View allAll Photos Tagged help

42213 and helper T411 idle away in Dynon yard before heading to Albury with what was known as the "Albury Rest" job. 42213 was part of the SYD-MEL through-working locomotive pool. This was a most memorable night as I rode this train at the invitation of a long-time driver friend and did the rest in Albury. Next day we headed back to Melbourne on the regular passenger train with a cab-ride into Melbourne.

No names, no more details: what happens on the Albury Rest, stays on the Albury Rest!

(85.019.04_42213-T@NightMwt)

Original Caption: A Nurse Helps An Elderly Patient Leave Louisville Memorial Hospital. A Liquid Chlorine Barge On The Ohio River Had Broken Loose From Its Tug And Threatened To Spill Its Poisonous Contents. The Area Was Evacuated For 24 Hours Until The Barge Was Stabilized, March 1972

 

U.S. National Archives’ Local Identifier: 412-DA-1413

 

Photographer: Strode, William

  

Subjects:

Louisville (Jefferson county, Kentucky, United States, North and Central America) inhabited place

Environmental protection

Natural resources

Pollution

Ohio River

Project DOCUMERICA

  

Persistent URL: research.archives.gov/description/543906

 

Repository: Still Picture Records Section, Special Media Archives Services Division (NWCS-S), National Archives at College Park, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD, 20740-6001.

 

For information about ordering reproductions of photographs held by the Still Picture Unit, visit: www.archives.gov/research/order/still-pictures.html

 

Reproductions may be ordered via an independent vendor. NARA maintains a list of vendors at www.archives.gov/research/order/vendors-photos-maps-dc.html

 

Access Restrictions: Unrestricted

Use Restrictions: Unrestricted

Makeup applications, then I took a photo and put it into photoshop

Hope the queen doesn't hear about this.

Banding or Posterisation. Does anyone know how it comes about and how you get rid of it????

 

Look closely and you'll see some banding in the sky, almost like waves, where the gradation is not smooth. I read that it can be due to heavy processing. The example here has a vignette added but I know it's not the reason because it happens without vignettes too.... A suggestion was to use 16-bit processing but that doesn't really do the trick. Sometimes, yes. But not always. And now what's really driving me mad is that it appears in some of the shots straight from the camera.

 

It would be wonderful if someone could let me know what's going on and suggest a solution.

 

I've posted the orginal of this shot below.

 

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!

 

The exif data is:

 

1/30th sec @ f11

-1 1/3 exposure bias

ISO 100

Centre-weighted average metering

   

BTW, it's voting time at Takara Nomination Contest #5

   

elements : italy

.

Picture is only somewhat relevant. As you probably read in the title I need help. I am writing a stop motion film (The image above is a snippit from an animation test i did) And I am stuck with the plot. IF anyone is interested in helping me sort it out and write it just leave a comment below!

 

THANKS!

 

Help me if you can. I'm feeling down.

Hey, you thief! Gimme my cookies back!!!

Yeah, I know. I can't help it.

Taken half an hour ago(10 a.m.) in my Sussex garden. I feed this fox with her partner every night but because of the weather they are looking for food during the day and eating the peanuts and birdseed I am putting out for the birds . Isn't she lovely! She looked up when she saw me at the window. I had to take this through the glass again.

She sits on a wall in the evnings just waiting for me to come out and feed. Though I don't want her to trust me because one day she may trust the wrong person.

Hello every,

Please help us to #provide food and milk for poor people and their children to relieve them from #hunger and to stop #starving #deaths of the poor people and their #children, and to fight against the #coronavirus.

Please any #help, your #contribution will help food and milk for the poor people and their children. No fees on this fundraiser of Indian GoFundMe (Ketto) see for more: bit.ly/394TU99 ❤️

  

#StandWithChildren #Help #ShareForSupport #GivingHope #SampathiFoundationCharity #HelpingHands #Children #Fundraising #Coronavirus #Hunger #DonateFoodForPoor #FightAgainstCorona #StopStarvingDeaths #SupportUs

 

En adopción en Help Guau. // Up for adoption in Help Guau.

 

Para más información, dirígete a www.helpguau.com

 

-=-=-=-=

If you enjoy my dog pictures, please consider liking our Facebook page!

Si te gustan mis fotografías de perros, échale un vistazo a mi página de Facebook.

 

Facebook

Portfolio

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

In 1948, a swept wing version of the F-84 was created with the hope of bringing performance to the level of the F-86. The last production F-84E was fitted with a swept tail, a new wing with 38.5 degrees of leading-edge sweep and 3.5 degrees of anhedral, and a J35-A-25 engine producing 5,300 pound-force (23.58 kN) of thrust. The aircraft was designated XF-96A and flew on 3 June 1950. Although the airplane was capable of 602 knots (693 mph, 1,115 km/h), the performance gain over the F-84E was considered minor. Nonetheless, it was ordered into production in July 1950 as the F-84F Thunderstreak. The F-84 designation was eventually retained because the fighter was expected to be a low-cost improvement of the straight-wing Thunderjet with over 55 percent commonality in tooling.

 

In the meantime, the USAF, hoping for improved high-altitude performance from a more powerful engine, arranged for the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine to be built in the United States as the Wright J65. To accommodate the larger engine, YF-84Fs with a British-built Sapphire as well as production F-84Fs with the J65 had a vertically stretched fuselage, with the air intake attaining an oval cross-section. Production quickly ran into problems, though. Although tooling commonality with the Thunderjet was supposed to be 55 %, but just 15 % of the tools could actually be re-used. To make matters worse, the F-84F utilized press-forged wing spars and ribs. At the time, only three presses in the United States could manufacture these, and priority was given to the Boeing B-47 Stratojet bomber over the F-84. The YJ65-W-1 engine was considered obsolete, too, and the improved J65-W-3 did not become available until 1954. When the first production F-84F flew on 22 November 1952, it was considered not ready for operational deployment due to control and stability problems. The first 275 aircraft, equipped with conventional stabilizer-elevator tailplanes, suffered from accelerated stall pitch-up and poor turning ability at combat speeds. Beginning with Block 25, the problem was improved upon by the introduction of a hydraulically powered one-piece stabilator. A number of aircraft were also retrofitted with spoilers for improved high-speed control. As a result, the F-84F was not declared operational until 12 May 1954.

 

The second YF-84F prototype was completed with wing-root air intakes. These were not adopted for the fighter due to loss of thrust, but this arrangement kept the nose section free and permitted placement of cameras, and the different design was adopted for the RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. Being largely identical to the F-84F, the Thunderflash suffered from the same production delays and engine problems, though, delaying operational service until March 1954.

 

During the F-84F’s development the Air Defense Command was looking for a replacement for the outdated F-94 ‘Starfire’ interceptor, a hasty development from the T-33 trainer airframe with an afterburner engine and an on-board radar. However, the F-94 was only armed with machine guns in its early versions or unguided missiles in its later incarnations, which were inadequate. An aircraft with better performance, ideally with supersonic speed, a better radar, and the ability to carry guided missiles (in the form if the AIR-1 and 2 ‘Falcon’ AAMs) as well as the AIR-2 ‘Genie’ missile was now requested.

 

The Douglas AIR-2 Genie followed a unique but effective concept that represented the technological state-of-the-art: it was an unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kt W25 nuclear warhead. The interception of Soviet strategic bombers was a major military preoccupation of the late 1940s and 1950s. The World War II-age fighter armament of machine guns and cannon were inadequate to stop attacks by massed bomber formations, which were expected to come in at high altitude and at high subsonic speed. Firing large volleys of unguided rockets into bomber formations was not much better, and true air-to-air missiles were in their infancy. In 1954 Douglas Aircraft began a program to investigate the possibility of a nuclear-armed air-to-air weapon. To ensure simplicity and reliability, the weapon would be unguided, since the large blast radius made precise accuracy unnecessary. Full-scale development began in 1955, with test firing of inert warhead rockets commencing in early 1956. The final design carried a 1.5-kiloton W25 nuclear warhead and was powered by a Thiokol SR49-TC-1 solid-fuel rocket engine of 162 kN (36,000 lbf) thrust, sufficient to accelerate the rocket to Mach 3.3 during its two-second burn. Total flight time was about 12 seconds, during which time the rocket covered 10 km (6.2 mi). Targeting, arming, and firing of the weapon were coordinated by the launch aircraft's fire-control system. Detonation was by time-delay fuze, although the fuzing mechanism would not arm the warhead until engine burn-out, to give the launch aircraft sufficient time to turn and escape. However, there was no mechanism for disarming the warhead after launch. Lethal radius of the blast was estimated to be about 300 meters (980 ft). Once fired, the Genie's short flight-time and large blast radius made it virtually impossible for a bomber to avoid destruction. The rocket entered service with the designation MB-1 Genie in 1957.

 

During the development phase the first carrier aircraft earmarked to carry the AIR-2 was the Northrop F-89 Scorpion, which had already been introduced in the early Fifties. While being an all-weather interceptor with on-board radar, it was a slow and large aircraft, and outdated like the F-94. Trying to keep the F-84 production lines busy, however, Republic saw the chance to design an all-weather interceptor aircraft that would surpass the F-89’s mediocre performance and meet the AIR-2 carrier requirements on the basis of the swept-wing (R)F-84F. To emphasize its dedicated interceptor role and set it apart from its fighter-bomber ancestors, the heavily modified aircraft was designated F-96B (even though it had little to do with the XF-96A that became the F-84F) and called ‘Thunderguard’.

 

The F-96B was largely based on the RF-84F’s airframe with its wing-root air intakes, what offered ample space in the aircraft’s nose for a radar system and other equipment. The radar was coupled with a state-of-the-art Hughes MC-10 fire control system. To relieve the pilot from operating the radar system one of the fuel cells behind the cockpit was deleted and a second crew member was placed behind him under an extended, strutless hood that opened to starboard. To compensate for the loss of fuel and maintain the F-84F’s range, a new tank was mounted under the cockpit floor in the aircraft’s center of gravity.

To improve performance and cope with the raised take-off weight, the F-96B was powered by an uprated Wright J65-W-18 turbojet, which generated 0.4 kN more dry thrust than the F-84F’s original J65-W-3 (7,700 lbf/34 kN). This was not too much, though, so that the J65 was additionally outfitted with an afterburner. With this upgrade the powerplant provided a maximum thrust of 10,500 lbf (47 kN), what resulted in a markedly improved rate of climb and the ability to break the sound barrier in level flight. The additional reheat section necessitated a wider and longer rear fuselage, which had to be redesigned. As an unintended side benefit, this new tail section reduced overall drag due to a slightly area-ruled coke-bottle shape behind the wings’ trailing edge, which was even emphasized through the ventral brake parachute fairing.

Armament consisted only of missiles, which were all carried externally on wing stations, all guns of the former F-84 versions were deleted to save weight. The F-96B’s weapons range included GAR-1/2/3/4 (Later re-designated as AIM-4) radar- and IR-guided Falcon air-to-air missiles and a pair of MB-1 Genie missiles. Up to four pods with nineteen unguided 2.75 in (70 mm) "Mighty Mouse" Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each were an alternative, too, and a pair of drop tanks were typically carried under the inner wings to provide the aircraft with sufficient range, since the new afterburner significantly increased fuel consumption.

 

Even though it was only a derivative design, the F-96B introduced a lot of innovations. One of these was the use of a diverertless supersonic inlet (DSI), a novel type of jet engine air intake to control air flow into their engines. Initial research into the DSI was done by Antonio Ferri in the 1950s. It consisted of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl, which worked together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine. In the case of the F-96B this was realized as an inward-turning inlet with a variable contraction ratio. However, even though they had not been deemed necessary to guarantee a clean airflow, the F-96B’s air intakes were further modified with splitter plates to adapt them to the expected higher flight speeds and direct the air flow. The initial flight tests had also revealed a directional instability at high speed, due to the longer nose, so that the tail surfaces (both fin and stabilizers) were enlarged for the serial aircraft to compensate.

 

Another novel feature was an IRST sensor in front of the windscreen which augmented the on-board radar. This sensor, developed by Hughes International and designated ‘X-1’, was still very experimental, though, highly unreliable, and difficult to handle, because it relied on pressurized coolant to keep the sensor cold enough to operate properly, and dosing it at a consistent level proved to be difficult (if not impossible). On the other side the IRST allowed to track targets even in a massively radar-jammed environment. The 7” diameter silicone sensor was, together with the on-board radar, slaved to the fire control system so that its input could be used to lock guided missiles onto targets, primarily the GAR-1 and GAR-2 AAMs. The X-1 had a field of view of 70×140°, with an angular resolution of 1°, and operated in 2.5 micron wavelength range. When it worked properly the sensor was able to detect a B-47-sized aircraft’s tails aspect from 25 nm (29 ml/46 km) and a target of similar size from directly ahead from 10 nm (12 ml/19 km). Later, better developed versions of Hughes IRST, like the X-3 that was retrofitted to the F-101B in the early Sixties, had a better range and were more reliable.

 

During the Thunderguard’s development another competitor entered the stage, the F-101B Voodoo. In the late 1940s, the Air Force had already started a research project into the future interceptor aircraft that eventually settled on an advanced specification known as the 1954 interceptor. Contracts for this specification eventually resulted in the selection of the F-102 Delta Dagger, but by 1952 it was becoming clear that none of the parts of the specification other than the airframe would be ready by 1954; the engines, weapons, and fire control systems were all going to take too long to get into service. An effort was then started to quickly produce an interim supersonic design to replace the various subsonic interceptors then in service, and the F-101 airframe was selected as a starting point. Although McDonnell proposed the designation F-109 for the new aircraft (which was to be a substantial departure from the basic Voodoo fighter bomber), the USAF assigned the designation F-101B. Its development was protracted, so that the F-96B – even though it offered less performance – was ordered into production to fill the USAF’s urgent interceptor gap.

 

F-96B production started after a brief test phase in late 1957, and the first aircraft were delivered to the 60th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in 1958. However, when it became clear that the F-101B would finally enter service in 1959, F-96B production was quickly cut down and the initial order of 300 aircraft reduced to only 150, which were produced until early 1960 in three batches. Only sixty were directly delivered to ADC units, because these were preferably equipped with the supersonic F-102A and the new F-101B, which could also carry the nuclear Genie missile. The rest was directly handed over to Air National Guard units – and even there they were quickly joined and replaced by the early ADC aircraft.

 

Operationally, almost all F-96Bs functioned under the US–Canadian North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), which protected North American airspace from Soviet intruders, particularly the threat posed by nuclear-armed bombers. In service, the F-96Bs were soon upgraded with a data link to the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, allowing ground controllers to steer the aircraft towards its targets by making adjustments through the plane's autopilot. Furthermore, the F-96B was upgraded to allow the carrying of two GAR-11/AIM-26 Nuclear Falcon missiles instead of the Genies when they became available in 1961.

A handful F-96Bs were camouflaged during the late Sixties with the USAF’s new SEA scheme, but most aircraft retained their original bare metal finish with more or less colorful unit markings. Due to its limited capabilities and the introduction of the Mach 2 McDonnell F-4 Phantom, the last F-96B was retired from ANG service in 1971.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 54t 11 1/2 in (16,77 m) incl. pitot

Wingspan: 33 ft 7.25 in (10,25 m)

Height: 16 ft 9 in (5,11 m)

Wing area: 350 sq ft (37,55 m²)

Empty weight: 13,810 lb (6.264 kg)

Gross weight: 21,035 lb (9.541 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 28,000 lb (12.701 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 8,600 lbf (34 kN) dry thrust and 10,500 lbf (47 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 695 mph (1,119 km/h, 604 kn, Mach 1.1) at 35,000 ft (10,668 m)

Cruise speed: 577 mph (928 km/h, 501 kn)

Range: 810 mi (1,304 km, 704 nmi) combat radius with two droptanks

Service ceiling: 49,000 ft (15,000 m)

Rate of climb: 16,300 ft/min (83 m/s)

Wing loading: 86 lb/sq ft (423 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

No internal guns;

6× underwing hardpoints for a total ordnance load of up to 6,000lb (2,727 kg), including

a pair of 191.5 US gal (727 l) or 375 US gal (1.429 l) drop tanks on the inner stations

and a mix of AIM-4 Falcon (up to six), MB-1 Genie (up to two) and/or pods with

nineteen 2.75”/70 mm FFAR unguided missiles each (up to four) on the outer stations

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional missing link between the RF-84F and the F-105 was conceived for the Fifties Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, an era when the USAF used a wide variety of interceptor aircraft types and technical advancements were quick and significant – in just a decade the interceptor evolved from a subsonic machine gun-toting aircraft to a guided weapons carrier platform, capable of Mach 2.

 

The F-96B (I re-used Republic’s dropped designation for the swept-wing F-84F) was to display one of the many “in between” designs, and the (R)F-84F was just a suitable basis for a conversion similar to the T-33-derived F-94, just more capable and big enough to carry the nuclear Genie missile.

The basis became Italeri’s vintage RF-84F kit, a rather simple affair with raised panel lines and a mediocre fit, plus some sinkholes. This was, however, heavily modified!

 

Work started with the implantation of a new tandem cockpit, taken wholesale from a Heller T-33. Fitting the cockpit tub into the wider Thunderflash hull was a bit tricky, putty blobs held the implant in place. The canopy was taken from the T-33, too, just the RF-84F’s original rear side windows were cut away to offer sufficient length for the longer clear part and the cockpit side walls had to be raised to an even level with the smaller windscreen with the help of styrene strips. With these adapters the T-33 canopy fitted surprisingly well over the opening and blended well into the spine.

 

The camera nose section lost its tip, which was replaced with the tail cone from a Matchbox H.S. Buccaneer (actually its air brake), and the camera windows as well as the slant surfaces that held them were PSRed away for a conical shape that extended the new pointed radome. Lots of weight in the nose and under the cockpit floor ensured a safe stance on the OOB landing gear.

The rear section behind the air brakes became all-new; for an afterburner I extended and widened the tail section and implanted the rear part from a B-66 (Italeri kit, too) engine nacelle, which received a wider nozzle (left over from a Nakotne MiG-29, a featureless thing) and an interior.

To balance the longer nose I also decided to enlarge the tail surfaces and replaced the OOB fin and stabilizers with leftover parts from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber – the fin was shortened and the stabilizers reduced in span to match the rest of the aircraft. Despite the exotic source the parts blend well into the F-84’s overall design!

 

To add supersonic credibility and to connect the design further with the later F-105 I modified the air intakes and cut them into a raked shape – quite easy to realize. Once the wings were in place, I also added small splitter plates, left over from an Airfix BAC Strikemaster.

 

As an interceptor the armament had to be adapted accordingly, and I procured the quartet of IR-guided Falcons as well as the Genie duo from an Academy F-89. The large drop tanks were taken OOB from the Italeri kit. The Genies were mounted onto their massive Scorpion pylons under the outer wings of the F-96B, while the Falcons, due to relatively little space left under the wings, required a scratched solution. I eventually settled for dual launchers on small pylons, mounted in front of the landing gear wells. The pylons originally belong to an ESCI Ka-34 “Hokum” helicopter kit (they were just short enough!), the launch rails are a halved pair of F-4 Sidewinder rails from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. With everything on place the F-96B looks quite crowded.

  

Painting and markings:

The machine would represent a late Fifties USAF type, so that the paint options were rather limited if I wanted to be authentic. ADC Grey was introduced in the early Sixties, SEA camouflage even later, so that bare metal became a natural choice – but this can be quite attractive! The model received an overall coat with acrylic “White Aluminum” from the rattle can, plus some darked panels all over the hull (Humbrol 56 for good contrast) and an afterburner section in Revell 91 (Iron Metallic) and Humbrol’s Steel Metallizer. The radome became deep black, the anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen olive drab (Revell 46). Light grey (Revell 75) was used for some small di-electric fairings.

Interior surfaces (cockpit and landing gear wells) were painted with Zinc Chromate primer (I used Humbrol 80), while the landing gear struts became silver-grey (Humbrol 56) and the inside of the covers as well as the air brakes were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19).

Once basic painting was done the model received a black ink washing and was rubbed with grinded graphite to emphasize the raised panel lines, and the material adds a nice dark metallic shine to the silver base coat.

 

Another challenge was to find suitable unit markings for the Fifties era in the decal vault, which would also fit onto the model. After a long search I eventually settled for rather simple markings from a 325th FIS F-102 from an Xtradecal sheet, which only features a rather timid fin decoration.

Finding other suitable standard markings remained demanding, though. Stars-And-Bars as well as the USAF taglines were taken from the Academy F-89 that also provided the ordnance, most stencils were taken from the OOB Italeri sheet and complemented by small markings from the scrap box. The biggest problem was the creation of a matching serial number. The “FF” code was originally used for P/F-51D Mustangs during the Korea War, but after the type had been phased out it might have been re-used? The letters as well as the serial number digits were created from various markings for USAF F-100s, also from an Xtradecal sheet.

 

Once the decals had been applied the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish, except for the radome, the anti-glare panel as well as the walking areas on the wings as well as parts of the afterburner section, which were coated with matt varnish.

  

A rather straightforward conversion, even though finishing the project took longer than expected. But the result looks surprisingly natural and plausible. Lots of PSR was needed to modify the fuselage, though, especially the tail section was not easy to integrate into the Thunderflash’s hull. Sticking to the simple NMF livery paid IMHO out, too: the livery looks very natural and believable on the fictional aircraft, and it suits the F-84’s bulbous shape well.

the boys outgrow me.

Rue Bretagne, Paris

Roger at Miss Pixie's. 1626 14th St NW, Washington, DC.

Backyard gray squirrel eating the sunflower seeds I put out for the birds. I guess they can share.

I've been reading and reading about resizing images for viewing online. How come everything I try looks all blotchy and gross? they just don't look as clear as they do in photoshop.

 

check out the last 4 pics in this album... ugh...

www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=118560&id=159037922414...

Husband seeking help from his wife.

Need assistance editing infrared! All the tutorials in the world can't seem to help me. Any suggestions?

Thank you friends for your visits:)

I'm wondering if this is just a prototype fashion or was it manufactured? If anyone knows the name or a reference, that would be awesome!

This box can also be found with the "Ski Fun" serie logo on it, so I thought it was one of the Ski Fun fashions, but it's not.

I simply love it, want it, need it :o)

Snowball 1990 box (not my picture)

BTW, Snowball is also (somewhere) on my wishlist amongst many other Barbie pets lol.

Can anyone help me with that part, the turbines on the side have strangely, round shaped and somehow curved bricks on top... can't find out what it is :(

former employees were worked to the bone :)

This is based on a story from The Independent Magazine on March 21st; A recent report found that British people are least likely of all Europeans to step in if they witness a crime.

in the oven

(antidotes to cold wet weather: number 82)

      

If you'd like permission to use this image, or you'd like to arrange a quality photoshoot of your food and drink then please contact Rob at EAT PICTURES

 

© EAT PICTURES 2009

All Rights Reserved

Hello everyone,

 

Please help us to #provide food and milk for poor people and their children to relieve them from #hunger and to stop #starving #deaths of the poor people and their #children, and to fight against the #coronavirus.

Please any #help, your #contribution will help food and milk for the poor people and their children. No fees on this fundraiser of Indian GoFundMe (Ketto). See for more: bit.ly/394TU99

 

#StandWithChildren #Help #ShareForSupport #GivingHope #SampathiFoundationCharity #HelpingHands #Children #Fundraising #Coronavirus #Hunger #DonateFoodForPoor #FightAgainstCorona #StopStarvingDeaths #SupportUs

Help, Help, I need mouth to mouth!

Traveller Jones...oh so handsome ;o)

Someone help me PLEEEEASE! Ahhhh!

Help!! Hanno un nome un pò più scientifico ? Si! grazie FU parri 67, grazie [u+221e] :-)))

Having fun in the kitchen with little fishes.

 

Nikon D700 | Sigma 28mm f1.8 macro | View On Black

...They'd really need it.

Chimpanzees have 99% of their DNA in common with human DNA - but we still kill them.

 

If it goes on like this, chimpanzees will be exterminated very soon.

People say there are only 200 000 left.

  

Remember: They even laugh just like us!

  

-> lars-lubatschowski.com

Out & About 2nd time today looking for a photographer friend? that ripped me off $40 for a tripod he never delivered. .

So was to paranoid shooting and thought I might miss spotting him. So only a 25 click day for me.

D90..55-200vr.

.

okay so i cannot wait for all the new russian stuff to come out (mosin, dp28, STV, and ushanka) i am starting a little soviet army as shown above, but i need your help. i need to know what guys should have what guns... if you guys like these heads or if i should change them... and i need a decal for the guy in the middle. i plan on putting ushankas on the 3 guys without head gear. the only guy that is finished is obviously the guy second from the right. i think im going to make the guy in the middle a sniper and give the guy on the left a tokarev. the other 2 guys i dont know what guns to give. so please help out! credit to whoever made the decal on the left i got it so long ago i cant remember who it was. oh and i am going to get a couple trench coats so what guys do they go on and what colors? PLEASE HELP!

I brought Elliot down to the kitchen to help me do some holiday baking... and this is how much he's helping...

Founded by Celebrity Photographer Jeremy Cowart, Help-Portrait is a community of photographers coming together across the world to use their photography skills to give back to their local community.

 

In December, photographers around the world will be grabbing their cameras, finding people in need and taking their picture. When the prints are ready, the photographs get delivered.

 

• Camera: Nikon FM

• Film: UXi Super 200

Blog | Tumblr

HELP ME, I bought rolleiflex 3. 5f, but there is a change on the lens. Does anyone know what this is and to what extent can influence the photos. An immense thank you.

Chowkit Wet Market, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia.

1 2 ••• 16 17 19 21 22 ••• 79 80