FINALY i see a shot with a normal contrast from you ;-)
I don't like the idea you've cut his head... also the background is
too sharp ;-)
other then that - very funny situation :-)
BTW - nice colors youve got with your lens
Michael
On 8/8/05, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Dixons, a major high street electronics and photo retailer in the UK has
pulled the plug on restocking 35mm film cameras from its branches once
current stocks have gone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4130620.stm
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
See below:
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: Malcolm Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 3:49 AM
Subject: RE: What inspired you?
I am concerned that what they have taken will be lost. I already know
people
that
On 7/8/05, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://www.bobshell.com/update.html
Also:
http://www.nrvtoday.com/content/view/650/56/
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 8/8/05, David Mann, discombobulated, unleashed:
The snap-back icon appears on the right-hand side of Safari's Google
search box, after you've followed a link from the results. When you
click on it, Safari instantly goes back to the search results.
Thanks Dave - got it. That's useful.
On 7/8/05, keithw, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think we have more than a few people here that know The Bob Shell Story.
I've forgotten it!
Anyhow, I went to join a list he used to head up, and wondered what ever
happened to him, and his association with Shutterbug.
Can anyone help fill me in?
On 7/8/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
Good eye, pal.
He in this thread? ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
BTW, nice shot Paul. As a petrol-head, cars fascinate me.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Cotty wrote:
Dixons, a major high street electronics and photo retailer in
the UK has pulled the plug on restocking 35mm film cameras
from its branches once current stocks have gone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4130620.stm
Saw that on the news this morning, they were the first to
On 7/8/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
The subjects here were unaware of my camera, but making myself known
would have spoiled the moment. Note what appears to be slight
embarrassment on the face of the girl on the left. Shot with the DA
50-200, f9 @ 1/180, ISO 200. Moderate
On 8/8/05, John Coyle, discombobulated, unleashed:
I spoke to Ryan today, and
he has lost all but 20 of the pictures he's taken since March due to two
hard drive failures!
Yo Ry, that big Canon slowing you down a bit?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
It could not have been shot in any other way. If I had even hesitated,
the moment would have been lost. However, as a composition, I like the
fact that the woman in the center is framed by the other two. It's not
a particularly artful composition, but it's certainly a pleasing one in
general.
Costco is now showing this camera on their e-mail bargain sheet for
$3899. That's the best price I've seen on it. It's an unusual item for
this big box store. But then again, they have surprised me before with
big-ticket good stuff.
Paul
They have some pretty good prices on Flash cards, too, Paaul.
Bill Sawyer
Livonia, MI
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:01 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Costco now selling Canon 1-D Mark II
Costco is now showing
Yes, I picked up an extra card when I was there a few weeks ago. How
are you doing with digital, Bill? Are you like it? Shooting a lot?
Still shooting film as well? Inquiring minds want to know?
Paul
On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:06 AM, william sawyer wrote:
They have some pretty good prices on Flash
Thank you for the kind words John.
But I can't really take much credit for the colour balance. You can't
compare these shots with your own directly. This is at an outdoor stage,
with mixed light. All shots displayed here, except imgp2939.jpg, are before
sunset, with a tiny bit of daylight.
In my view the centre woman's rump detracts from an otherwise good picture
of a nice moment.
Why?
It does have a slightly voyeuristic quality, and I suspect the subject
might not have consented to the picture if she had known about it. She
might not be happy seeing it on the web.
I'm
Hi,
nice shot, Boris.
Quite different from Frank's latest cyclist shots ;-)
Of course, it's a matter of training shotting without viewfinder. I've
been doing that for many years, starting with a Kodak Retina IIIc I got
from my grandfather. With it's leaf shutter, it's areal stealth camera.
To me, whether or not a subject might have consented to a photo becomes
a mute issue once that moment has passed. My only reservation about the
woman's backside is that it seems to be a distraction for some. I never
gave it a second thought. What if she were facing the camera and we saw
the
Was a bit off my game this night. I guess I was a little dazzled. Lindy
and Amanda from a fave band of mind back in my uni days, the
Go-Betweens, were playing with their new 6-piece U.N.I.T. They were
playing support for my friend Loene, doing her sexy solo stuff. Both
bands did a VU cover
Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Incidentally, am I the only one who misses the depth of field markings on
the newer lenses? ;)
No you're not.
It wouldn't be difficult for camera makers to build a DOF calculator
into a camera and have a digital display of the DOF 9for the current
focal length and
Derby, there are some really great shots there!
The only problem I have is that the page won't scroll for me.
I can't see the full frame of most of them.
Don
-Original Message-
From: Derby Chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:16 AM
To: Pentax Discuss
Powell Hargrave wrote:
http://www.bobshell.com/update.html
Thanks for that, Powell...
keith whaley
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=188218
The story behind this picture is told in my post Malakoff Rockfestival.
This is one of the pictures the festival web man did not submit.
This one is far from perfect, but I personally find it much stronger than
most of those he has
Pancho Hasselbach wrote:
Hi,
nice shot, Boris.
Quite different from Frank's latest cyclist shots ;-)
Of course, it's a matter of training shotting without viewfinder. I've
been doing that for many years, starting with a Kodak Retina IIIc I got
from my grandfather. With it's leaf shutter,
Cotty wrote:
On 7/8/05, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://www.bobshell.com/update.html
Also:
http://www.nrvtoday.com/content/view/650/56/
Cheers,
Cotty
Thanks, Cotty.
keith
Jack Davis wrote:
This image is larger than a physical component of one
subject.
Naive indignation has no place in interpreting this
tender interplay between an expectant mother and her
supporting friends.
IMO, a different angle was needed to capture the tender interplay ...
as this
Likewise ...
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Don Sanderson
... the page won't scroll for me.
I can't see the full frame of most of them.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/paleblueeyes/index.htm
John Coyle wrote:
Even those who know the risks can get caught out: I spoke to
Ryan today, and he has lost all but 20 of the pictures he's
taken since March due to two hard drive failures!
I'm even more glad I use both Cd's and HD's for storage...
Yes, it must be a horror when it happens,
Shell,
There..there. pat..pat
Jack
--- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sheesh! Now an opinion gets criticized. IMO the
photo sucks on many
levels. Sorry my thoughts are so offensive to you.
Just add me to your
kill file, Jack. Good night ... I'm off to do
something more
There are several differences. My main objection to your photo is the
composition, not so much that you've photographed her from behind, although
I don't care much for that aspect in this case, or in most cases. That the
woman's butt is dead center and so prominent is, imo, just poor
On Aug 7, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Glen wrote:
Incidentally, am I the only one who misses the depth of field
markings on the newer lenses? ;)
I missed them for a while. Now I zone focus more simply: open =
shallow, stopped down = deep. With a good viewfinder and manual
focus, or AF, the need
I don't recall any comment that the woman's backside is an object of
prurient interest. Perhaps I missed it. Can you show me where that was
said. You seem to be putting your own spin on the comments made by others.
Most comments seem to indicate that the composition is poor - you even said
It's
The page does not display.
Godfrey
On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:15 AM, Derby Chang wrote:
Was a bit off my game this night. I guess I was a little dazzled.
Lindy and Amanda from a fave band of mind back in my uni days, the
Go-Betweens, were playing with their new 6-piece U.N.I.T. They were
:-)
That's why I never worry about negative comments.
Godfrey
On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
If too many people like your work, you're not trying hard enough ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist
Well that's two who apparently like it quite a lot and
Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see them.
Nice shots Derby, but personally I think they need a bit more contrast.
Dave
On 8/8/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Likewise ...
Shel
[Original Message]
Wrom: BRNVWWCUFPEGA
... the page won't
Tim mate, that is a super shot. I love the light, composition the
relaxed energy of the guitarist.
My only other comment would be that it would have been nice it the
rest of the guitar had been in the frame. Though it looks like when
you made your crop you also removed something from the left
The word objectionable was used in your original post, and I believe it was
repeated by at least one other. A composition may be disliked, but only its
content could be deemed objectionable. I merely wanted to know what was
objectionable, the woman's posterior or the pregnancy. Previous
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of
my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting
an LX and a proper waist-level finder?
I'm not necessarily looking for a finder
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/paleblueeyes/index.htm
I went back to the page four or five times and it finally displayed.
Overall, I like the set of photos. Seems they're most all taken from
one viewpoint, but you caught good moments.
The rendering could be improved with just a
I didn't say that - didn't use the word objectionable. I said it was
offensive from my POV of composition. IOW, I found the composition to be
poor. That's pretty far from objecting to the prurient interest of the
photo or composition. Anyway, even if someone found the photo
objectionable, that
On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:55 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=188218
...
It is cropped a bit to make the diagonal line stronger. I've also
tweaked a
bit with levels.
I like it ... the composition has a lot of strength and the light is
very nice.
Derby Chang wrote:
Was a bit off my game this night. I guess I was a little dazzled. Lindy
and Amanda from a fave band of mind back in my uni days, the
Go-Betweens, were playing with their new 6-piece U.N.I.T. They were
playing support for my friend Loene, doing her sexy solo stuff. Both
Toralf Lund a écrit :
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one
of my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides
getting an LX and a proper waist-level finder?
I'm not
On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:13 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
... My only reservation about the woman's backside is that it seems
to be a distraction for some. ...
I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the
photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to
Boy hasn't this started something VBG
There are elements of this shot that I really like. The hand on the
pregnant woman's belly, the smile of the young lady in blue. The
effect is spoiled somewhat by the unfortunate pose of the blonde
woman.
It almost works, but not quite.
Dave
On 8/8/05,
On 8/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the
photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to
capture.
How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the lady
on the right, and
On 8/8/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see them.
When I press F11, all displayed windows nip out of the way so I can see
my desktop. And I presume F11 does something entirely different again on
Linux? Boy it must be nice
On 8/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of
my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting
an LX and a proper waist-level
On 8/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of
my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting
an LX and a proper waist-level
Well I guess that tip wasn't as helpful as I had hoped LOL. My
complete ignorance of all things Mac/Linux is exposed :-)
Winduz is OKwhen it's running right.
Dave
On 8/8/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/8/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Press F11 guys, then hit the
On 8/8/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Well I guess that tip wasn't as helpful as I had hoped LOL. My
complete ignorance of all things Mac/Linux is exposed :-)
Winduz is OKwhen it's running right.
If you get into any problems, just re-boot ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
||
It's probably a lot better to use simple HTML code rather than all this
fancy stuff to present something as simple as a photo. There are just too
many cross-platform incompatibilities. Plus, with dial-up connections and
the way different browsers handle things, simpler seems like a better
On 8/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
I wish people would post their pics in
a more universal manner.
yeah, like FlickR g
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The page does not display.
I get You must enable Javascript to view this content.
Which means Go away as far as I'm concerned.
Was a bit off my game this night. I guess I was a little dazzled.
Lindy and Amanda from a fave band of mind back in my uni
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/8/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see them.
When I press F11, all displayed windows nip out of the way so I can see
my desktop. And I presume F11 does something entirely different
Do you consider FlickR to be a more universal option, or one that's a
problem. FlickR is an issue for me and my system.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Cotty
On 8/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
I wish people would post their pics in
a more universal manner.
yeah,
Hi Joe ...
I like the composition quite a bit, but the contrast seems way over done.
It's hard to tell if it's just the red filter or some of the processing as
well. Based on the color of the stones in the original photo, perhaps a
red filter was not the best choice.
Shel
[Original
On 8/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
Do you consider FlickR to be a more universal option, or one that's a
problem. FlickR is an issue for me and my system.
Sorry Shel I was being sarcastic. I'm on broadband and it takes ages to
load for me to. If it doesn't come up within a
Thanks for the lucid explanation. What confused me were words like
offensive and objectionable.
On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:13 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
... My only reservation about the woman's backside is that it seems
to be a distraction for some. ...
I find the Target Center Butt
Thanks for the comment, Cotty. Your experience matches what I felt when I first
reviewed the shots on the card. Apparently, we all have different ways of
looking at things. Interesting.
Paul
On 8/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
I find the Target Center Butt obliterates
At 10:40 AM 8/8/2005, Steve Jolly wrote:
I like the pictures, but the slideshow software is abysmal - it chops off
the bottom of every photo on my 1024x768 display, and won't even let me
scroll down...
I was using a resolution of 1280 x 1024, and I also had problems with part
of the layout
Cotty wrote:
Winduz is OKwhen it's running right.
If you get into any problems, just re-boot ;-)
Or reinstall...
S
Here is another one from Malakoff Rockfestival:
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=188249
Here is another one. Very different - a portrait of the attitude in raw
Rock'n Roll. Had to shot from the hip, had no time to think.
The light is not perfect, the guitar player is
Even with the F11 technique, the vertical shots lose the bottom edge to
some degree.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: David Savage
Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see them.
Boris ... which 50/1.4 do you have?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Boris Liberman
I must admit, I so much like my 43 Lim, that I am thinking of selling
both 50/1.4 and FA 50/1.7...
Boris
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/viewfinders/FF-1.jpg
Nah. One of THESE:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
A bit pricey...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp
Toralf Lund wrote:
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one
of my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this,
Mark wrote:
It wouldn't be difficult for camera makers to build a DOF calculator
into a camera and have a digital display of the DOF 9for the current
focal length and aperture settings) on the rear-panel LCD.
--
Wow. Interesting idea. Now that cameras are computers, how about a
Although even on dialup this page was relatively fast. Still it helps
to have you display set to 1600x1200.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
It's probably a lot better to use simple HTML code rather than all this
fancy stuff to present something as simple as a photo. There are just too
many
I'm trying very hard to not make a comment on the slideshow software.
Haven't said anything, have I? ;-)
About the photos: There is something with the violin player, her
concentration, I like it. About the rest: I get too hung up on the tilted
horizons. To me, it doesn't look like you do it on
Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy. That what it's all about --
catching people unaware.
Specifically, I find this an awkward shot -- not really saying anything
except that one should be aware of one's surroundings.
It used to be, not that long ago, that a lady would bend at the
At 12:17 PM 8/8/2005, Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/viewfinders/FF-1.jpg
Nah. One of THESE:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp
I had a friend who
On 7/8/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:
t's, along with Canon 1D, a big battery eater.
This is not my experience Fra.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
That's a gross oversimplification of what it means to go out on the
street and make photographs.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy. That what it's all about
--
catching people unaware.
On 7/8/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
It did occur to me that it would be a good setting for a Eurotrash PDML
event. The chateau sleeps 22, so is quite cheap when shared out between
people.
I looked at the web site - and had the same thought. Does it have a pool??
Cheers,
Cotty
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/8/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed:
t's, along with Canon 1D, a big battery eater.
This is not my experience Fra.
Don't you have the Mk II version, Cotty?
The wedding pro I've worked with a couple of times this summer has the
Mk I version and his
On 8/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Don't you have the Mk II version, Cotty?
The wedding pro I've worked with a couple of times this summer has the
Mk I version and his *do* seem to be big battery eaters.
oops. apologies.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People,
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voyeurism is the nature of street photogrpahy. That what it's all about
--
catching people unaware.
Except that voyeurism has a sexual connection. Hmmm. I'm afraid I don't
get off to snapping people unaware.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
||
On 8/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
Here is another one from Malakoff Rockfestival:
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=188249
Here is another one. Very different - a portrait of the attitude in raw
Rock'n Roll. Had to shot from the hip, had no time to think.
On 8/8/05, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
A bit pricey...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp
COOL. I'd forgotten about this. That would be ideal for you Torulf. Cor,
I fancy one of them myself
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places,
Glen wrote:
At 12:17 PM 8/8/2005, Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/viewfinders/FF-1.jpg
Nah. One of THESE:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp
I have been thinking about the same. Building a finder that mounts on
the flash shoe and that you can look into from above from a distance of
at least 30cm and see (more or less) what's in scope of the camera.
The conclusion was that optically at least a mirror and a lens are
needed, but I
P. J. Alling wrote:
Glen wrote:
At 12:17 PM 8/8/2005, Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/viewfinders/FF-1.jpg
Nah. One of THESE:
I checked his Blog about a week ago. There were no updates since fall of
last year. Googling, I found nothing more current. I would have thought that
If the case went to trial, or dismissed, some reference would have come up.
I'm of the suspicion that someone is using the legal system to
I've never seen a waist level finder for a rangefinder, and I've been
looking for a couple of years.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Vic Mortelmans
In the rangefinder world there are lots of flash shoe mountable
viewfinders around, to accomodate lenses of focal lengths not supported
by
You're right. Voyeurism implies sexual deviancy and content. While some
voyeuristic acts might involve street photography, all street photography is
certainly not voyeurism. Of course, like many words, voyeur has come to mean
more than what it once did. It's now frequenly used to describe
On Aug 8, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
It wouldn't be difficult for camera makers to build a DOF calculator
into a camera and have a digital display of the DOF 9for the current
focal length and aperture settings) on the rear-panel LCD.
It shouldn't be difficult: all you need is an
On 8/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Nah. One of THESE:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp
Here's a user review:
http://www.kickstartnews.com/reviews/hardware/
zigview_digital_angle_viewfinder.html
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People,
On 8/8/05, Butch Black, discombobulated, unleashed:
I checked his Blog about a week ago. There were no updates since fall of
last year. Googling, I found nothing more current. I would have thought that
If the case went to trial, or dismissed, some reference would have come up.
I'm of the
Nice shot. Love the frame and the moment. Good work.
Paul
On 8/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed:
Here is another one from Malakoff Rockfestival:
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=188249
Here is another one. Very different - a portrait of the attitude in raw
I decided to check again, and discovered that Leica made three such waist
level finders.. I guess my searching technique has improved a bit, or
maybe some new pages have been posted to the web. However, I've yet to
actually see such a finder.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Shel Belinkoff
On Aug 8, 2005, at 7:51 AM, Cotty wrote:
Press F11 guys, then hit the play button. That's how I got to see
them.
When I press F11, all displayed windows nip out of the way so I can
see
my desktop. And I presume F11 does something entirely different
again on
Linux? Boy it must be nice
On Aug 8, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Cotty wrote:
I find the Target Center Butt obliterates the real subject of the
photograph. Took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to
capture.
How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the
lady
on the right, and then the butt.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voyeur
I was thinking more along the line of the second definition,
though perhaps still in error in my use of the term.
The idea I had in mind was to catch actions taht were noteworthy.
Perhaps not sensational, but notable.
Correction accepted.
Collin
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Tainter
Subject: Re: Depth of Field with Digital SLRs
Wow. Interesting idea. Now that cameras are computers, how about a
function that automatically sets the lens to the hyperfocal point for a
given focal length and aperture?
Canon has had a
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations
I agree that some people here are
easily offended by images that even reference the human form or the
birthing process.
Soe people here are even more offended when you don't like one of their
- Original Message -
From: Butch Black
Subject: Re: Bob Shell?
I'm of the suspicion that someone is using the legal system to discredit
and break him because he photographed erotica.
That was the opinion that I heard as well.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: RE: PESO: Pale Blue Eyes
Likewise ...
He seems to be using some scripting in his website, not sure if it is Java
or Flash.
All I know is that the pages load slowly, and the scripting makes the
presentation crappy. I don't bother
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: PESO: Great Expectations
How odd. My eyes were first drawn to the lady on the left, then the lady
on the right, and then the butt. As far as i saw it, the butt in question
was purely incidental.
What an odd sentence.
Are you SURE you
1 - 100 of 261 matches
Mail list logo
