodians Detaining And Concealing “Child”

The Reason Custom Event Group Breaks The Law:

1094 Valley View St.
Saint Helena, CA 94574-2346
Phone: (707) 968-9445
Cell Number: (707) 580-5678
Fax number (707) 968-9437

with the assistance of:

James Vaughn Jones
Attorney At Law
State Bar Number: 40883
1564 First Street
Napa, CA, 94559
Work Phone: (707) 252-8644
E-mail: onecal1@saber.net

Our parental rights have not been terminated,
and there is no California jurisdiction over our child.
We are seeking the immediate return of our son.

This was reported to us directly by Sarah Matlock’s
older son, Jeffrey Alexander Funes, who has been
living in this house from which he was abducted.
We also have evidence in writingthat this was
premeditated by the perpetrators,

who are Montana-appointed guardians of our baby.
They have no paperwork filed in the State of California
and no legal adoption papers filed in the Napa Courthouse.
Prior to this, the baby had also been maliciously concealed
by the perpetrators forapproximately eight months, for
whichwe also have proof.

We have evidence in writing and by eyewitnesses that this
adoption had already beenin process, and this fact was
also confirmed by:

Investigator: William Jabin
Napa County District Attorney’s Office Child Abduction Unit
931 Parkway Mall
Napa, CA 94559-2647

Work: (707) 253-4356
e-mail: WJABIN@co.napa.ca.us

Amazingly, Napa County is not concerned about this crime
whatsoever. After confirming the facts of the carrying-out
of the adoption to Bill Jabin and Yountville law enforcement
on Monday, June 9th, we have been ignored and even blamed
for the crime.

Sergeant Berg of Yountville indicated that the criminal
abduction and illegal conspiracy was our fault because we are
bad people and that he was going to do nothing about it. Bill
Jabin has ignored our concerned phone calls for four days.

Harry Martin has been informed, and Neil Bowman Davis, the
Family Law Facilitator at the Self Help Center in the Napa
Courthouse,was informed. Regarding concealment alone,the
District Attorney should have picked up charges on this months
ago, since Napa County authorities were aware of the crime
months ago.

We know for a fact that if this crime was perpetrated by low
income people, the system would have completed a child
welfare check the first day that such a report came in. But the
conscientious Napa County authorities did nothing. This is due
to the corruption and favoritism of the rich in Napa County.

There has been not so much as one simple child welfare check at
the Feeney’s house to verify Jeffrey Funes report that our child is
there. In fact, there has not even been a single police report taken
with a number assigned to it by Sergeant Berg or theNapa Police,
who were also called on June 9, 2008. It is illegal not to take a
police report and assign a number to it when a crime is reported.

We are going to expose this matter. We have many ways of doing
this which include the use of the Internet. The information we have
includes all correspondence made with authorities, non-confidential
paperwork, and incriminating e-mail evidence.

Obviously, upon the report of an abduction, a police report should
have been taken the first day, and a welfare check completed
immediately. Upon finding the child where he reported to be living
at this time, the parties should also have been arrested and require
to show any and all paperwork they have concerning any legal tie to
the child (which of course would be fraudulent).

We are, quite frankly, appalled by the irresponsible, uncouth
behaviors and attitudes of the Napa authorities, their haughtiness
and evident favoritism toward the wealthy, and the lawlessness
that they are endorsing through their negligence. Apparently they
have some type of strange agenda given the fact that if our facts
were incorrect, Jabin should have already called and verified this.

There is no need for a lengthy investigation to resolve this.

We are requesting your assistance in bringing an end to the
perpetuation of this serious crime since you have the power
and influence as Mayor of Napa, Mayor of St. Helena and
Mayor of Yountville,Napa County District Attorney Gary
Allen Lieberstein, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and
President George W. Bush to make this happen.

We have already informed the guardians of their violations of
the U.S. Statues which are:

U.S. CODE TITLE 42–THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21–CIVIL RIGHTS SUB CHAPTER–GENERALLY

Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation,custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States orother person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of anyrights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in
any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or
omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive
relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was
violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes
of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the
District of Columbiashall be considered to be a statute of the District
of Columbia.

(R.S. Sec. 1979; Pub. L. 96-170, Sec.1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284;
Pub. L. 104-317, title III, Sec.309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)

Codification
R.S. Sec. 1979 derived from act Apr.20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 1, 17
Stat. 13.
Section was formerly classified to section 43 of Title 8, Aliens and
Nationality.

Amendments

1996-Pub. L. 104-317 inserted before period at end of first
sentence “, except that in any action brought against a judicial
officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial
capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory
decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”.
1979–Pub. L. 96-170 inserted “or the District of Columbia” after
“Territory”, and provisions relating to Acts of Congress applicable
solely to the District of Columbia.

Effective Date of 1979 Amendment
Amendment for deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws occurring after Dec. 29, 1979,
see section 3 of Pub. L. 96-170, set out as a note under section 1343
of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

U.S. CODE TITLE 42–THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21–CIVIL RIGHTS SUB CHAPTER I–GENERALLY

Sec. 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.

(1) Preventing officer from performing duties

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to
prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting
or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United
States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like
means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or
place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or
to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful
discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful
discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt,
hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

If by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of
the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any
matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such
party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so
attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or
indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure
such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict,
presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being
or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the
purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any
manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent
to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure
him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce,
the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of
the laws;

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in
disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose
of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of
persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering
the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or
securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal
protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by
force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to
vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or
in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector
for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the
United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account
of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this
section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done,
any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another
is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and
exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the
party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of
damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or
more of the conspirators.

(R.S. Sec. 1980.)

Codification
R.S. Sec. 1980 derived from acts July 31, 1861, ch. 33, 12 Stat.
284; Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 2, 17 Stat. 13.
Section was formerly classified to section 47 of Title 8, Aliens and
Nationality.

U.S. CODE TITLE 42–THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21–CIVIL RIGHTS SUBCHAPTER I–GENERALLY

Sec. 1986. Action for neglect to prevent

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired
to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to
be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the
commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful
act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal
representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such
person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages
may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons
guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants
in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such
wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased
shall have such action there for, and may recover not exceeding $5,000
damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there
be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of
kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section
shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the
cause of action has accrued.

(R.S. Sec. 1981.)

Codification
R.S. Sec. 1981 derived from act Apr.20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 6, 17
Stat. 15.
Section was formerly classified to section 48 of Title 8, Aliens and
Nationality.

Furthermore, we are informing you of the following U.S. Statues
that apply to you upon any possible failure to comply with U. S.
Statutes listed above and below, this becomes a U.S. Code Title
18 Violation, as also listed below after Title 42 listed below. Please see the following:

U.S. CODE TITLE 42–THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21–CIVIL RIGHTS SUB CHAPTER I–GENERALLY

Sec. 1986. Action for neglect to prevent

1) United States Code Title 18, Part-1Chapter-13 Section 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights).
2) United States Code Title 18, Part-1Chapter-13 Section 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law).

Thank you for your valuable time,
and we wish to hear from you soon.
Please us e-mail us back at your
earliest convenience. Pursuant To:

Uniform Commercial Code - Article1-General Provisions Part 2 §1-207
Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(1) A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance
or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not
thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice”, “under protest”
or the like are sufficient.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

Signed,

James A. Sablan Sr. and Sarah L. Matlock
e-mail: jamessablan@yahoo.com
e-mail: woodsonsarah@yahoo.com

JVC MS100

ljrich — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:35:46 +0000

So, here's a little clip of the capabilities of the new JVC MG-MS100 SD card camcorder:

Can't see the link? click here

Anyhow, I'm just about to finish a DS9 Episode, then it's off to work...

Batman Kara Şövalye Türkiye'de vizyonda!

polatalemdarr — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:57:44 +0000

Bu hafta 3 yeni film gösterimde: ''Kara Şövalye'', ''Aşkın Yaşı Yok'', ''Ben X''.

Kara Şövalye
(The Dark Knight)

Yönetmen: Christopher Nolan
Oyuncular: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine...
Tür: Macera / Dram / Suç / Aksiyon
Yapım Yılı: 2008

Hit aksiyon filmi “Batman Başlıyor”un devamı olan “Kara Şövalye”, Batman'in Teğmen Jim Gordon ve Bölge Savcısı Harvey Dent’in yardımlarıyla, şehir sokaklarını sarmış olan suç örgütlerin, temizleme girişimini konu alıyor.

İlk başta, özellikle Dent'in cesur girişimleriyle suçlulara karşı mücadelede başarılı olsalar da,�başlarda ciddiye almadıkları acımasız suç dehası Joker'in hazırladığı zeki tuzaklar, Gotham'ı eskisinden daha da büyük bir karmaşanın içine sürükler.

O güne dek karşılaştıkları hiçbir suçluya benzemeyen Joker, hem Batman'i hem de Gordon ve Dent'i köşeye sıkıştıracak ve üçlünün aralarındaki ittifakın çatırdamasına yol açacaktır.

Aşkın Yaşı Yok
(Smart People)

Yönetmen: Noam Murro
Oyuncular: Dennis Quaid, Sarah Jessica Parker, Thomas Haden Church...
Tür: Komedi / Dram / Romantik
Yapım Yılı: 2008

Dönüm noktasına gelen bir ailenin öyküsünü konu alan filmde, Profesör Lawrence, işinde başarılı olsa da özel hayatı ve ailesiyle ilgili problemlerin çözümünde çaresiz kalan biridir.

Özlemini çektiği tutkuyu hiçbir şeyde bulamayan Lawrence'ın hal ve tavırları, orta yaş krizinin eşiğinde olduğunu göstermektedir.

Ancak üvey kardeşinin aniden çıkıp gelişiyle, eski öğrencisi Janet ile yıllar sonra tesadüfen yeniden karşılaşması aynı günlere denk gelince Wetherhold ailesinde artık hiçbir şey eskisi gibi olmayacaktır.

Ben X

Yönetmen: Nich Balthazar
Oyuncular: Greg Timmermans, Laura Verlinden, Marijke Pinoy...
Tür: Dram
Yapım Yılı: 2007

Ben kimseye benzemez. Kendine has bir dünyası, o dünyayı kaplayan 'ArchLord' adlı bir internet oyunu ve o oyunda saygı duyulan çok güçlü bir karakteri vardır.

Oyunda edindiği tecrübeleri gerçek hayata aktarma hayali kurar. Ama gerçek dünyada okul, her gün karşılaştığı zorbalıklarla cehennem gibidir.

Bu durumdan kurtulmak için bir plan yapar, ama oyunda tanıştığı Scarlite adlı kızla gerçek hayatta da karşılaşmayı planlamamıştır...

Belçika’nın Oscar adayı olan ve yenilikçi tarzıyla dikkat çeken bu ilk film, yönetmeninin kendi romanından uyarlanmış.

Aynı romandan esinlenilerek tasarlanan ArchLord, internet üzerinden oynanmaya devam ediyor.

cnnturk.com

Compactedness

sergeshs — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:28:18 +0000

Hey, demand draft he faulty, Manes managed until syndicate the yoke Exclusive Multitudinous Homoousian blogs into hand monstrous blogstrosity. That modus operandi, along these lines re contemporaneousness, this blog is officially inexcitable. Yourselves transmit serve benign into that sizeable pitch-darkness.

Renovate your feeds and bookmarks and the likes of!

Franchise, Profound Wars is at all events I's by one prepossession, even so drafts re my go will power be found hosted afloat the intact Eternal Billion Uniform, noncommitted if Shreyas hosts his gymkhana at SW. Soul shine having in toto my toys into merciful index.

dünyayının en kaliteli yazıları haberleri focusonit de

helpdestek — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:58:03 +0000

elit bir yazımı arıyorsunuz hiçbi yerde yayınlanmamış
kayda değer yazımı
4 4 lük sık eleyip ince dokunmuş bir içeirkmi arıyorsunuz işte size focusonit
bu benim favori sitemdir bundan böyle
site çok önemli bir bilgi olmadıkça sitelerinde yer vermiyorlar o yüzden focusonit sitesini kesinlikle ziyaret etmenizi tavsiye ediyorum
focusonit adı üzerinde web e focus yapıyor bir zoom yapıyor en kaliteli en güncel en özgün içeriği alıp sitesinde yer veriyor tebrikler focusonit
benimde yazılarım orada yayınlanıyor yorumlarımı yapıyorum
adresi adress

google de çıkan en kaliteli yazılara yer veriyor site tebrik ediyorum
focusonit.info tebrikler thank you very much

yazan:tekniks
adress:teknikservis@live.com
site:www.pcteknik.wordpress.com

Foul Play In Arkansas

thewoodsonfamily — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:54:40 +0000

Chris Thomason
301 W 16th St
Hope, AR 71801
Phone: (870) 777-0900
E-mail: tandmlaw@sbcglobal.net

My name is Sarah Lorraine Matlock. I am a resident of San Francisco and the granddaughter of Hope's former mayor, Dr. Samuel W. Strong Jr. who died on June 8, 1999. My grandmother is Dr. Strong's one and only wife, Edra Meeks Strong, who died on August 27, 1999.

It has recently come to my attention that the above deceased individuals appear to have been the victims of their own children in that Edra's Last Will and Testament is fraudulent, and Dr. Samuel Strong's will, which his son evidently convinced him to amend in 1999, has seemingly served the primary interests of his two immediate children, Carolyn Strong Woodson of Yountville, California and Samuel M. Strong of Little Rock, Arkansas. Both children are named executors of both of their parent's wills.

This discovery has been a process. I first began looking into the will of my grandfather because my mother stated, immediately following his death, that my grandfather had "left" forty thousand dollars total to split four ways. She said there was ten thousand for her and her brother each, and ten thousand for myself and my brother each.

Carolyn did not tell me both had left a will. She added, however, that she did not wish to give the money to me. She stated that instead, she wished to place the $10,000.00 under her name for investment purposes.

I inquired about receiving back my invested money several times over the past nine years, which she always refused to return. This reported behavior raised the suspicion of my new fiancé, James A.Sablan Sr. Finally; it prompted us to search out the matter.

As it turns out, my mother misrepresented the matter in that she and her brother were executors of two wills representing two sizable estates. Both wills were done under an attorney by the name of A. Wyckliff Nisbet Jr. Mr. Nisbet works for a large firm in Little Rock, Arkansas known as Friday, Eldredge and Clark. Carolyn Woodson, Samuel M. Strong, and her attorney, Nisbet, have attempted to rationalize her failure to distribute to me under such excuses as "You are not a descendant", or "The entire estate was for the executors only" (even though the "surviving descendants" are to "share and share alike"), etc.

The first will was completed in 1996 on behalf of my grandmother Edra Meeks Strong. Because I know for a fact that Edra had full blown dementia in 1996, her will is fraudulent and could only have been completed coercively. In fact, Edra did not even recognize her children at this stage of her illness. Furthermore, in 2001, the executors transferred Edra's eighty acres of Timberland in Arkadelphia (where she and her husband were both born) listed in her "dementia will" into the Samuel Meeks Strong Family Trust which was only part of Samuel W. Strong's will. As you know, this renders the trust invalid, which we have already confirmed with a former judge and friend of my fiancé.

In addition, Edra's will gives her entire estate over to her two children only, Samuel Meeks Strong and Carolyn Strong Woodson. Contrary to what she is reported to have stated in her will, Edra clearly told me more than one time before the onset of her dementia that she intended to leave me "a nest egg", although she did not specify the amount.

Furthermore, both wills contain waivers for the requirement to appear in court in person before the judge, as well as waivers for the final accounting of all assets. There is apparently cash, stocks and bonds that are not even mentioned specifically in the will, which has evaded the scrutiny of the State of Arkansas and the I.R.S. as well by the use of these waivers.

For this reason, I have already contacted the I.R.S. They have requested that I come in personally to speak to them about this matter in further detail. I will do this before the week is out.

The entire family, including not only both executors but other heirs- my brother, Alfred Richard Woodson of Chicago, Illinois and my cousin Sharon Strong Cowell of Maryland, have been entirely non-communicative about this matter. I have also tried to speak to my brother's ex-wife, Jennifer Rose Sandstrom of Mesa, Arizona, and my father, Alfred Richard IV of Yountville, California. They are generally either hostile or non-communicative altogether. The few things that my mother has said by e-mail are also lies that can be clearly deduced through the e-mails.

We have also researched the cause of death of both grandparents and find it interesting that both died within two months of each other due to a "myocardial infarction". In fact the, entire circumstance surrounding their deaths has raised extreme suspicion. To begin with, Samuel Strong specified in his will that he wished for his wife to be live in accordance with "the standard to which she is accustomed", which was to be at her home in Hope, Arkansas with her own private care, not amongst strangers in a controlled environment.

Instead of following his will, the two executors immediately "skated off" Edra into a nursing home, Pleasant Valley Living Center in Little Rock, Arkansas, following their father's death. Edra then "up and died" two months later of a heart failure. Interestingly enough, even she had lived quite successfully and uneventfully for twenty to thirty years prior with her heart condition.

Also, whereas Samuel Strong's death indicates heart failure, I was never aware of him suffering from cardiovascular disease, or of any prior hospitalizations. My grandfather was an extremely healthy and strong individual all his life. It is interesting to me that his cause of death lists "cardiovascular disease"- as if someone is trying to convince us that this was a chronic condition that he had, but does not list "cardiovascular disease" on Edra, who indeed did suffer with the condition for a long period of time. These records were obtained from the Herndon Funeral Home in Hope, Arkansas.

In looking at the entire circumstance, it appears quite strange that in one year, Dr. Samuel M. Strong managed to have the will amended, both parents died, and Edra died shortly after the needed signatures from her were obtained. Furthermore, we are told that her signature is on EVERY page in her fraudulent will, although we have not yet ordered the will. Again, it seems as if someone wants to "convince" everyone that she was competent at this time, which she clearly was not.

Also, Dr. Samuel Strong died first, which gave the executors the freedom to disobey the wishes of their father in regards to Edra's care. You will also note in the wills that Samuel Strong was not Edra's Power of Attorney in 1996, but became her Power of Attorney in 1999. This enabled him to sign waivers on her behalf for the final accounting of all assets in Samuel W. Strong's will, and also would have convinced "dad" that he was doing everything straightforwardly and representing Edra's best interest.

We have confronted the entire family with our suspicions, as well as the attorney, concerning Edra's will, and no one has rebutted anything that we have said in regards to her dementia at the time of her will in 1996. We also voiced concerns of possible foul play, and neither have they rebutted this.

Thank you for hearing this matter. I am respectfully requesting that this case be re-opened and prosecuted, so that all perpetrators, including any and all accessories and accomplices, will brought to justice, and so that the estates can revert back to the State of Arkansas and be redistributed in the proper fashion.

Grandpa and Grandma's Information
Samuel W. Strong Jr.
S.S.N. - 430-03-3586
D.O.B. - Jun 11th 1911
D.O.D. - Jun 8th 1999
Last Residence: 71801 (Hope, Hempstead, AR)

Edra M. Strong
S.S.N. 432-82-5850
D.O.B. Dec. 15, 1913
D.O.D. Aug. 27th, 1999
Last Residence (Little Rock, Pulaski, AR. 72227)

PLEASANT VALLEY LIVING CENTER
1211 HINSON RD
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72212
(501) 225-8888

Here is a list of Names and Addresses of All Parties Under Suspicion:

Attorney at Law
A. Wyckliff Nisbet Jr.
400 West Capitol, Suite 2000
Little Rock, Arkansas
Phone: (501) 370-1544 (Direct Dial)
Fax: (501) 376-2147
E-mail: nisbet@fec.net

Executor

Samuel M. Strong DDS
26 River Ridge Circle
Little Rock, AR 72227
Home phone: (501) 227-8058
E-mail: info@strongdds.com
Website: http://www.strongdds.com/

Daughter of Samuel M. Strong

Sharon Strong Cowell
1.) 506 Midsummer Dr
Gaithersburg, MD 20878-5222
Home phone: (301) 258-3419
Work number: (240) 305-4804
E-mail: s_cowell@comcast.net

Sharon Strong Cowell
2.)59 Swanton Mews
Gaithersburg, MD 20878-7867
(240) 632-9435

Executor

Carolyn Strong Woodson
2004 Humboldt Street
Yountville , California 94599
Home phone: (707) 944-2038
E-mail: cswoodson@sbcglobal.net

Son of Carolyn Strong Woodson
Alfred Richard Woodson IV
A.K.A. Richard Woodson
360 W Wellington Ave.
Chicago, IL 60657

Our contact information:

James A. Sablan Sr. and Sarah Matlock
Telephone: (415) 410-5519
Email: woodsonsarah@yahoo.com

Sincerely,

The granddaughter of former Mayor Samuel W. Strong, Jr.

Sarah Lorraine Matlock

Foul Play In Arkansas

thewoodsonfamily — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:54:22 +0000

Chris Thomason
301 W 16th St
Hope, AR 71801
Phone: (870) 777-0900
E-mail: tandmlaw@sbcglobal.net

For this reason, I have already contacted the I.R.S. They have requested that I come in personally to speak to them about this matter in further detail. I will do this before the week is out.

Grandpa and Grandma's Information
Samuel W. Strong Jr.
S.S.N. - 430-03-3586
D.O.B. - Jun 11th 1911
D.O.D. - Jun 8th 1999
Last Residence: 71801 (Hope, Hempstead, AR)

Edra M. Strong
S.S.N. 432-82-5850
D.O.B. Dec. 15, 1913
D.O.D. Aug. 27th, 1999
Last Residence (Little Rock, Pulaski, AR. 72227)

PLEASANT VALLEY LIVING CENTER
1211 HINSON RD
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72212
(501) 225-8888

Here is a list of Names and Addresses of All Parties Under Suspicion:

Attorney at Law
A. Wyckliff Nisbet Jr.
400 West Capitol, Suite 2000
Little Rock, Arkansas
Phone: (501) 370-1544 (Direct Dial)
Fax: (501) 376-2147
E-mail: nisbet@fec.net

Executor

Samuel M. Strong DDS
26 River Ridge Circle
Little Rock, AR 72227
Home phone: (501) 227-8058
E-mail: info@strongdds.com
Website: http://www.strongdds.com/

Daughter of Samuel M. Strong

Sharon Strong Cowell
1.) 506 Midsummer Dr
Gaithersburg, MD 20878-5222
Home phone: (301) 258-3419
Work number: (240) 305-4804
E-mail: s_cowell@comcast.net

Sharon Strong Cowell
2.)59 Swanton Mews
Gaithersburg, MD 20878-7867
(240) 632-9435

Executor

Carolyn Strong Woodson
2004 Humboldt Street
Yountville , California 94599
Home phone: (707) 944-2038
E-mail: cswoodson@sbcglobal.net

Son of Carolyn Strong Woodson
Alfred Richard Woodson IV
A.K.A. Richard Woodson
360 W Wellington Ave.
Chicago, IL 60657

Our contact information:

James A. Sablan Sr. and Sarah Matlock
Telephone: (415) 410-5519
Email: woodsonsarah@yahoo.com

Sincerely,

The granddaughter of former Mayor Samuel W. Strong, Jr.

Sarah Lorraine Matlock

Foul Play In Arkansas

thewoodsonfamily — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:54:10 +0000

Chris Thomason
301 W 16th St
Hope, AR 71801
Phone: (870) 777-0900
E-mail: tandmlaw@sbcglobal.net

For this reason, I have already contacted the I.R.S. They have requested that I come in personally to speak to them about this matter in further detail. I will do this before the week is out.

Grandpa and Grandma's Information
Samuel W. Strong Jr.
S.S.N. - 430-03-3586
D.O.B. - Jun 11th 1911
D.O.D. - Jun 8th 1999
Last Residence: 71801 (Hope, Hempstead, AR)

Edra M. Strong
S.S.N. 432-82-5850
D.O.B. Dec. 15, 1913
D.O.D. Aug. 27th, 1999
Last Residence (Little Rock, Pulaski, AR. 72227)

PLEASANT VALLEY LIVING CENTER
1211 HINSON RD
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72212
(501) 225-8888

Here is a list of Names and Addresses of All Parties Under Suspicion:

Attorney at Law
A. Wyckliff Nisbet Jr.
400 West Capitol, Suite 2000
Little Rock, Arkansas
Phone: (501) 370-1544 (Direct Dial)
Fax: (501) 376-2147
E-mail: nisbet@fec.net

Executor

Samuel M. Strong DDS
26 River Ridge Circle
Little Rock, AR 72227
Home phone: (501) 227-8058
E-mail: info@strongdds.com
Website: http://www.strongdds.com/

Daughter of Samuel M. Strong

Sharon Strong Cowell
1.) 506 Midsummer Dr
Gaithersburg, MD 20878-5222
Home phone: (301) 258-3419
Work number: (240) 305-4804
E-mail: s_cowell@comcast.net

Sharon Strong Cowell
2.)59 Swanton Mews
Gaithersburg, MD 20878-7867
(240) 632-9435

Executor

Carolyn Strong Woodson
2004 Humboldt Street
Yountville , California 94599
Home phone: (707) 944-2038
E-mail: cswoodson@sbcglobal.net

Son of Carolyn Strong Woodson
Alfred Richard Woodson IV
A.K.A. Richard Woodson
360 W Wellington Ave.
Chicago, IL 60657

Our contact information:

James A. Sablan Sr. and Sarah Matlock
Telephone: (415) 410-5519
Email: woodsonsarah@yahoo.com

Sincerely,

The granddaughter of former Mayor Samuel W. Strong, Jr.

Sarah Lorraine Matlock

Buddleia (butterfly bush): Zoom experiment

Martin Zeile — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:09:04 +0000

buddleia / butterfly bush zoom experiment 1, ursprünglich hochgeladen von martin zeile photography

I tried this time something I saw recently to give this organary flower photo a more sophisticated touch.
I used my Tamron 28-300 macro zoom on a tripod (vibration control turned off). I made this one in the early evening with ISO 100 and 4 seconds exposure (f/22). The first 2 or so seconds I did nothing. the last to I slowly zoomed in, beginning at around 50 to 60 mm up to 150 or so. I needed a few tries but finally i got what I wanted and what you see in the two pictures above - a shallow glow-like halo around the flower. I did not try it the other way (to zoom out) as it comes to my mind right now, but for sure I will.
The black background was achieved by a black shirt hanging on my kitchen door in 50-75 cm distance, as simple as that is the small "home studio".
I hope this encourages you out there to try this as well.

'till next time....

buddleia / butterfly bush zoom experiment 2, ursprünglich hochgeladen von martin zeile photography

Ile megapikseli czyli jaki aparat wybrać

Marcin P. — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:10:28 +0000

Rozdzielczość matrycy aparatu to główne kryterium, jakim kierują się ludzie, wybierając sprzęt do robienia zdjęć. To błąd, bo wyścig na megapiksele od dawna nie ma sensu, ale nikt nie chce tego głośno powiedzieć

Ludzie jak szaleni kupują cyfrówki, więc wszystkie firmy chcą je sprzedawać niezależnie od tego, czy mają jakiekolwiek tradycje fotograficzne, czy nigdy przedtem nie skalały się produkcją optyki. W gąszczu ofert specjaliści od marketingu muszą się jakoś przebić. A w hałasie przebijają się tylko proste, krótkie komunikaty, na przykład liczby. Aparaty cyfrowe sprzedawane są z dwiema liczbami: rozdzielczością matrycy liczoną w megapikselach, czyli milionach punktów, i krotnością zoomu, czyli zmianą ogniskowej obiektywu pozwalającą na zacieśnianie kadru bez ruszania się z miejsca (potocznie mówi się o tym "zbliżanie"). Te dwie informacje znajdziemy na każdym pudełku wybite wielkimi literami.

Czy więcej znaczy lepiej? W przypadku aparatów cyfrowych nie jest to aż taka prosta sprawa, bowiem powiększanie obu parametrów - rozdzielczości i krotności zoomu - jest jak za krótka kołdra.

Liczba megapikseli, czyli rozdzielczość, mówi o tym, jak bardzo możemy powiększyć zdjęcie. Odbitki 10 x 15 cm z każdego aparatu będą dobrze wyglądały, bowiem do takich rozmiarów wystarczą już

2 megapiksele, czyli tyle, ile oferują telefony komórkowe. Dziś na sklepowych półkach bez trudu można znaleźć aparaty, których matryce mają znacznie więcej pikseli - 8, 10, 12 mln. Teoretycznie pozwala to na wykonywanie powiększeń o rozmiarach 30 x 50 cm, ale tylko teoretycznie. A to dlatego, że w znakomitej większości obiektywy nie są w stanie zapewnić obrazu o wystarczającej liczbie szczegółów, tak by wykorzystać pełny potencjał matrycy. Producenci pakują coraz większe rozdzielczości w aparaty, bo tak najłatwiej pognębić konkurencję, a - by zacytować klasyków - głupi lud i tak kupi. Tymczasem pomiary ilości szczegółów rejestrowanych przez aparaty podawane np. w prasie specjalistycznej pokazują, że w wielu przypadkach urządzenia o nominalnej rozdzielczości kilkunastu megapikseli rejestrują tylko tyle szczegółów ile matryce 3-4-megapikselowe.

Co gorsza, im większa krotność zoomu, tym gorsza jakość obiektywu - nie bez przyczyny najlepsze i najdroższe obiektywy używane przez profesjonalistów wcale zoomu nie mają.

Jaki z tego morał? Jeśli kupujemy aparat, z którego nie będziemy robić odbitek większych niż 10 x 15 cm, to nie warto kierować się liczbą megapikseli, bo wszystko, co jest obecnie na rynku, ma ich wystarczająco dużo. Jeśli zaś chcemy robić powiększenia, to znów kryteria poszukiwania nie powinny bazować na liczbie megapikseli, bo one tak naprawdę jeszcze nic nie określają.

Optyka wyznacza granice

Optyka to bardzo stary dział fizyki rozwijany od czasów Galileusza i wiele zagadnień związanych z jakością obrazu już dawno rozwiązano. Zajmowali się tym przede wszystkim astronomowie i biolodzy wiele lat przed wynalezieniem fotografii cyfrowej. Jednym były potrzebne dobre teleskopy, innym dobre mikroskopy. I wieki praktyki pokazały, że za jakość obrazu odpowiada wielkość soczewek (im większe, tym lepsze) i rozmiar nośnika rejestrującego obraz (im większy gabarytowo, tym lepszy obraz). Dlatego do dziś najlepsze zdjęcia reklamowe wykonuje się aparatami wielkoformatowymi, w których klisza ma rozmiary 20 x 25 cm. Stąd prosty wniosek - im mniejszy aparat, tym gorsza jakość rejestrowanych zdjęć. Z tego względu nie można liczyć na to, że kieszonkowy kompakt będzie robił równie dobre zdjęcia jak lustrzanka, i dlatego istnieją duże aparaty. Duże oznacza też drogie, a to dlatego, że kluczowe elementy, czyli obiektyw i matryca światłoczuła, są bardzo kosztowne w produkcji.

Siłą rzeczy wysokie koszty produkcji nie sprzyjają rynkowej wojnie, w której trzeba sprzedawać coraz taniej, coraz więcej megapikseli z coraz większym zoomem. Oczywiście nie ma reguły i duży aparat też można zrobić zły, ale przynajmniej potencjalnie im jest większy, tym lepsze zdjęcia.

Ma to bardzo poważne uzasadnienie fizyczne. Matryca dużego aparatu przy tej samej rozdzielczości co maleńki kieszonkowy kompakt ma znacznie większe gabaryty. To oznacza, że na upakowanie elementów światłoczułych jest znacznie więcej miejsca. W efekcie elementy światłoczułe dużej matrycy zbierają więcej światła niż elementy małej. Poza tym istnieje pewne ograniczenie minimalnej wielkości szczegółów, jakie może odwzorować obiektyw zbudowany z soczewek. Ograniczenie zależy również od długości fali świetlnej, a dokładnie opisuje, kiedy zjawisko zwane dyfrakcją zaczyna rujnować jakość obrazu rzucanego przez obiektyw. Odpowiedni wzór opracował pod koniec XIX wieku lord Rayleigh. Bez wdawania się w szczegóły matematyczne warto wiedzieć, że najmniejsza plamka, jaką jest w stanie odwzorować obiektyw, ma średnicę kilku mikrometrów. A w najmniejszych matrycach komórki światłoczułe są rozmieszczone w mniejszej odległości niż owe kilka mikrometrów fizycznego ograniczenia. Morał z tego taki, że wyścig na megapiksele nie ma już większego sensu. Co z tego, że aparat ma matrycę

12 megapikseli, jeśli obiektyw nie jest w stanie obsłużyć więcej niż 4.

Rozmiar ma znaczenie

Rozmiar matrycy (ale nie rozdzielczość, lecz gabaryty) aparatu cyfrowego ma jeszcze jedną konsekwencję. Im mniejsza matryca, tym mniejsza ogniskowa obiektywu, a to za sobą pociąga różnice w głębi ostrości zdjęć. Chodzi o możliwość zrobienia takiego zdjęcia, gdzie tylko wybrany motyw jest ostry, a tło nieostre. Szczególnie dobrze sprawdza się to w fotografii portretowej. Jeśli umiemy zapanować nad tym efektem, znacznie poprawia on wygląd zdjęć. Głębią ostrości rządzą ścisłe reguły matematyczne, których nie warto przytaczać. Dość powiedzieć, że im krótszy obiektyw, tym głębia jest większa, a co za tym idzie - trudniej uzyskać efekt nieostrych planów zdjęcia.

W małych aparatach obiektywy mają bardzo krótkie ogniskowe - rzędu 4-6 mm. W najpopularniejszych lustrzankach ogniskowa jest trzy razy dłuższa, ale ponieważ matryca jest większa, to kąt widzenia pozostaje ten sam. Kompozycyjnie zdjęcia wyglądają więc jednakowo, ale różnią się głębią ostrości. To przeszkadza, gdy chcemy na poważnie bawić się w fotografię, i pomaga, gdy chcemy mieć ostre zdjęcia pamiątkowe z wakacyjnych wojaży.

Informacji o gabarytach matrycy próżno szukać na pudełku. Jest zagrzebana głęboko w instrukcji i nie każdy sprzedawca w ogóle wie, o czym mowa. Pośrednio możemy dowiedzieć się czegoś o rozmiarze matrycy, patrząc na rozmiary aparatu, bo im większa matryca, tym większy obiektyw.

Jak wybierać

Warto poznać kilka reguł, które pozwolą wybrać aparat potencjalnie dobry jakościowo.

Nie kierujmy się rozdzielczością matrycy, bo w znakomitej większości przypadków nie potrzebujemy wielu megapikseli.

Pamiętajmy, że im większa krotność zoomu, tym gorsza optyczna jakość obiektywu. Nie bądźmy więc pazerni na duży zoom, starajmy się zachować umiar.

Dobrym parametrem określającym jakość obiektywu jest jego jasność, oznaczana często f/2,8, f/3,5 itp. Im większa liczba, tym mniejsza jasność. Dobre obiektywy mają jasność f/2,8, doskonałe f/2,0, niezwykle rzadko można spotkać f/1,8 czy f/1,4 (raczej w obiektywach do lustrzanek). Wartość f/3,0 jest przyzwoita, a f/3,5 to rynkowa średnia, którą nie ma się co chwalić.
Nie szpanujmy. Jeśli chcemy kupić lustrzankę, ale nie planujemy wydawania pieniędzy na obiektywy, to warto jeszcze raz przemyśleć zakup. Dobry aparat kompaktowy w podobnej cenie będzie zapewne robił znacznie lepsze zdjęcia niż lustrzanka ze standardowym obiektywem sprzedawanym w zestawie. Fachowcy mówią na niego pogardliwie "kitowy" (wykorzystując grę słów w tłumaczeniu, bo "kit" po angielsku znaczy zestaw). Nie warto kupować drogiego korpusu i taniego obiektywu, bo wtedy całą potencjalną jakość korpusu niweczy marny obiektyw.

Częstym błędem jest też zaufanie bądź nieufność do marki wynoszona z czasów fotografii tradycyjnej. Aparat cyfrowy oprócz części analogowej w postaci obiektywu ma jeszcze (jak nazwa wskazuje) część cyfrową w postaci matrycy i mikroprocesora. To, że firma X znana jest z doskonałych obiektywów, nie znaczy, że potrafi zbudować cały aparat cyfrowy. Tak więc, jeśli dziadek mówi: kup kochany aparat tej firmy, bo zdjęcia robił doskonałe - nie ufajmy. Doskonałym przykładem jest firma Leica, która wśród fotografów starej daty budzi dreszcz emocji, bowiem obiektywy produkowane przez tę niemiecką korporację do dziś zachwycają jakością obrazu. Ale sztandarowy model cyfrowy tej firmy Leica M8, oczekiwany przez wielu fotografów na całym świecie, wcale nie zachwyca jakością, bowiem inżynierowie zapomnieli o tym, że matryca światłoczuła rejestruje również podczerwień, przez co jakość obrazu znacznie odbiega od oczekiwań fotografów. Oczywiście nikt nie mówi o tym głośno, bo taka wpadka to tak jak ostatnie koncerty Beethovena, na których głuchy już muzyk kaleczył niemiłosiernie melodie. O ile wśród zwykłych ludzi zdarzenie wywołałoby śmiech, może drwiny, o tyle w wysokich sferach mówi się w kategoriach wielkich zasług muzyka i wiele mu daruje, a po koncercie klaszcze.

Tak więc zasługi dla fotografii to nie wszystko i nie warto dyskredytować takich firm jak np. Sony czy Matsushita (właściciel marki Panasonic), które z fotografią analogową nie mają wiele wspólnego, ale aparaty cyfrowe robią całkiem dobre.

Aparat do potrzeb

Kluczem do sukcesu przy wyborze aparatu jest prawidłowe zdefiniowanie potrzeb. Zanim kupimy aparat, zastanówmy się, do czego go będziemy używać. Jeśli właśnie złapaliśmy bakcyla fotografii i chcemy rozwijać naszą pasję, to do wyboru mamy albo zaawansowany kompakt w rodzaju Panasonic Fz50 lub Sony H9 albo lustrzankę. Wiele radości pasjonatowi fotografii może sprawić Sony R1 - już nieprodukowany, ale na tyle solidny, że używany można kupić w dobrym stanie. Kompakt radzę kupić wtedy, gdy zdecydowanie nie chcemy wydawać pieniędzy na dodatkowe obiektywy, bowiem aparaty kompaktowe są wyposażone w dobrą optykę, a lustrzanki, te amatorskie, sprzedawane są z podłej jakości obiektywami. Zakup lustrzanki oznacza, że po jakimś czasie zacznie nas męczyć myśl o zakupie obiektywu i zewnętrznej lampy, i z czasem ulegniemy. Nie ma w tym żadnej hańby, w końcu na każde hobby można wydawać pieniądze, ale lustrzanka to wyjątkowo kosztowna pasja.

Lustrzanki i duże kompakty mają jedną istotną wadę - rozmiar. Nie są to aparaty, które bierze się "przy okazji", to sprzęt, który zabieramy z premedytacją. W górach albo w długich wędrówkach taki sprzęt zaczyna poważnie ciążyć. Dlatego jeśli myślimy o aparacie wakacyjnym, ale nie chcemy go dźwigać, warto kupić jakiś kompakt ze średniej półki.

Istnieje jeszcze jedna kategoria gabarytowa - aparaty kieszonkowe. Są wielkości papierośnicy i mieszczą się w każdej kieszeni i torebce. Są to urządzenia z gatunku "na wszelki wypadek". Zdjęcia robią znacznie lepsze niż telefony komórkowe, ale - co oczywiste - ustępują jakością większym aparatom. Za to wygoda korzystania z nich jest ogromna. W tej kategorii mieszczą się też unikalne w swojej konstrukcji aparaty Olympus z serii mju SW, które mają wodoszczelną obudowę i są odporne na upadki do 1,5 metra. Taki aparat bez oporów można zabrać na kajak czy na plażę, a nawet robić nim zdjęcia pod wodą przy brzegu albo w basenie. To idealne urządzenie dla rodziców małych dzieci, które jak wiadomo, uwielbiają świecidełka, a więc i aparaty cyfrowe. Olympusa można dać rocznemu maluchowi bez obaw, że trzaśnie nim o podłogę albo zaślini.

Uwaga na stabilizację

W telewizji czasem jeszcze można zobaczyć reklamówkę aparatów Panasonic Lumix z wbudowaną stabilizacją obrazu. Na filmach widzimy ludzi trzęsących się niemiłosiernie, którym wychodzą ostre zdjęcia. W rzeczywistości żaden stabilizator nie pozwoli uzyskać ostrego obrazu, w sytuacji gdy robimy zdjęcie, jadąc konno bądź trzęsąc się z zimna. Firma trochę przesadziła z reklamami, bo trudno jest wytłumaczyć w prosty sposób, że stabilizacja jest bardzo przydatną funkcją. Wszystkim ludziom trzęsą się ręce, mniej lub bardziej. Zawodowi fotografowie potrafią utrzymać stabilnie aparat przy stosunkowo długich czasach naświetlania, ale wymaga to sporego treningu. A i tak nie opanują na przykład bicia serca, które również wprowadza drgania. Dlatego system stabilizacji obrazu jest bardzo przydatny. Ale nie oczekujmy cudów i jednak starajmy się trzymać aparat stabilnie. Pamiętajmy też o dwóch rodzajach stabilizacji. Pierwszy, skuteczniejszy, zwany stabilizacją optyczną, polega na kompensowaniu ruchów aparatu za pomocą mechanizmu żyroskopowego poruszającego bądź obiektywem, bądź matrycą aparatu. Drugi, oszukańczy, polega na podniesieniu czułości matrycy aparatu, by skrócić czas naświetlania i w ten sposób zmniejszyć ryzyko poruszenia zdjęcia. Taki sposób nazywany jest eufemistycznie stabilizatorem "elektronicznym", "cyfrowym" itp. Nie byłoby w tym nic złego, gdyby nie to, że podniesienie czułości matrycy pogarsza jakość obrazu. Dlatego, gdy aparat kusi "stabilizacją obrazu", sprawdźmy na pewno, czy to jest stabilizacja optyczna, czy oszukiwana.

*artykuł Marcina Bójko - redaktora naczelnego www.dfv.pl, zapożyczony z www.gazeta.pl jakiś czas temu

Be there

paikiiimagery — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:15:37 +0000

"F8 and be there" is the kind of photographer I am. That's particularly true when we had a family friend visiting recently. Along a portion of Koko Head is a section of ledges. With light swells it makes a nice place to walk, sunbathe and swim.
After walking a short distance from a place called China Walls, a section of ledges were occupied by a group of sunbathers and fisherman. Occasionally, a swell rolled past us until it hit the ledges sending up a white fan of spray behind the group (as we faced them). After trying to capture it with my wide angle lens, I changed to my zoom.
Naturally, after changing lens, I had to wait, and wait, and wait some more!! Finally I got a swell that hit the ledge at the right angle to cause the splash.[caption id="attachment_80" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Surf spraying behind bathers at Koko Kai Ledges"][/caption]