Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[brooksdj]

> 
> Depressing bunch of photos.  I mean I know it's PJ stuff, but surely
> they could have found some inspirational and joyful photos to publish.
> 
> cheers,
> frank

Well, they could pop up here, and grab some shots of us laughing at our party 
leaders.

:-)

Dave

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005 - With link

[David Savage]

On 12/14/05, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Savage wrote:
> >
> > HA!
> >
> > I have a short attention span. What was it I was supposed to be thinking 
> > about.
> >
> > ...oh that's right:
> >
> > 
> >
> > Sorry folks.
> >
> > Dave
>
> Dave - you NOT posting the link gave us much
> merriment - certainly forgiven.
> Now I hope they forgive me for posting a dup link
> in my GESO :)

Thanks Ann. It took me a while to figure out what everyone was going
on about. I was definitely having a junior senior moment. 

> and judging from the comments, I'm guessing there
> is not much merriment
> in those images.

No there aren't any happy shots. But in IMO it's been a pretty bleak
12 months news wise.

Dave

> ann
>
> >
> > On 12/12/05, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Are you still thinking about posting the link, or have you now decided
> > > against it?
> > > And if so, curious minds would be interested to know why.
> > >
> > > John
>
>

Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Cotty]

On 13/12/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I agree with most everything you've said except that, for the most part, I
>don't think the photos are particularly good.  Quite a few wouldn't work at
>all without greater context or without an explanation.  While they may be
>representative of the event for which they were taken, composition,
>storytelling, and the ability to make me feel something is lacking.

What about considering a news photo just as one would consider any photo
- letting it stand or fall on artistic merit alone? Does a news photo
have to tell the whole story within the image? Most news photos
accompany text detailing the story. A shot of a decrepit 3rd world
mother and son lying by the roadside cannot necessarily place them
geographically on the planet, nor indicate immediately what disaster has
befallen them. Sometimes maybe we could just look at the picture in
isolation, just examine it as an image.

The pic of all the bodies laid out with ice on them (pic 11) to me is a
beautiful, if haunting, photograph. When I looked at the images the
first time, i didn't read any captions. I just looked at the pics.






>
>There are those who subscribe to the idea that news and PJ photos need only
>deliver the information, however, I believe that a photograph, regardless
>of its purpose, needs more.  It needs a strong image, that sense of
>composition I mentioned, and an unquantifiable "something" that brings
>forth the feeling that the photographer cared about the people and the
>situations depicted in each image as well as the ability to draw the viewer 
>into the image, making him or her care and feel strongly about the subject.
>There were but one or two photos that did that for me.

Understood. Yeah, the hit rate for me was low. I liked half a dozen,
which out of 24 is poor.

>
>While the mediocrity of these images stands out like a sore thumb, I cannot
>point a finger only at the photographers.  I believe the editors and the
>publishers are at least as responsible.  I believe that a lot of editors
>these days are not well versed in what makes a photograph a good or a great
>photograph, just as I believe many photographers are incapable of
>understanding what elements are needed to make a truly good photo.

That's because editors and publishers produce their output with peers
and contemporaries in mind, not the readership. They basically produce
the magazine for themselves, and the public assume this is what they are
meant to like, and some buy it. I don't!

I know it's a bit unfashionable to like Nat. Geo, but for outstanding
photography from across the world, full of great pics, I can't fault it.
I hardly ever read the articles, just love looking at the pics :-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005 - With link

[Ann Sanfedele]

David Savage wrote:
> 
> HA!
> 
> I have a short attention span. What was it I was supposed to be thinking 
> about.
> 
> ...oh that's right:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry folks.
> 
> Dave

Dave - you NOT posting the link gave us much
merriment - certainly forgiven.
Now I hope they forgive me for posting a dup link
in my GESO :)

and judging from the comments, I'm guessing there
is not much merriment
in those images.

ann

> 
> On 12/12/05, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you still thinking about posting the link, or have you now decided
> > against it?
> > And if so, curious minds would be interested to know why.
> >
> > John

RE: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Kenneth Waller]

>This reflects the US view on what is important news. 

I think, more correctly, this reflects A US view on what is important news.

Time doesn't speak for the US anymore than the BBC speaks for England.

Kenneth Waller

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 9:12 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

It's a US magazine, more than half the pictures are about news where US 
citicans are involved.  This reflects the US view on what is important news.  
That is only natural, although a little sad.

I have seen lots of better pictures from other stories.

DagT
 
> fra: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> dato: 2005/12/13 ti AM 08:45:53 CET
> til: 
> emne: RE: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005
> 
> It's not their job to publish inspirational and joyful photos. The world is
> awash with that type of photo. What it's short of is good hard news
> photography.
> 
> The big news stories of the year have been the tsunami, hurricanes and so
> on, so that's what you'd expect to feature. What would people have said
> about balance if at the end of 2001 there had been nothing about the WTC
> attacks?
> 
> --
> Cheers,
>  Bob 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: 12 December 2005 17:15
> > To: pentax list
> > Subject: Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005
> > 
> > On 12/12/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
> > 
> > >Depressing bunch of photos.  I mean I know it's PJ stuff, but surely 
> > >they could have found some inspirational and joyful photos 
> > to publish.
> > 
> > I agree entirely. I good set of pics is all about balance. No 
> > balance here. There are some outstanding individual examples, 
> > but as a set, they do not live up to the title they bare given Time.
> > 
> > Let's see Nat. Geo's set!
> 
> 




PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

RE: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[dagt]

It's a US magazine, more than half the pictures are about news where US 
citicans are involved.  This reflects the US view on what is important news.  
That is only natural, although a little sad.

I have seen lots of better pictures from other stories.

DagT
 
> fra: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> dato: 2005/12/13 ti AM 08:45:53 CET
> til: 
> emne: RE: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005
> 
> It's not their job to publish inspirational and joyful photos. The world is
> awash with that type of photo. What it's short of is good hard news
> photography.
> 
> The big news stories of the year have been the tsunami, hurricanes and so
> on, so that's what you'd expect to feature. What would people have said
> about balance if at the end of 2001 there had been nothing about the WTC
> attacks?
> 
> --
> Cheers,
>  Bob 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: 12 December 2005 17:15
> > To: pentax list
> > Subject: Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005
> > 
> > On 12/12/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
> > 
> > >Depressing bunch of photos.  I mean I know it's PJ stuff, but surely 
> > >they could have found some inspirational and joyful photos 
> > to publish.
> > 
> > I agree entirely. I good set of pics is all about balance. No 
> > balance here. There are some outstanding individual examples, 
> > but as a set, they do not live up to the title they bare given Time.
> > 
> > Let's see Nat. Geo's set!
> 
> 

Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Shel Belinkoff]

I left out a portion of a sentence.  This paragraph:


> There are those who subscribe to the idea that news an PJ photos need only
> deliver the information, however, I believe that a photograph, regardless
> of its purpose, needs more.  It needs a strong image, that sense of
> composition I mentioned, and an unquantifiable "something" that brings
> forth the feeling that the photographer cared about the people and the
> situations depicted in each image.

Should read:


There are those who subscribe to the idea that news and PJ photos need only
deliver the information, however, I believe that a photograph, regardless
of its purpose, needs more.  It needs a strong image, that sense of
composition I mentioned, and an unquantifiable "something" that brings
forth the feeling that the photographer cared about the people and the
situations depicted in each image as well as the ability to draw the viewer 
into the image, making him or her care and feel strongly about the subject.
There were but one or two photos that did that for me.

Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[P. J. Alling]

My complaint would be that they're really not very good photos, 
depressing or not.


Bob W wrote:


It's not their job to publish inspirational and joyful photos. The world is
awash with that type of photo. What it's short of is good hard news
photography.

The big news stories of the year have been the tsunami, hurricanes and so
on, so that's what you'd expect to feature. What would people have said
about balance if at the end of 2001 there had been nothing about the WTC
attacks?

--
Cheers,
Bob 

 


-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 12 December 2005 17:15

To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

On 12/12/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:

   

Depressing bunch of photos.  I mean I know it's PJ stuff, but surely 
they could have found some inspirational and joyful photos 
 


to publish.

I agree entirely. I good set of pics is all about balance. No 
balance here. There are some outstanding individual examples, 
but as a set, they do not live up to the title they bare given Time.


Let's see Nat. Geo's set!
   




 




--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Cotty ...

I agree with most everything you've said except that, for the most part, I
don't think the photos are particularly good.  Quite a few wouldn't work at
all without greater context or without an explanation.  While they may be
representative of the event for which they were taken, composition,
storytelling, and the ability to make me feel something is lacking.

There are those who subscribe to the idea that news an PJ photos need only
deliver the information, however, I believe that a photograph, regardless
of its purpose, needs more.  It needs a strong image, that sense of
composition I mentioned, and an unquantifiable "something" that brings
forth the feeling that the photographer cared about the people and the
situations depicted in each image.

While the mediocrity of these images stands out like a sore thumb, I cannot
point a finger only at the photographers.  I believe the editors and the
publishers are at least as responsible.  I believe that a lot of editors
these days are not well versed in what makes a photograph a good or a great
photograph, just as I believe many photographers are incapable of
understanding what elements are needed to make a truly good photo.

Shel

> [Original Message]
> From: Cotty 

> On 13/12/05, Bob W said:
>
> >It's not their job to publish inspirational and joyful photos. The world
is
> >awash with that type of photo. What it's short of is good hard news
> >photography.
>
> It's their job to provide a balanced view of good hard news. Speaking of
> which - here's some Breaking News: there were plenty of good hard news
> events happening all over the world that did not consist of a tsunami,
> hurricanes, and so on. But this is all pretty much irrelevant -
> publishing news pics is just like anything publishing most news
> magazines,  it's totally subjective. They publish what they believe
> their readers want to see, and they're totally at liberty to do so.
> Personally, I have never had the desire to subscribe or buy Time
> magazine, and I have seen nothing recently that has changed my mind.
>
> >The big news stories of the year have been the tsunami, hurricanes and so
> >on, so that's what you'd expect to feature. What would people have said
> >about balance if at the end of 2001 there had been nothing about the WTC
> >attacks?
>
> There were other big news stories of the year (2005) that do not feature
> in the Time's 'Best Photos of the Year 2005', and I would expect them to
> feature those as well. regarding the WTC attacks, in a line-up of ten
> 'best' photos of the year, I would expect 1 pic. In a lineup of 24,
> maybe 2 or 3 pics. About 5000 people died in a landmark mass murder, and
> that is big news in the western world, but far more people die from
> starvation and poverty: about 1000 people per hour (source: UN World
> Food Programme). In the Time list, there is one photo (out of 24) [pic
> 21] illustrating a mother and child in war-torn Sudan. That's it. There
> are 6 (out of 24) shots of the aftermaths of hurricanes hitting America.
> For a publication purporting to cover world events, I consider this
> unbalanced. But what's new - Time readers are more interested in the
> hurricanes hitting their own shores than the thousands of tons of
> corpses piling up in a land many miles away, and who can blame them.
>
> I like good hard news photography, and I have no problem with a rash of
> death and destruction - that's reality and to me it's all news, good or
> bad. I do not distinguish between 'good' news or 'bad' news - that would
> be subjective and I avoid that. What i do distinguish between is a
> perceived unbalanced reporting that does not deliver a wide
> representative coverage of world events. I'm not saying Time is an
> example of this (I don't have nearly enough experience of its pages over
> the years), but what i do say is that based on its 'Best Photos of the
> Year' (2005) collection, as a whole, it sucks!
>
> Individually, most pics are first rate, and there are some incredibly
> good shots.
>
> FWIW, the only paper magazine i subscribe to is National Geographic. I'm
> afraid my sub to Foto8 has lapsed - I like it a lot but I find it too
> wordy for my taste, and not enough pics. Bring back the Illustrated
> London news!

Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Cotty]

On 13/12/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:

>It's not their job to publish inspirational and joyful photos. The world is
>awash with that type of photo. What it's short of is good hard news
>photography.

It's their job to provide a balanced view of good hard news. Speaking of
which - here's some Breaking News: there were plenty of good hard news
events happening all over the world that did not consist of a tsunami,
hurricanes, and so on. But this is all pretty much irrelevant -
publishing news pics is just like anything publishing most news
magazines,  it's totally subjective. They publish what they believe
their readers want to see, and they're totally at liberty to do so.
Personally, I have never had the desire to subscribe or buy Time
magazine, and I have seen nothing recently that has changed my mind.

>The big news stories of the year have been the tsunami, hurricanes and so
>on, so that's what you'd expect to feature. What would people have said
>about balance if at the end of 2001 there had been nothing about the WTC
>attacks?

There were other big news stories of the year (2005) that do not feature
in the Time's 'Best Photos of the Year 2005', and I would expect them to
feature those as well. regarding the WTC attacks, in a line-up of ten
'best' photos of the year, I would expect 1 pic. In a lineup of 24,
maybe 2 or 3 pics. About 5000 people died in a landmark mass murder, and
that is big news in the western world, but far more people die from
starvation and poverty: about 1000 people per hour (source: UN World
Food Programme). In the Time list, there is one photo (out of 24) [pic
21] illustrating a mother and child in war-torn Sudan. That's it. There
are 6 (out of 24) shots of the aftermaths of hurricanes hitting America.
For a publication purporting to cover world events, I consider this
unbalanced. But what's new - Time readers are more interested in the
hurricanes hitting their own shores than the thousands of tons of
corpses piling up in a land many miles away, and who can blame them.

I like good hard news photography, and I have no problem with a rash of
death and destruction - that's reality and to me it's all news, good or
bad. I do not distinguish between 'good' news or 'bad' news - that would
be subjective and I avoid that. What i do distinguish between is a
perceived unbalanced reporting that does not deliver a wide
representative coverage of world events. I'm not saying Time is an
example of this (I don't have nearly enough experience of its pages over
the years), but what i do say is that based on its 'Best Photos of the
Year' (2005) collection, as a whole, it sucks!

Individually, most pics are first rate, and there are some incredibly
good shots.

FWIW, the only paper magazine i subscribe to is National Geographic. I'm
afraid my sub to Foto8 has lapsed - I like it a lot but I find it too
wordy for my taste, and not enough pics. Bring back the Illustrated
London news!

News-wise, I read the BBC web site. TV news wise, I view the BBC and Sky
News, but to be honest they are both crap with self-centred agendas. The
only decent (UK) news prog is Channel Four News, IMO.

HTH,



Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

RE: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Bob W]

It's not their job to publish inspirational and joyful photos. The world is
awash with that type of photo. What it's short of is good hard news
photography.

The big news stories of the year have been the tsunami, hurricanes and so
on, so that's what you'd expect to feature. What would people have said
about balance if at the end of 2001 there had been nothing about the WTC
attacks?

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 12 December 2005 17:15
> To: pentax list
> Subject: Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005
> 
> On 12/12/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >Depressing bunch of photos.  I mean I know it's PJ stuff, but surely 
> >they could have found some inspirational and joyful photos 
> to publish.
> 
> I agree entirely. I good set of pics is all about balance. No 
> balance here. There are some outstanding individual examples, 
> but as a set, they do not live up to the title they bare given Time.
> 
> Let's see Nat. Geo's set!

Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Shel Belinkoff]

It was just a photo of a woman and her daughter(?) standing there.  BFD ...
it could have been anyone, almost anywhere.  There was no context, no story
... 

Overall, these photos were pretty bad.  True, there were a couple that
stood out, but standing out from dreck is no big deal.

Shel 
" ..." 


> [Original Message]
> From: frank theriault 

> I was thinking ~exactly~ the same thing, Christian.  The only two
> photos that didn't have to do with death, dispare, suffering and gloom
> had to do with the Iraqui elections, and even then, one of those was
> of a loser in the elections.  

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Margus Männik]

Hi there,

Those ?
http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/

I saw those photos... and I totally didn't liked 'em.
Seems that NOTHING besides the disasters would count (and sell) anymore...

BR, Margus


David Savage wrote:


G'day All,

Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
Decided to go looking for it & I thought I'd post the link here.

Cheers,

Dave



 

Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Cotty]

On 12/12/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:

> There are some outstanding individual examples, but as a set, they
>do not live up to the title they bare given Time.

Utter gibberish, sorry.

Should be: 'do not live up to the title they are given by Time.'



Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Fred]

> It's basically a reminder of what a terible twelve months this has been  
> for natural disasters.

...and man-made disasters...

Fred

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[John Forbes]

It's basically a reminder of what a terible twelve months this has been  
for natural disasters.


John

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:51:17 -, Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

That still leaves is without the link.


I'll take pity on you all:

http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/

It's prominent on their front page... :-)

S









--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Cotty]

On 12/12/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Depressing bunch of photos.  I mean I know it's PJ stuff, but surely
>they could have found some inspirational and joyful photos to publish.

I agree entirely. I good set of pics is all about balance. No balance
here. There are some outstanding individual examples, but as a set, they
do not live up to the title they bare given Time.

Let's see Nat. Geo's set!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[E.R.N. Reed]

Christian wrote:

There is not one happy picture among them  sad that the "best" 
news of the year is death, destruction and suffering.  I'm sure 
SOMETHING happy had to have happened in the past 12 months to balance 
out all this misery.


Probably.
Hopefully, next year they'll have some happy pictures in their 
collection. It being an Olympic year and all, they might.

Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[frank theriault]

On 12/12/05, Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is not one happy picture among them  sad that the "best" news of
> the year is death, destruction and suffering.  I'm sure SOMETHING happy had
> to have happened in the past 12 months to balance out all this misery.
>

I was thinking ~exactly~ the same thing, Christian.  The only two
photos that didn't have to do with death, dispare, suffering and gloom
had to do with the Iraqui elections, and even then, one of those was
of a loser in the elections.  The one with the Muslim woman, all
dressed in black, holding a ballot is somewhat inspiring and uplifting
(and I think she may even be smiling), but that's the only one of the
bunch.

Depressing bunch of photos.  I mean I know it's PJ stuff, but surely
they could have found some inspirational and joyful photos to publish.

cheers,
frank

--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Christian]

There is not one happy picture among them  sad that the "best" news of 
the year is death, destruction and suffering.  I'm sure SOMETHING happy had 
to have happened in the past 12 months to balance out all this misery.


Christian

- Original Message - 
From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "PDML" 
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 6:04 AM
Subject: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005



G'day All,

Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
Decided to go looking for it & I thought I'd post the link here.

Cheers,

Dave

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005 - With link

[cbwaters]

Cotty is right.  Not really a best photograph gallery.
3&9, I like a lot but 18 stuck me.
I've seen better photographs here on the list though.

Aren't we about due for "best quotes from the PDML" list?

Wouldn't it be cool to have a "best photograph posted to the list all year" 
contest?  I nominate somebody else to facilitate it though ;)


CW

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Numbers 11 and 18 are excellent. I think they should rename this batch
'Best News Photo' as I fail to see why a corpse, face down in a flood,
would be considered as 'Best Photo of the Year 2005'.
Cheers,
 Cotty

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005 - With link

[Kenneth Waller]

>I think they should rename this batch 'Best News Photo'

Agreed

Kenneth Waller

-Original Message-
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005 - With link

On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:

>...oh that's right:
>
><http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/>

Numbers 11 and 18 are excellent. I think they should rename this batch
'Best News Photo' as I fail to see why a corpse, face down in a flood,
would be considered as 'Best Photo of the Year 2005'. 




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_





PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005 - With link

[Charles Robinson]

On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:54, Cotty wrote:

Numbers 11 and 18 are excellent. I think they should rename this batch
'Best News Photo' as I fail to see why a corpse, face down in a flood,
would be considered as 'Best Photo of the Year 2005'.




How 'bout "Best Images of Death and Destruction 2005"?

Grim collection, this.  I agree with you.

 -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org

Re: Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/12/12 Mon PM 02:49:18 GMT
> To: "pentax list" 
> Subject: Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005
> 
> On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >So what's your point :-)
> 
> Like, where's the link?
> 

Rats.  I was mentally betting on:
"Dude, where's my link?"

8-))


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005 - With link

[Cotty]

On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:

>...oh that's right:
>
>

Numbers 11 and 18 are excellent. I think they should rename this batch
'Best News Photo' as I fail to see why a corpse, face down in a flood,
would be considered as 'Best Photo of the Year 2005'. 




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Cotty]

On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:

>In my defence it's been a long day & my brain's a little mushier than usual.

Porridge ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Steve Jolly]

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

That still leaves is without the link.


I'll take pity on you all:

http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/

It's prominent on their front page... :-)

S

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Cotty]

On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:

>So what's your point :-)

Like, where's the link?




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005 - With link

[David Savage]

HA!

I have a short attention span. What was it I was supposed to be thinking about.

...oh that's right:



Sorry folks.

Dave


On 12/12/05, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you still thinking about posting the link, or have you now decided
> against it?
> And if so, curious minds would be interested to know why.
>
> John

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In my defence it's been a long day & my brain's a little mushier than usual.

That still leaves is without the link.

Ralf

-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[John Forbes]

Are you still thinking about posting the link, or have you now decided  
against it?

And if so, curious minds would be interested to know why.

John


On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:44:58 -, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



We've already been through this Tom :-)

In my defence it's been a long day & my brain's a little mushier than  
usual.


Dave

On 12/12/05, Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

David Savage wrote:
>
> Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
> Decided to go looking for it & I thought I'd post the link here.

So why didn't you?

Tom Reese












--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[David Savage]

We've already been through this Tom :-)

In my defence it's been a long day & my brain's a little mushier than usual.

Dave

On 12/12/05, Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Savage wrote:
> >
> > Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
> > Decided to go looking for it & I thought I'd post the link here.
>
> So why didn't you?
>
> Tom Reese
>
>

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Tom Reese]

David Savage wrote:
> 
> Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
> Decided to go looking for it & I thought I'd post the link here.

So why didn't you?

Tom Reese

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[David Savage]

Ah! :-)

I thought I had. Maybe I was mistaken.

Dave

On 12/12/05, Ralf R. Radermacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 
> >
> > ? That went straight over my tired head.
>
> You *thought* you posted the link here.
>
> Ralf
>
> --
> Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
> private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
> manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
> Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
>
>

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> ? That went straight over my tired head.

You *thought* you posted the link here.

Ralf

-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[David Savage]

So what's your point :-)

I hadn't heard that one. Bit different from the one I grew up with. Funnier too.

Dave

On 12/12/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
> >Decided to go looking for it & I thought I'd post the link here.
>
>
> You know what thought did? Followed a muck-cart and thought it were a
> weddin'  ;-)
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
>
>
>

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[David Savage]

? That went straight over my tired head.

Dave

On 12/12/05, Ralf R. Radermacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Decided to go looking for it & I thought I'd post the link here.
>
> "...the violas have a bottom B flat marked 'tremolando ma quasi
> pensato'. They must not play this note, only think it!"  (Gerard
> Hoffnung)
>
> Ralf
>
> --
> Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
> private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
> manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
> Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
>
>

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Decided to go looking for it & I thought I'd post the link here.

"...the violas have a bottom B flat marked 'tremolando ma quasi
pensato'. They must not play this note, only think it!"  (Gerard
Hoffnung)

Ralf

-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[Cotty]

On 12/12/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
>Decided to go looking for it & I thought I'd post the link here.


You know what thought did? Followed a muck-cart and thought it were a
weddin'  ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005

[David Savage]

G'day All,

Just saw a news story about Time magazines best photos 2005 edition.
Decided to go looking for it & I thought I'd post the link here.

Cheers,

Dave

Re: 'Best' photos of the year

[Ayash Kanto Mukherjee]

Hi Cotty,

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Cotty wrote:

> Hi Ayash,
> 
> Sadly I do not. 

No problem. :-)

> I have an old school friend in Oregon who sends me all my 
> best humour. I rely on him for it all!

In that case, please ensure that you should also send to PDML also. It is 
fun to watch and appreciate the moment.

Cheers,
Ayash.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: 'Best' photos of the year

[Cotty]

Hi Ayash,

Sadly I do not. I have an old school friend in Oregon who sends me all my 
best humour. I rely on him for it all!

Best,

Cotty

>Snapped at the right moment. Amazing.
>Do you have anymore collections as this one?
>Cheers,
>Ayash.
>
>On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Cotty wrote:
>
>> A friend sent me this URL with 20 odd shots that you may find amusing...
>> http://home.pacbell.net/rds33/best_photos/index.html#top
>> enjoy,
>> Cotty



___
Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Check out the UK Macintosh ads 
http://www.macads.co.uk
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: 'Best' photos of the year

[Ayash Kanto Mukherjee]

Snapped at the right moment. Amazing.
Do you have anymore collections as this one?
Cheers,
Ayash.

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Cotty wrote:

> A friend sent me this URL with 20 odd shots that you may find amusing...
> http://home.pacbell.net/rds33/best_photos/index.html#top
> enjoy,
> Cotty
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: 'Best' photos of the year

[Ken Archer]

They made my day.  Thanks for the smiles.

On Thursday 01 August 2002 04:25 am, Cotty wrote:
> A friend sent me this URL with 20 odd shots that you may find
> amusing...
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/rds33/best_photos/index.html#top
>
> enjoy,
> Cotty
-- 
Kenneth Archer, San Antonio, Texas
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: 'Best' photos of the year

[Alan Chan]

>A friend sent me this URL with 20 odd shots that you may find amusing...
>
>http://home.pacbell.net/rds33/best_photos/index.html#top

Boy the 1st one is really great! So simple and so effective.

regards,
Alan Chan


_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

'Best' photos of the year

[Cotty]

A friend sent me this URL with 20 odd shots that you may find amusing...

http://home.pacbell.net/rds33/best_photos/index.html#top


enjoy,

Cotty

___
Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Check out the UK Macintosh ads 
http://www.macads.co.uk
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .