Am I missing something? I find my, now ancient (bought in 1999) Fuji MX-1700 Zoom camera with a mere 1.5 MegaPixels perfectly adequate for anything from well-worn tombstones to microfiche-reader screens and small-print documents. The essentials are a good lens, zoom, and ease of over-riding automatic settings. Even at only 1.5M pixels the computer storage space needed can become a problem needing back-up onto CD-ROM or better DVD. Regards, Arthur Thomson Peter Amsden wrote: > > >>From: Graham Jaunay <proformat@jaunay.com> (by way of Geoffrey >><lists@sog.org.uk>) >>Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com >>Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:22:30 +0100 >> >> > > > >>In case someone is collating all this data I will add details of my >>camera with which I am most satisfied. >> >>Olympus u700 All-weather 7.1 mega pixels >> >> > >As I said, there are many, many cameras on the market that will fit the bill >for this kind of work. > >The great danger is that of confusion - I can well remember once in the USA >when I was trying to find some pickles in one of those hypermarkets. There >was 100 yards of them, so I came out with nothing because I couldn't make up >my mind! That is why you need to have a very clear idea when you commence >your search. > >Even if you know little about photography it is a very sensible idea to >study the mass of information on the internet, so that you understand some >of the terms and jargon that is used. > >Of course, like computers, it is always difficult to keep up to date with >the latest trends. You can almost bet that the moment you walk out with your >'perfect' camera, there will be a 'better' one to replace it with. > >There are those who must have the latest of everything, and for this reason >don't be shy about considering second-hand cameras from a reliable retailer. >They may not have the very latest this that's and the other's, but they >could save you a great deal of money, and they may never have been used! > > >Peter C. Amsden ARPS ABIPP >Argyll, Scotland > > > > > >

The ff is the 16 th century equivalent of a capital F. If that helps. Peter >From: "M. Nason" <mfcn@btinternet.com> (by way of Geoffrey ><lists@sog.org.uk>) >Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com >To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [SoG] Christian name >Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:03:54 +0100 > >In the 1586 will of Edmund NASON, made in Wellesbourne,Warwickshire, a >daughter is named as 'ffrizard'. If the 'z' is read as a 'yogh' it >still remains unfamiliar. > >Edmund's other children have common or garden English names, saving that >of Isabell (which might be considered less English than Thomas, Anne, >etc.?), a recurrent family name. > >A 'Google' presents some French genealogies within which the name >Frizarde' appears as a C13th family name (FRIZARDE de LAVEDAN). > >Can any one suggest a more suitable transcription or comment on this >incidence of the name? > >MN > > > > >-- >Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 16/09/2005 > >

Alan Bardley's 'First Name Variants" gives Frysewed and Fryswyth as variants of Frideswide, which are a bit closer to the name you found. Regards, Colin Mills

This might be Frideswide, one of the saint names. As I recall Frideswide was the patron saint of Oxford and sometimes the use of this name points to a family connection with Oxfordshire. A similar occurrence I have here is Warborrow, bap. 1612, a sister of one of my ancestors, a rendering of St. Walburga or Werburg. This name was popular in the West Country because Walburga was born in Devonshire (abt. 710). It might be useful to look at an online dictionary of saints' names which might give you some ideas. Beth ----- Original Message ----- From: "M. Nason (by way of Geoffrey <lists@sog.org.uk>)" <mfcn@btinternet.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 11:03 PM Subject: [SoG] Christian name > In the 1586 will of Edmund NASON, made in Wellesbourne,Warwickshire, a > daughter is named as 'ffrizard'. If the 'z' is read as a 'yogh' it > still remains unfamiliar. > > Can any one suggest a more suitable transcription or comment on this > incidence of the name? > > MN

In the 1586 will of Edmund NASON, made in Wellesbourne,Warwickshire, a daughter is named as 'ffrizard'. If the 'z' is read as a 'yogh' it still remains unfamiliar. Edmund's other children have common or garden English names, saving that of Isabell (which might be considered less English than Thomas, Anne, etc.?), a recurrent family name. A 'Google' presents some French genealogies within which the name Frizarde' appears as a C13th family name (FRIZARDE de LAVEDAN). Can any one suggest a more suitable transcription or comment on this incidence of the name? MN -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 16/09/2005

I will soon cease to receive mail on my dowding@one-name.org alias. Please ensure that all messages and your address book has the basic jeanrien@jndowding.freeserve.co.uk my basic address. If , as often happens with this sort of message, you wonder who the *** I am, you are probably not into genealogy or keeping rights of way open! In that case please accept my apologies. The delete button is above this message. John Dowding Nayland SFK UK

> From: Graham Jaunay <proformat@jaunay.com> (by way of Geoffrey > <lists@sog.org.uk>) > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:22:30 +0100 > In case someone is collating all this data I will add details of my > camera with which I am most satisfied. > > Olympus u700 All-weather 7.1 mega pixels As I said, there are many, many cameras on the market that will fit the bill for this kind of work. The great danger is that of confusion - I can well remember once in the USA when I was trying to find some pickles in one of those hypermarkets. There was 100 yards of them, so I came out with nothing because I couldn't make up my mind! That is why you need to have a very clear idea when you commence your search. Even if you know little about photography it is a very sensible idea to study the mass of information on the internet, so that you understand some of the terms and jargon that is used. Of course, like computers, it is always difficult to keep up to date with the latest trends. You can almost bet that the moment you walk out with your 'perfect' camera, there will be a 'better' one to replace it with. There are those who must have the latest of everything, and for this reason don't be shy about considering second-hand cameras from a reliable retailer. They may not have the very latest this that's and the other's, but they could save you a great deal of money, and they may never have been used! Peter C. Amsden ARPS ABIPP Argyll, Scotland

In case someone is collating all this data I will add details of my camera with which I am most satisfied. Olympus u700 All-weather 7.1 mega pixels I like this camera because it suits the very diverse requirements I have which include: family snaps indoors and out - day and night headstones and monuments documents buildings The features which help me successfully use this camera include the fact that it: has a 'large' viewing screen unaffected by bright sunlight accommodates large documents because of the number of megapixels has a special document setting (among many others auto focus has anti-shake feature can accommodate a tripod (although with above I think it unnecessary) fits in my pocket has a huge capacity (with a range of memory cards) and battery life can film short video sequences no expensive to purchase (I waited for a sale - AUD400) For those more technically minded look at: www.digital- fotofusion.co.uk/mtnews/archive/2006/01/olympus_700_low.html Graham Jaunay =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 5 Windana Mews, Glandore SA 5037 AUSTRALIA -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 16/09/2005

Many thanks, Peter. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Amsden" <amsden@btinternet.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [SoG] Digital Cameras > From: "Chris Watts" <ml@ctwatts.plus.com> > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 17:45:49 +0100 > Pity. There are many, including myself, who would have liked to have > benefited from your experet advice. > > Chris > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Amsden" <amsden@btinternet.com> > <snip> > | I am dealing with this off list, so the info goes no further. > | > | Regards > | > | > | Peter > | OK Chris, for your benefit and others, below is roughly my reply. The problem is that whenever cameras are mentioned the list is flooded with opinions and advice. Adding my two-pennyworth only adds to the noise, and I don't always have the time to enter into long discussions. ------ Reply A camera with around 4Mpixels should be ideal for most things. Look at makes such as Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Canon. i.e. the better end of the market. The new The Pentax Optio A10 is certainly well worth considering. You are quite correct about zoom. Optical is a must (at least 3X), although most cameras also come with digital zoom - (quite pointless - you can do this on your computer). Now, there are so many cameras on the market that might fit your needs, that the only sensible way to make a choice is to go into one of the better camera shops and tell them what you want very specifically. Take along a document of some kind and photograph it. If they won't let you try it out, then walk out and find someone who will. And, young lads in camera shops (bless them) often have no idea what they are talking about, so you need to guide them. you are paying good money so make quite sure that you get what you want. There are plenty of shops, so don't be pushed by over zealous sales people. Takes some shots and ask to see them on a computer screen. if they can't offer this then they shouldn't be selling the things. Software to enable connection to a computer should come with the camera, and make sure that there are comprehensive instructions. These days these will frequently be on a CD which means you will have to print it if it is to be much use. Even the big boys do this. I have a professional camera for which I needed to print a 300 page instruction manual! Don't walk out with a camera unless you are quite certain it is the one for you. There will be dozens that would fit the bill, but some have fiddly controls, awkward viewfinders, and don't feel very substantial. The tripod question is a real one. Even the fanciest of cameras will need one in badly lit areas, and document rooms are frequently just that. However, you will find that many record offices will not permit tripods, so a camera lens with a decently small f-stop will be useful. Remember that the documents that you record are unlikely to be used as works of art. If you can get them onto a computer and read them, that is usually all that is required. Batteries. Make sure that if the camera uses some special battery that is comes with a charger. Don't buy a camera that does not use rechargeable batteries. The other kind can be very expensive in the long run. I have rambled on a bit here, but I have so often seen people with cameras that are either totally inadequate or overkill for their needs. You should not need to spend more than around £150 to find exactly what you need. Peter C. Amsden ARPS ABIPP Argyll, Scotland -- This email has been verified as Virus free Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

> From: "Chris Watts" <ml@ctwatts.plus.com> > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 17:45:49 +0100 > Pity. There are many, including myself, who would have liked to have > benefited from your experet advice. > > Chris > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Amsden" <amsden@btinternet.com> > <snip> > | I am dealing with this off list, so the info goes no further. > | > | Regards > | > | > | Peter > | OK Chris, for your benefit and others, below is roughly my reply. The problem is that whenever cameras are mentioned the list is flooded with opinions and advice. Adding my two-pennyworth only adds to the noise, and I don't always have the time to enter into long discussions. ------ Reply A camera with around 4Mpixels should be ideal for most things. Look at makes such as Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Canon. i.e. the better end of the market. The new The Pentax Optio A10 is certainly well worth considering. You are quite correct about zoom. Optical is a must (at least 3X), although most cameras also come with digital zoom - (quite pointless - you can do this on your computer). Now, there are so many cameras on the market that might fit your needs, that the only sensible way to make a choice is to go into one of the better camera shops and tell them what you want very specifically. Take along a document of some kind and photograph it. If they won't let you try it out, then walk out and find someone who will. And, young lads in camera shops (bless them) often have no idea what they are talking about, so you need to guide them. you are paying good money so make quite sure that you get what you want. There are plenty of shops, so don't be pushed by over zealous sales people. Takes some shots and ask to see them on a computer screen. if they can't offer this then they shouldn't be selling the things. Software to enable connection to a computer should come with the camera, and make sure that there are comprehensive instructions. These days these will frequently be on a CD which means you will have to print it if it is to be much use. Even the big boys do this. I have a professional camera for which I needed to print a 300 page instruction manual! Don't walk out with a camera unless you are quite certain it is the one for you. There will be dozens that would fit the bill, but some have fiddly controls, awkward viewfinders, and don't feel very substantial. The tripod question is a real one. Even the fanciest of cameras will need one in badly lit areas, and document rooms are frequently just that. However, you will find that many record offices will not permit tripods, so a camera lens with a decently small f-stop will be useful. Remember that the documents that you record are unlikely to be used as works of art. If you can get them onto a computer and read them, that is usually all that is required. Batteries. Make sure that if the camera uses some special battery that is comes with a charger. Don't buy a camera that does not use rechargeable batteries. The other kind can be very expensive in the long run. I have rambled on a bit here, but I have so often seen people with cameras that are either totally inadequate or overkill for their needs. You should not need to spend more than around £150 to find exactly what you need. Peter C. Amsden ARPS ABIPP Argyll, Scotland

Pity. There are many, including myself, who would have liked to have benefited from your experet advice. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Amsden" <amsden@btinternet.com> <snip> | I am dealing with this off list, so the info goes no further. | | Regards | | | Peter | | | ---------- | Peter C. Amsden ARPS ABIPP | Argyll, Scotland | | | > From: Mlc1@aol.com | > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com | > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:33:36 EDT | > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com | > Subject: [SoG] Digital Cameras | > Resent-From: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com | > Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 02:33:48 -0600 | > | > Hello all, | > | > I am want to buy a digital camera for the frirst time, but don't know much | > about them. Ideally I would like to be able to use it for photographing | > documents. I have always favoured point and shoot type cameras. Can anyone | > give me | > some advice about what to look out for? | > | > Many thanks, | > Celia Cole | > Surrey UK | > | | -- | This email has been verified as Virus free | Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

>"Jim Halsey" <jehalsey@gmail.com> wrote > Hmm! Well, it would annoy me ! I get excellent photos without flash. In > fact, on those occasions when I have used flash to photograph documents in > normal or even poor light, I have found that I do better without flash. On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:01:26 +0100, Peter Amsden <amsden@btinternet.com> replied: >I agree Jim, >Flash is really outmoded for much of this work, but when I did the research >it was very interesting to see some of the comments from Archivists. I find these comments rather interesting because I have found just the opposite! If I use the ambient light in a Record Office to photograph documents with a hand held camera then: - the image is blurred by camera shake (I may not have steady hands, and my standards for sharpness may be higher than others) - the ambient illumination is invariably uneven and this shows up on the photograph - the image contrast is poor (I know that can be improved afterwards in software) I find that turning on the camera flash generally overcomes all these problems. Of course flash reflections off certain document surfaces create a new problem, and perhaps that is what Jim Halsey was referring to when he said he got better results without flash . . . As I have said in my earlier message, I find that angling the camera so that the flash is not reflected directly back to the camera lens often solves this problem. Depending on the nature and proximity of surrounding surfaces there is usually sufficient indirect (bounced back) flash to provide enough illumination - and an automatic camera should adjust exposure to suit. If the 'document' is both shiny and has a curved surface then a diffused ambient light source may be the only answer as any point light source will be reflected back into the lens from some part of the object's surface. I have found such problems trying to photograph old 'curved' prints in an album and a miniature painted portrait under a convex glass cover. The nuisance factor when using flash in a Record Office is affected by many factors: - the intensity of the flash and its reflected light - the distance way of the other people and the light paths to them So while in a crowded small office flash can be a nuisance, in a large office with high ceilings and most people sitting behind shielding bookcases the flash from a small pocket digital camera is hardly noticeable. In fact I know I have used flash (sometimes inadvertently and sometimes not) in some situations where the staff were unaware of it. Of course if all Record Offices had suitable camera stands and bright but even diffused light sources such problems would be academic . . . Cheers, John John Addis-Smith Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England

I agree Jim, Flash is really outmoded for much of this work, but when I did the research it was very interesting to see some of the comments from Archivists. Peter Amsden Argyll, Scotland > From: "Jim Halsey" <jehalsey@gmail.com> > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:40:23 +0100 > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SoG] Digital Cameras > Resent-From: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 03:40:26 -0600 > > Hello Peter, > Hmm! Well, it would annoy me ! I get excellent photos without flash. In > fact, on those occasions when I have used flash to photograph documents in > normal or even poor light, I have found that I do better without flash. > Jim Halsey >

Hello Peter, Hmm! Well, it would annoy me ! I get excellent photos without flash. In fact, on those occasions when I have used flash to photograph documents in normal or even poor light, I have found that I do better without flash. Jim Halsey

Hi Peter: >That's a good idea. No point in gathering all of this information if it is >not seen. > >What is the relevant GENUKI URL by the way? http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/Genealogy.html Your page is linked under Miscellaneous - sorry! :-) cheers Brian -- School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 FAX = +44 191 222 8232 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/

True, but the main reason they now give is that it annoys other users. It may now be possible to persuade them otherwise. Peter Amsden Argyll, Scotland > From: "Jim Halsey" <jehalsey@gmail.com> > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:36:46 +0100 > To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SoG] Digital Cameras > Resent-From: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 02:36:47 -0600 > > It is my understanding, but based on recollection from when I made my > application to use a camera at the NA, that the use of flash for digital > photography at Kew is simply not permitted. > > Jim Halsey >

It is my understanding, but based on recollection from when I made my application to use a camera at the NA, that the use of flash for digital photography at Kew is simply not permitted. Jim Halsey

Thank you everybody who replied to my query both on and off list. I have a much better idea now of what I am looking for and what questions to ask. Best wishes to you all, Celia