Thanks Frank (and to all who commented).
This was shot with the FA 135 f/2.8, and while it's turning out to be a
really good focal length for me on the Ds, the lens itself has proven a
bit troublesome when it comes to bokeh and a strong tendency for purple
fringing in high-contrast transitions.
On 4/20/05, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like Bruce, I find the bokeh a little bit problematic, but overall
> it's not a huge thing.
Ooops. It seems that I was looking at the upgraded version with the
softened bokeh?
It must have been ~really~ noticeable in the original...
c
On 4/20/05, Marco Alpert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A straggler from the Norcal meet last month. Shot at the Japanese
> Friendship Garden:
>
> http://www.alpert.com/marco/pdml/peso11.html
>
>
Yeah, it's a great shot. I'm a sucker for smiles, and this is a great
big geniune candid unposed gri
On 19/4/05, Marco Alpert, discombobulated, unleashed:
>http://www.alpert.com/marco/pdml/peso11.html
>
>Comments always welcome.
Lovely shot - great catch.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
I missed the original, but I like this one. Good grab. You could
continue to improve the background a bit with some cloning and some
selective blurring with the blur tool. But it's a great shot as
presented here.
Paul
On Apr 20, 2005, at 1:42 AM, Marco Alpert wrote:
Here's a version that's a bi
That is better. The sharpness seems closer to what it should be and
the drop gone helps too. I would certainly play around with
background softening just to see what it does.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Tuesday, April 19, 2005, 10:42:28 PM, you wrote:
MA> Here's a version that's a bit softer. I'v
Here's a version that's a bit softer. I've also cloned out the water
drop Shel mentioned.
http://www.alpert.com/marco/pdml/peso11a.html
Good suggestions. Thanks!
-Marco
On Apr 19, 2005, at 9:32 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Great smile and nice timing with the water drops. I would really like
this
Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Marco Alpert
> Date: 4/19/2005 9:33:13 PM
> Subject: Re: PESO - Boy and drinking fountain
>
> Great smile and nice timing with the water drops. I would really like
> this one except the bokeh seems a bit unnerving to me. Don't
Great smile and nice timing with the water drops. I would really like
this one except the bokeh seems a bit unnerving to me. Don't know if
it is just the lens or possibly somewhat from sharpening...actually it
might just be a bit too sharp - can see it around his body and
fountain. I would reall
A straggler from the Norcal meet last month. Shot at the Japanese
Friendship Garden:
http://www.alpert.com/marco/pdml/peso11.html
Comments always welcome.
-Marco
(And, as a bonus, a couple of our list members):
http://www.alpert.com/marco/pdml/godfrey_c.html
http://www.alpert.com/marco/pdml/pa
Steam
> Locomotive from Union Station to it's new home. The Big Boy is one of
> several locomotives claiming to be the largest ever made. Next month
> they'll move one of the few remaining "Centennial" diesel engines to the
> same location.
>
> The stills were
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/gwestern.jpg
PZ-1p, Fuji Velvia, converted in BWorks
All other technical details unknown :)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Frank wrote:
I remember now, you used to work for the railway, didn't you? I guess
you'd know this stuff then...
That's right, I worked on CN and GO Transit locomotives for twelve years and
a day (really), before I escaped to work at Ontario Hydro. Finally, day
shift with weekends off!
I use
Motors 645E3 engine (645 cubic
> inches per cylinder, for a total of 10,320 cubic inches, or around 169
> liters, producing 3000hp at 990rpm). It was also available with a V-20
> engine, but there may be larger, heavier Diesels available now.
>
> All the same, it looks like they'
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:44:00 -0600, George Sinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Last weekend I spent a few hours watching Union Pacific move an old Steam
> Locomotive from Union Station to it's new home. The Big Boy is one of
> several locomotives claiming to be the l
Replying to several -
First, thanks for the compliments. I had a lot of fun with this one.
On the videos - I changed the gallery format to one that may be a bit
more friendly to videos. In this format, Smugmug (the host for my
photo site) has a few hints under the videos. The best bet, if you
around 169
liters, producing 3000hp at 990rpm). It was also available with a V-20
engine, but there may be larger, heavier Diesels available now.
All the same, it looks like they'd be dwarfed by the Big Boy.
Pat White
weekend I spent a few hours watching Union Pacific move an old Steam
> > Locomotive from Union Station to it's new home. The Big Boy is one of
> > several locomotives claiming to be the largest ever made. Next month
> > they'll move one of the few remaining "Centennial&quo
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:44:00 -0600, George Sinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Last weekend I spent a few hours watching Union Pacific move an old Steam
> Locomotive from Union Station to it's new home. The Big Boy is one of
> several locomotives claiming to be the l
> Locomotive from Union Station to it's new home. The Big Boy is one of
> several locomotives claiming to be the largest ever made. Next month
> they'll move one of the few remaining "Centennial" diesel engines to the
> same location.
>
> The stills were take
George Sinos wrote:
It was impressive.
The videos are mpeg 1, so they should play on just about anything.
They are between 4 and 8 Mb each, so they can take a bit to download.
Worst case, right-click and save them to your pc, then play them
locally.
Just tries to download the "large" picture page
Cotty wrote:
On 20/3/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
Hi George. This is REALLY great stuff. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the
videos to play and I've both QT and Windows Media Player. All I got was a
whit screen, although the QT logo popped up. Any suggestions?
Stay with it, t
It was impressive.
The videos are mpeg 1, so they should play on just about anything.
They are between 4 and 8 Mb each, so they can take a bit to download.
Worst case, right-click and save them to your pc, then play them
locally.
See you later, gs
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:25:35 +, Cotty <[E
On 20/3/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Hi George. This is REALLY great stuff. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the
>videos to play and I've both QT and Windows Media Player. All I got was a
>whit screen, although the QT logo popped up. Any suggestions?
Stay with it, the logo di
George Sinos mused:
>
>
> Last weekend I spent a few hours watching Union Pacific move an old Steam
> Locomotive from Union Station to it's new home. The Big Boy is one of
> several locomotives claiming to be the largest ever made. Next month
> they'll m
weekend I spent a few hours watching Union Pacific move an old Steam
> Locomotive from Union Station to it's new home. The Big Boy is one of
> several locomotives claiming to be the largest ever made. Next month
> they'll move one of the few remaining "Centennial" die
Last weekend I spent a few hours watching Union Pacific move an old Steam
Locomotive from Union Station to it's new home. The Big Boy is one of
several locomotives claiming to be the largest ever made. Next month
they'll move one of the few remaining "Centennial" diesel
; Speculation without comment.
>
> - MCC
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Mark Cassino Photography
> Kalamazoo, MI
> www.markcassino.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - Original Message -
> From: "Graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino"
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
Speculation without comment.
shame on us, i guess.
william robb
ginal Message -
From: "Graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
People will listen to the fameous 97% more ofthen than to they will the
knowledgable. Going with the popular opinion is always more profitable.
graywolf
People will listen to the fameous 97% more ofthen than to they will the
knowledgable. Going with the popular opinion is always more profitable.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Just one more reason t
"Me" (jumping up and down waving hands in air), "me", "me"...
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:32:17 -0600, William Robb wrote:
Substandard tools are incapable of producing an exc
At 10:47 AM 11/02/2005 , keith whaley wrote:
>
>I started with a 1.3 MP Epson digital, progressed thru a 4 MP Pentax
>(Optio 4S) and now have an Olympus Camedia C-5050 (5 MP.)
>Quite frankly, when I uploaded the camera's images to my CPU and
>displayed them on my .26 dot pitch 17" monitor, to the
David Zaninovic wrote:
My opinion is that better tools are more fun to use, sure you can get results
with cheaper tools but it requires more work.
Example, you can use extension tubes with SMC-M 50/1.4 on D with manual flash
but then you have to press the green button, you can't
quickly control m
ictures usually equals
better pictures after you select few of them from the
bunch.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
>
> >
> > From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Keith Whaley wrote:
David Mann wrote:
On Feb 11, 2005, at 12:20 AM, Keith Whaley wrote:
He's fulla bat stuff! Anybody who says there's little to no
difference between a 2 and 5 GP and a 5 and 10 GP camera is smoking
something he ought not!
You'd need a really big print, superb lenses and very c
>
> From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/02/11 Fri AM 01:15:34 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
>
> Ah so I need the best equipment.
That's _my_ argument..
>
> Kenneth Waller
>
&g
David Mann wrote:
On Feb 11, 2005, at 12:20 AM, Keith Whaley wrote:
He's fulla bat stuff! Anybody who says there's little to no difference
between a 2 and 5 GP and a 5 and 10 GP camera is smoking something he
ought not!
You'd need a really big print, superb lenses and very careful technique
to
I thought it was a Nikonos
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Feb 10, 2005 10:18 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
Kenneth Waller wrote:
> BTW, please define 'substandard'.
It's the minimum requirement
On 10/2/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>Technically refined, in the context I meant to portray.
>They can still be boring as a blank sheet.
Understood. Thx.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
__
On Feb 11, 2005, at 12:20 AM, Keith Whaley wrote:
He's fulla bat stuff! Anybody who says there's little to no difference
between a 2 and 5 GP and a 5 and 10 GP camera is smoking something he
ought not!
You'd need a really big print, superb lenses and very careful technique
to tell the difference
Kenneth Waller wrote:
> BTW, please define 'substandard'.
It's the minimum requirement for undersea exploration...
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
LOL
Thats gotta make it to the '05 quote list.
Dave S
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:03:09 -0500 (EST), John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Taking photographic advice from a web page chosen based on
> popularity is like taking cooking advice from a MacDonalds.
- Original Message -
From: "Kenneth Waller"
Subject: Re: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
Ah so I need the best equipment.
It amazes me that this concept is hard to grasp.
William Robb
Ah so I need the best equipment.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Feb 10, 2005 10:04 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
>
> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/02/10 Thu PM
Not even close Fnarf.
IIRC, substandard was in regards to equipment.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Feb 10, 2005 7:56 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:43:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00), K
But Frank, they're not substandard...(wait for it), ... for you.
frank theriault wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:43:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00), Kenneth Waller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, please define 'substandard'.
Easy:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=381188
cheers,
frank
>
> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/02/10 Thu PM 01:18:45 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
>
> On 10 Feb 2005 at 4:06, Keith Whaley wrote:
>
> > Atta boy, Dave! Boil it down to it's
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:43:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00), Kenneth Waller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, please define 'substandard'.
Easy:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=381188
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
BTW, please define 'substandard'.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Feb 10, 2005 3:50 PM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
On 10/2/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Substandard tools are incapable of pro
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty"
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
Hmmm. Define 'excellent'.
Technically refined, in the context I meant to portray.
They can still be boring as a blank sheet.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley"
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
However if you are out to make the the best end product wouldn't
it make sense to use the best tools for the job?
If the operator part of the equation is up to the challenge,
certainly.
But
On 10/2/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Substandard tools are incapable of producing an excellent product.
Hmmm. Define 'excellent'.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Peter J. Alling mused:
>
> no they find Ken Rockwell, who runs a "Popular" web page.
Taking photographic advice from a web page chosen based on
popularity is like taking cooking advice from a MacDonalds.
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:32:17 -0600, William Robb wrote:
Substandard tools are incapable of producing an excellent product.
A system is only a capable as it's least-capable component.
Exactly so, that was my point.
I submit most of the time the weak link is the photographer,
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 10 Feb 2005 at 4:06, Keith Whaley wrote:
Atta boy, Dave! Boil it down to it's essence.
A really capable photographer can make really good images, even while
using sub-standard gear.
We tend to forget that...
We concentrate on the tools' properties, inst
Just one more reason to not watch CBS, they're completely lacking in
credibility. How the hell do they do their research,
do they actually talk to any real experts, say someone who knows
something about information theory, or physics, or optics,
no they find Ken Rockwell, who runs a "Popular" w
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:11:24 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
> >A system is only a capable as it's least-capable component.
>
> Which is usually the operator, in the case of photography ;-)
It certainly is in my case. :-)
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
"Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:32:17 -0600, William Robb wrote:
>
>> Substandard tools are incapable of producing an excellent product.
>
>A system is only a capable as it's least-capable component.
Which is usually the operator, in the case of photography ;-)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:32:17 -0600, William Robb wrote:
> Substandard tools are incapable of producing an excellent product.
A system is only a capable as it's least-capable component.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
David S wrote:
> It doesn't matter how many megapixels you have. A crap
> picture is still crap.
How true.
But is it better to have quality equipment and know how to use it to make
the best of it, whatever your location and light conditions or fire off with
a P & S digital and fix it in Photosh
Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David S wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter how many megapixels you have. A crap picture is still crap.
>
>Atta boy, Dave! Boil it down to it's essence.
>A really capable photographer can make really good images, even while
Oh I agree completely.
For those who are interested in making quality images, the tools used
make quite a difference. But how many snap shooters, buy a camera
solely based on the MP count?, thinking the higher the megapixels the
better the final photos.
That was the sentiment I was agreeing with.
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: kenny-boy on CBS
On 10 Feb 2005 at 4:06, Keith Whaley wrote:
Atta boy, Dave! Boil it down to it's essence.
A really capable photographer can make really good images, even
while
using sub-standard gear.
We tend to fo
On 10 Feb 2005 at 4:06, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Atta boy, Dave! Boil it down to it's essence.
> A really capable photographer can make really good images, even while
> using sub-standard gear.
> We tend to forget that...
> We concentrate on the tools' properties, ins
many megapixels you have. A crap picture is still crap.
Atta boy, Dave! Boil it down to it's essence.
A really capable photographer can make really good images, even while
using sub-standard gear.
We tend to forget that...
We concentrate on the tools' properties, instead of the excellenc
I may as well sell all my gear and use the camera in my mobile phone.
My *ist D has 6079520 extra pixels I don't need.
But I do agree with this line;
"Camera manufacturers want you to believe the more megapixels, the
better the picture."
It doesn't matter how many megapixels you have. A crap pic
Derby Chang wrote:
Our favourite smilin' Ken seems have gotten himself on CBS. Did anyone
Stateside see his interview?
http://cbs2.com/consumerpaige/local_story_040194428.html
I went to the above site, and read the following:
"Ken Rockwell, an avid photographer who runs a popular digital
photog
Our favourite smilin' Ken seems have gotten himself on CBS. Did anyone
Stateside see his interview?
http://cbs2.com/consumerpaige/local_story_040194428.html
Maybe the transcript was a bit heavily edited, but there are SO many
things odd with what he said. I kinda reads like his one-page essay on
In a message dated 1/23/2005 5:22:18 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.chang-sang.com/paw/
The old beat up recliner was either being aired out or thrown away.
I do believe the latter rather than the former :)
Cheers
Dave
Nice shot. Makes me sad (I have a
NO ... I think the new breafast box was much nicer than the old islandic
way to throw it all away
>
>The old beat up recliner was either being aired out or thrown away.
>I do believe the latter rather than the former :)
>
>Cheers
>Dave
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:47:23 -0500, David Chang-Sang
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never been in.. I've tried a number of times to photograph it.. and I
> finally got images that will make a decent triptych. All were cropped down
> to 5x5 and then run through the Holga Filter and Sepia in photo
> From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:24 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: [pdml] Re: PAW: Lay-Z-Boy
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:19:00 -0500, David Chang-Sang
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks F
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:19:00 -0500, David Chang-Sang
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Frank :)
>
> It was across the street from The Canary Restaurant down there by Front and
> Cherry.
> I was running a test roll through the K1000 and I too thought it was an
> interesting still life.
>
> Thank
riault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 8:50 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: [pdml] Re: PAW: Lay-Z-Boy
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:26:01 -0500, David Chang-Sang
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.chang-sang.com/paw/
> >
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:26:01 -0500, David Chang-Sang
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.chang-sang.com/paw/
>
> The old beat up recliner was either being aired out or thrown away.
> I do believe the latter rather than the former :)
>
> Cheers
> Dave
Fraser finally got his way and bought Mar
http://www.chang-sang.com/paw/
The old beat up recliner was either being aired out or thrown away.
I do believe the latter rather than the former :)
Cheers
Dave
On 13/1/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I have a little 2 megapixel digicam. The parallax is all over the
>place when you use the viewfinder. The only way to get accurate
>framing is to use the cinemascope on the back. Fortunately I live in
>England, so there's never any glare from the sun
Quoting Luigi de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The truth of it, frank, is that compact digicam viewfinders--Pentax ones
> included--suck. They don't show nearly enough of the frame, you have no
> idea
> what precisely you're focusing or metering on (no crosshairs, like the
> olympus film compa
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 18:45, frank theriault wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:47:51 -0500 (EST), wendy beard
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thank you Frank. Brightened up my day
>
> Knowing that I brightened yours, brightens mine.
>
> > Title made me smile too
>
> I don't know why, but I
Hi,
Thursday, January 13, 2005, 12:00:30 AM, Shel wrote:
> The viewfinders in many of these digicams are terrible, and the only way
> you have even a clue as to what you're gonna capture is to look at the
> display on the back - that is, if the glare from the sun or the brightness
> of the day do
The viewfinders in many of these digicams are terrible, and the only way
you have even a clue as to what you're gonna capture is to look at the
display on the back - that is, if the glare from the sun or the brightness
of the day doesn't make viewing the screen near impossible. You (Us, we?)
film
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:47:51 -0500 (EST), wendy beard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thank you Frank. Brightened up my day
Knowing that I brightened yours, brightens mine.
>
> Title made me smile too
I don't know why, but I always find it amusing to see touristos
wandering about, camera at ar
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:10:34 +, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That Cesar?
Yeah, he has pecs like that; in his dreams!
Actually, I don't know if he does or doesn't, as I was spared such a
sight at GFM. (Whew)
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Br
--- frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a fun snap I took last summer. A bit of
> beefcake for you ladies
> (and gentlemen who are so inclined ):
>
Thank you Frank. Brightened up my day
>
http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/11/106396.jpg
>
Title made me smile too
W
On 11/1/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Just a fun snap I took last summer. A bit of beefcake for you ladies
>(and gentlemen who are so inclined ):
>
>http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/11/106396.jpg
That Cesar?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People,
Nicely captured, I'm waiting for the street car...
frank theriault wrote:
Just a fun snap I took last summer. A bit of beefcake for you ladies
(and gentlemen who are so inclined ):
http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/11/106396.jpg
Comments are always welcome. Thanks!
cheers,
frank
-
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:48:30 -0800, Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure looks like an Optio S4 to me!
That's what I was thinking. I'm glad there was some Pentax content in
the photo (even if it wasn't at my end ).
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartie
Sure looks like an Optio S4 to me!
keith
frank theriault wrote:
Just a fun snap I took last summer. A bit of beefcake for you ladies
(and gentlemen who are so inclined ):
http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/11/106396.jpg
Comments are always welcome. Thanks!
cheers,
frank
Just a fun snap I took last summer. A bit of beefcake for you ladies
(and gentlemen who are so inclined ):
http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/11/106396.jpg
Comments are always welcome. Thanks!
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
In a message dated 12/15/2004 10:05:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another from the bottom of the box
Me with my first movie camera, a 16mm Bolex ;-)) I made a couple
of short films (one reel) while I had it. The pic is awful ... of course,
being behind the movie ca
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:03:09 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another from the bottom of the box
>
> Me with my first movie camera, a 16mm Bolex ;-)) I made a couple
> of short films (one reel) while I had it. The pic is awful ... of course,
> being behind the movie camera m
Another from the bottom of the box
Me with my first movie camera, a 16mm Bolex ;-)) I made a couple
of short films (one reel) while I had it. The pic is awful ... of course,
being behind the movie camera meant that someone else made the snap.
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/bolex_boy.j
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Doug Franklin wrote:
> Well, it could be that story, but I like the story it tells framed as
> it is. I have to admit to disliking the "MAC" sign hanging from the
> lamppost, though.
I am with Frank on this one :-) Many thanks for the comments (off-list
too).
Kostas
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Well, let me amend that comment. As it stands, if you don't have more
> frames of this shot, then yes, it might be well served to crop a bit off
> the right side, and from the bottom as well. Other comments stand ...
How much Shel? Just the 1/4 perso
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, frank theriault wrote:
> I like this a lot! I love the composition, the boy looks small (which
> he no doubt is, but in that large doorway, with the big steps he's
> sitting on, he looks even smaller). Love the MAC sign - lets us know
> we're in may
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> This isn't just about a boy playing an accordion, it's also about where
> he's playing the accordion, and, perhaps even why he's playing the
> instrument. You could, however, lose some off the bottom of the pic, which
&g
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Jerome Reyes wrote:
> > The RHS is a bit busy, perhaps? Too much jumble, and to my eye it
> > distracts from the subject.
>
> I had the same first impression, actually. Maybe an angle more on the
> obtuse side would've helped out with this. Otherwise, a decent candid.
Are yo
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:40:16 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I disagree with those who suggest the photo be cropped further on
> the right side.
I'm with you, Shel. The smallness of the boy in the scene is part of
the message.
> Actually, seeing a bit more of the street t
CTED]>
> This has the making of a very nice street portrait. I disagree with those
> who suggest the photo be cropped further on the right side. Actually,
> seeing a bit more of the street traffic and the surrounding area would put
> the boy in context, and tell a more complete stor
701 - 800 of 877 matches
Mail list logo
