Wild T2002 / TC2002 / T3000 Theomat / TachymatTypeT2002TC2002T3000The Theomat Wild T2002 is a electronic precision theodolite with plug-in REC data-storage moduleThe Tachymat Wild TC2002 is a electronic precision total station with build-in EDM and with plug-in REC data-storage moduleThe Theomat Wild T3000 is a electronic precision theodolite with powerful panfocal alignment telescope. The telescope can also be equiped with a build-in autocollimation eyepiece.produced between1988 - 19961990 - 19971989 - 1997Technical data:Angle measurement:Standard deviation (acc. DIN18723)Hz: 0.15mgon (0.5')V: 0.15mgon (0.5')Telescope.

• Wild T3000 Theodolite
• Leica Wild T3000 Manual Dexterity Instructions
• Leica Wild T3000 Manual Dexterity System

50,00 CHF( VAT excl. )Shipping time: direct download after paymentWild T2002 / TC2002 / T3000 user manual75,00 CHF( VAT excl.

)Shipping time: direct download after paymentWild T2002 / TC2002 / T3000 Service manual20,00 CHF( VAT excl. )Shipping time: direct download after paymentWild Instruments Online10,00 CHF( VAT excl. )Shipping time: direct download after paymentWild GIF1215,00 CHF( VAT excl. )Shipping time: direct download after paymentWild GIF10Show 1 to 5 (of in total 5 products)Sites: 1.

MichaelXuerebcomwrote:I imagine that most people here are not into conceptual photography.I'm guessing that many don't find a point to it, avoid it or don'tconsider it photography at all.I like to consider myself as a conceptual photographer, and I'd liketo hear what you all have to say about it in general. If you'd liketo see good examples of well know photographers in this area, searchThomas Ruff, Wolfgang Tillmans, Hiroshi Sugimoto. Or you can havea look at my work.discuss.I don't consider myself to belong to any particular genre, but I do enjoy the odd concept now and then.from this gallery:(for original sizes). MichaelXuerebcomwrote:I imagine that most people here are not into conceptual photography.I'm guessing that many don't find a point to it, avoid it or don'tconsider it photography at all.Yeah, all those nature photographers and their complaints about pictures that show 'the hand of man'.I've been known to rearrange the wildflowers, especially when they're on private property. I photograph wild, captive, and domesticated animals with the intent of superimposing the photos over photos of men and women dressed as shamans, or nude.I like to consider myself as a conceptual photographer, and I'd liketo hear what you all have to say about it in general.In general, my best work tends to be either conceptual or constructionist. In your galleries. The best is distinguished by a clarity of conception.I imagine that most people here are not into conceptual photography.I'm guessing that many don't find a point to it, avoid it or don'tconsider it photography at all.i'm guessing most have absolutely no context for it, being wholly untrained in anything that WOULD offer any context, such as familiarity with art in general and contemporary art in particular.

This is typically not their fault (kinda, sorta.) in that the education system (s) does pretty poorly in this area.I like to consider myself as a conceptual photographer, and I'd liketo hear what you all have to say about it in general. If you'd liketo see good examples of well know photographers in this area, searchThomas Ruff, Wolfgang Tillmans, Hiroshi Sugimoto. Or you can havea look at my work.hmmmmm.yeeesssss, but personally i'd avoid that tag if i were you.it's problematic these days to get slotted like that-good for getting shown(because there's a convenient tag for your work), bad for getting your work looked at more carefully (because now there's a convenient tag associated with your work, which can arrest the process by which people have to come to terms with it on their own.).i'd like to know more about how you see this work, and your working in this vein, in terms of its relation to work that is like it from the past 40 or so years. On your blog, that is.forget about posting interesting stuff about art on this site! It's a bloody miracle you've gotten the positive response that you have! Starting in about the mid 60's. Do a search and you will find many articles on the subject.

It is a method for the photographer to express an idea or message. Some images are heavily manipulated, some are not, but what they all have in common is the conveyance of a specific concept. It is a genre that is widely defined. You have Bernd and Hilla Becher who studied the differences and similarities between architectural forms, to Cindy Sherman exploring female roles and identity through her self portraits.

And, recently, Struth, Ruff, and Gursky changed how we see the conceptual image. All these artists employ a different take on the conceptual image and their results are just as different.penn. Funny post Michael.I'm always leary of these terms. Is taking photos at night with long blurredlights being a 'conseptual nocturnal realist'? Or 'abstractional conceptionist'?If you photograph a sunset, are you then a 'solar nocturnal conceptionist'?Too much categorizing of the arts in general is going on.Whats a professional pigmentation applicator these days?MichaelXuerebcomwrote:I imagine that most people here are not into conceptual photography.I'm guessing that many don't find a point to it, avoid it or don'tconsider it photography at all.I like to consider myself as a conceptual photographer, and I'd liketo hear what you all have to say about it in general.

I'm actually aware of that, having taught art & crit 45-present a number of times. My point was that i personally think it is unwise today-in our current milieu- for an artist to self identify in this way. Even 40 and 50 years ago when it made a great deal more sense to identify oneself with one of the movements, many artists bristled at being labeled and refused to label themselves.

Wild T3000 Theodolite

Duchamp's earlier example is also pertinent.generally, one gets a better response from viewers if you don't telegraph to them what your doing via labels or explanatory texts, the exception obviously being historically oriented retrospectives that have been curated. Let the work speak for itself is the best plan for working artists, imo. Those who are familiar with the labels and precedents don't need reminding.my further question about how he sees his work in relation to that older material was of course directed to the artist. You are a teacher and don't know how use capital letters at the beginning of a sentence?Save us please someone.Julestexwrote:i'm actually aware of that, having taught art & crit 45-present anumber of times. My point was that i personally think it is unwisetoday-in our current milieu- for an artist to self identify inthis way.

Even 40 and 50 years ago when it made a great deal moresense to identify oneself with one of the movements, many artistsbristled at being labeled and refused to label themselves. Duchamp'searlier example is also pertinent.generally, one gets a better response from viewers if you don'ttelegraph to them what your doing via labels or explanatory texts,the exception obviously being historically oriented retrospectivesthat have been curated.

Let the work speak for itself is the bestplan for working artists, imo. Those who are familiar with thelabels and precedents don't need reminding.my further question about how he sees his work in relation to thatolder material was of course directed to the artist.

JulesJ wrote:You are a teacher and don't know how use capital letters at thebeginning of a sentence?Save us please someone.Julesi'm an exceptionally poor typist, and using the shift key is really a strain and slows my typing down to a crawl, even worse than what it is. Believe it or not, i've got the old johnson-o'connor aptitude tests to prove my manual non-dexterity.

Despite having excellent pitch and tonal memory, the lack of that dexterity doomed me for music, except possibly as a composer/conductor. Of course, to be one of those it's best to at least be able to play piano, and i'm truly hopeless, so.oddly, drawing and painting, carving, and some other skills associated with the visual arts don't seem as dependent on that level of manual dexterity. Writing by hand, however, was always much more of a strain. Curious.so, i avail myself in email and forum posting, which i think i correctly perceive as less formal forms of communication, of not using entirely appropriate capitalization schemes. I'm not the only one, interestingly, and i learned this from an IT guy in the UK, and i must say it has helped immeasurably.

I recognize that this is quite an affront to some, apparently you for one, and i do apologize for imposing on your sensibilities in this matter, which are legitimate to a degree(for me, it's spelling and inappropriate apostroph-ization). On the other hand, one never knows why some people do things that seem (or are) wrong, and it is perhaps best to suspend judgment in these mostly anonymous forums and such until one knows a bit more. Especially when the fault is relatively innocuous and does little if any real damage.you might consider that for a moment, lest you be judged in turn one day for some supposed fault of your own. I was actually responding to the OP, the response just nested underyour comment.i sorta suspected that, but wanted to be clearYes, running out and labeling yourself or hanging your hat under agenre is really not needed. However, the use of text to furtherexplain or draw reference is used all the time,well, of course, and it is necessary or helpful on occasion.especially in thedrivel that is often called the artist statement.now, that's a very special category!

Mostly drivel, indeed. I will say, however, that they can be remarkably difficult to write. It's either drivel, or relatively uninformative, or, and for me this has been the very worst thing, one writes something meaningful that is then taken to mean the ENTIRETY of one's intentions, which it never is, and then one has to expend a great deal of effort disabusing people of that misconception.

Better to be sphinx-like. Duchamp, Johns, and Warhol were all masters of that kind of expression, in differing ways, but partly by being so baldly straightforward that people had, and continue to have, trouble believing them or even understanding such plain speech. Fair enough, most people's excuse is that they are just too lazy to write correctly.Julestexwrote:JulesJ wrote:You are a teacher and don't know how use capital letters at thebeginning of a sentence?Save us please someone.Julesi'm an exceptionally poor typist, and using the shift key is really astrain and slows my typing down to a crawl, even worse than what itis. Believe it or not, i've got the old johnson-o'connor aptitudetests to prove my manual non-dexterity. Despite having excellentpitch and tonal memory, the lack of that dexterity doomed me formusic, except possibly as a composer/conductor.

Of course, to be oneof those it's best to at least be able to play piano, and i'm trulyhopeless, so.oddly, drawing and painting, carving, and some other skillsassociated with the visual arts don't seem as dependent on that levelof manual dexterity. Writing by hand, however, was always much moreof a strain. Curious.so, i avail myself in email and forum posting, which i think icorrectly perceive as less formal forms of communication, of notusing entirely appropriate capitalization schemes.

I'm not the onlyone, interestingly, and i learned this from an IT guy in the UK, andi must say it has helped immeasurably. I recognize that this isquite an affront to some, apparently you for one, and i do apologizefor imposing on your sensibilities in this matter, which arelegitimate to a degree(for me, it's spelling and inappropriateapostroph-ization). On the other hand, one never knows why somepeople do things that seem (or are) wrong, and it is perhaps best tosuspend judgment in these mostly anonymous forums and such until oneknows a bit more. Especially when the fault is relatively innocuousand does little if any real damage.you might consider that for amoment, lest you be judged in turn one day for some supposed fault ofyour own. Texwrote:I was actually responding to the OP, the response just nested underyour comment.i sorta suspected that, but wanted to be clearYes, running out and labeling yourself or hanging your hat under agenre is really not needed.

However, the use of text to furtherexplain or draw reference is used all the time,well, of course, and it is necessary or helpful on occasion.especially in thedrivel that is often called the artist statement.now, that's a very special category! Mostly drivel, indeed. I willsay, however, that they can be remarkably difficult to write. It'seither drivel, or relatively uninformative, or, and for me this hasbeen the very worst thing, one writes something meaningful that isthen taken to mean the ENTIRETY of one's intentions, which it neveris, and then one has to expend a great deal of effort disabusingpeople of that misconception. Better to be sphinx-like. Duchamp,Johns, and Warhol were all masters of that kind of expression, indiffering ways, but partly by being so baldly straightforward thatpeople had, and continue to have, trouble believing them or evenunderstanding such plain speech.Totally agree, yet somehow quite a few artists feel that they have to totally explain their work in the utmost detail, and I might say, in the most confusing language possible.

Leica Wild T3000 Manual Dexterity Instructions

I draw reference to this as it is like the OP feeling the need to label himself as a conceptual photographer. It is just as bad as when artists feel the need to use every possible historical reference and use the thesaurus for every word except I, me, and you.This is a refreshing discussion that is welcome surprise on this forum. Some of the photos sucked, some were pretty good. Some were boring, others not so much.Not sure if individual galleries were supposed to illustrate a single concept or not.

I didn't feel compelled to stick around to figure it out, that is an important failing in my opinion.Art doesn't have to be pretty, but it should gnaw at you. I felt that several (many) of the photos were too 'conceptual' in that there wasn't enough information in them to deliver the concept.

Leica Wild T3000 Manual Dexterity System

Art is communication and some of the photos just didn't have enough clues as to what you were trying to say.I felt the website design was more like a puzzle than a display mechanism for your art. If that was the goal, then it didn't work, at least on me. It got in the way for me.Just remember, you can't learn anything from people who like your work. They think too much like you. It's the ones who think you can do better who are your real, and best, critics.I'm trying to be honest without being cruel; sometimes I succeed, but not always.