Frank is yet another innocent victim of autofocus.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2011, at 1:14 PM, frank theriault wrote:
From: Larry Colen
OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image
stabilization, not necessary. You are
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
Frank is yet another innocent victim of autofocus.
Sadly, this is true...
;-)
cheers,
the innocent victim
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
From: Larry Colen
OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image
stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from
criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of
clarity.
So all of mine are still in the running, then. Whew!
;-)
cheers,
frank
--
So while all this chatter about kitchen implements and how much gear
is enough gear, etc, has been going on, my short list got shorter...
A MacBook Pro 13 arrived. My PowerBook G4 15 laptop is now
officially retired.
Tonight I'll install the 500G drive and 8G RAM, then set it up. A
lovely little
On Feb 2, 2011, at 1:14 PM, frank theriault wrote:
From: Larry Colen
OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image
stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from
criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of
clarity.
So all of mine are
On 1/31/2011 9:39 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
And again, while equipment does matter, the photographer using the
equipment matters more.
You grok rightly, John.
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,
2011/2/1 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
It's hot enough to burn the non-stick coating if the pan has one, releasing
poisonous fumes.
totally. my non-stick goes up to 270 °C
btw I checked and some Le Creuset wares only go up to 190°C so they
seem to use different coatings
It will also
From: William Robb
On 31/01/2011 7:10 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
You can re-season cast iron. In fact, if you really screw up the
seasoning on a cast iron pan, one of the steps to re-seasoning is to
burn the old seasoning off to give you a uniform surface for re-seasoning.
I found a Lodge
On 1/30/2011 5:52 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
Actually, I think this has been in general rather even-tempered
discussion. ;-) You, Boris, are always courteous.
Thank you, Steve. So far I haven't been able bump into the reason not to
be courteous, as you put it.
I don't think I'm
On 1/31/2011 5:10 AM, William Robb wrote:
If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap
of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to
take better pictures?
Better technically - sure. They will be better exposed, in sharper
focus, etc.
On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:47 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 1/31/2011 5:10 AM, William Robb wrote:
If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap
of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to
take better pictures?
Better technically - sure.
On 1/31/2011 10:49 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
If the quality of the camera didn't matter, people would be able to
get good pictures with Canon gear.
/Opening the clothes cabinet looking for anti-flame jacket to wrap
around you/
/grin/
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On 30/1/11, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap
of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to
take better pictures?
How about better equipment making the process easier/more pleasurable?
If
Cotty and Robb agree, the end is nigh.
On 1/31/2011 7:52 AM, Cotty wrote:
On 30/1/11, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap
of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to
take better
From: Ken Waller
For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and
assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell
me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032
Taken with K20D,
From: Steven Desjardins
You should just spend your money on better pans.
Funny you should mention that; a new commercial grade stock pot is on my
short list.
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3413 - Release Date:
Yeah. I urgently need to replace my worn out 28 cm Gastrolux with
something uncoated. I am thinking forged iron since I already have a
cast iron pan. I'll never buy coated again; plus Gastrolux won't
recoat that € 130 piece of useless metal. Other places do it but PTFE
only and I refuse to let
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
Err - oh wait ;-) :-p
Wendy
(actually, there's a reason I have both systems. I really ~can't~ get
the shots I want with Pentax. And I've tried)
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
If the quality of
On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:00 AM, wendy beard wrote:
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
Err - oh wait ;-) :-p
Wendy
(actually, there's a reason I have both systems. I really ~can't~ get
the shots I want with Pentax. And I've tried)
Every system has it's strengths
It occurs to me that I might explain why I take the position I do about
the idea that equipment can make you a better photographer.
Better equipment will allow you to express the better photographer
within you more easily, but won't by itself make you a better
photographer. To me better
From: Boris Liberman
On 1/31/2011 5:10 AM, William Robb wrote:
If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why is it such a leap
of logic that better equipment may well help a mediocre photographer to
take better pictures?
Better technically - sure. They will be better exposed, in
On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:24 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Steven Desjardins
You should just spend your money on better pans.
Funny you should mention that; a new commercial grade stock pot is on my
short list.
Speaking of equipment versus skill at cooking, I absolutely love my Le Cruset
By an odd coincidence, I made a huge Stifado (Greek
beef-or-rabbit-with-oregano stew) yesterday for a guest, in the big Le
Creuset. Cooks great. But requires considerable scrubbing after 5
hours of stewing. -T
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
On Jan 31,
On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
By an odd coincidence, I made a huge Stifado (Greek
beef-or-rabbit-with-oregano stew) yesterday for a guest, in the big Le
Creuset. Cooks great. But requires considerable scrubbing after 5
hours of stewing. -T
I found that my Le Creusets are
does your oven have pyrolytic cleaning? if so just put in the empty LC
every couple of months and burn it clean. they take it very well.
2011/1/31 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com:
On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
By an odd coincidence, I made a huge Stifado (Greek
On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:10 PM, eckinator wrote:
does your oven have pyrolytic cleaning? if so just put in the empty LC
every couple of months and burn it clean. they take it very well.
Is that a serious hint or a joke? I don't know how hot pyrolytic cleaning gets.
My oven is an old wedgewood
serious hint. I have a 380 V siemens oven and I regularly use it to
clean/refresh old cast iron cookwares. pyrolytic self cleaning goes up
to 500 degrees celsius. they look (and sell) like new afterwards.
actually knowledge gathered from a US web site about the dutch oven et
al. le creusets will
From: Larry Colen
On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:24 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Steven Desjardins
You should just spend your money on better pans.
Funny you should mention that; a new commercial grade stock pot
is on my short list.
Speaking of equipment versus skill at cooking, I absolutely love
From: Larry Colen
On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:10 PM, eckinator wrote:
does your oven have pyrolytic cleaning? if so just put in the
empty LC every couple of months and burn it clean. they take it
very well.
Is that a serious hint or a joke? I don't know how hot pyrolytic
cleaning gets.
My oven is
On 31/01/2011 7:10 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
You can re-season cast iron. In fact, if you really screw up the
seasoning on a cast iron pan, one of the steps to re-seasoning is to
burn the old seasoning off to give you a uniform surface for re-seasoning.
I found a Lodge omelette skillet in the
- Original Message -
From: Cotty cotty...@mac.com
To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: What gear is on your short list?
On 30/1/11, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
If a good photographer can overcome bad equipment, why
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 01:35:16PM -0800, Larry Colen wrote:
Speaking of equipment versus skill at cooking, I absolutely love my Le Cruset
cookware.
. . .
Not only does it have all the advantages of cast iron for cooking, but I've
found the surface to be easier to clean and more durable
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
My real objection is generalizations like equipment doesn't matter.
For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is
that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment
is far less likely to be inappropriate
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
My real objection is generalizations like equipment doesn't matter.
For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is
that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment
is far less likely to be inappropriate
After the meal, ask the chef what brand of pots were used because it
tasted great...
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
My real objection is generalizations like equipment doesn't matter.
For some shots it
I'm clearly not saying this well. I keep saying the equivalent of A
good photographer can take advantage of better equipment and folks
keep translating it to good equipment will make you a better
photographer. To be clear, I think the former statement is obvious,
I think the latter is usually
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
My real objection is generalizations like equipment doesn't matter.
For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is
that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment
is far less likely to be
On 1/30/2011 5:28 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
I'm clearly not saying this well. I keep saying the equivalent of
A good photographer can take advantage of better equipment and
folks keep translating it to good equipment will make you a better
photographer. To be clear, I think the former
On 1/30/2011 5:28 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
I admit folks, I fail to see why this idea is so controversial. The
best photographers often buy the best equipment. Maybe they can
overcome inferior equipment, but I simply point out that very few of
them bother to take this route.
I gotta be
Actually, I think this has been in general rather even-tempered
discussion. ;-) You, Boris, are always courteous.
I don't think I'm switching positions. The argument is based on a
comparison of two situations. These two situations are a single
photographer of varying skills with each of two
Amen, brother. We are in agreement. ;-)
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:31 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
My real objection is generalizations like equipment doesn't matter.
For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My
BTW, since we are discussing equipment, I just bought my wife a new
camera. Her old PS had seen hard use and the trip to Africa hadn't
helped. I took advantage of the $100 price tag on the Optio I-10.
She takes pictures primarily of people in good light (or uses the
flash), so the noise issues
my cooking improved enormously when I bought decent pots
After the meal, ask the chef what brand of pots were used because it
tasted great...
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 1/27/2011 7:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
My real objection is
Let me spin this another way: The limiting factor in the quality of
the pictures I take is not the quality of the camera I take them with.
However, quite likely some combination of longer lenses and faster
lenses/senses would allow me to take some pictures that at the moment
I just can't take.
-
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Bob W p...@web-options.com
Subject: RE: What gear is on your short list?
.my cooking improved enormously when I bought decent pots
But were they better ?
. After the meal, ask the chef what
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com
Subject: Re: What gear is on your short list?
?Let me spin this another way: The limiting factor in the quality of
the pictures I take is not the quality
For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and
assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to tell
me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032
Taken with K20D, 70-210mm SMC Pentax F.
If you'd taken it with a Leica, the cognoscenti would admire its
stochastic intransigence. -T
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and
assuming he would then take better images) I throw this
If you had a K-5 you could print it bigger, if you had a 645D you could
print it even bigger than that.
On 1/30/2011 4:45 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and
assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to
tell me
You realize that stochastic intransigence is another way of saying
random stubbornness.
On 1/30/2011 4:47 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
If you'd taken it with a Leica, the cognoscenti would admire its
stochastic intransigence. -T
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Ken Wallerkwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
Better equipment quite obvkously wouldn't make much difference here. The shot
is in full sun and presents no huge equipment challenges. However, if taken
with an inferior lens that lacked sharpness it wouldn't be as nice as it is.
And it is quite nice. And of course if it were to be used on a
You can always burn dinner in good pans. You can drive you Porsche
into the wall. You can also drop drop your K5on your foot and break
your toe. These are isolated incidents, however, and not averages
across many situations.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Paul Stenquist
to put the thread back on topic:
60-250
k-5 + grip
50-135
and on my wish list
DA*8-16
and a buyer for my DA 18-250, just repaired for € 122 with just under
2 years pentax warranty left
cheers
ecke
2011/1/30 Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com:
You can always burn dinner in good pans. You can
You should just spend your money on better pans. ;-) Although I do
like your list even if it doesn't matter. Especially the 50-135.
That doesn't matter the most in my book.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:09 PM, eckinator eckina...@gmail.com wrote:
to put the thread back on topic:
60-250
k-5 +
On 1/30/2011 5:28 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
I admit folks, I fail to see why this idea is so controversial. The
best photographers often buy the best equipment. Maybe they can
overcome inferior equipment, but I simply point out that very few of
them bother to take this route.
If a good
On 30/01/2011 11:36 AM, Bob W wrote:
my cooking improved enormously when I bought decent pots
My cooking improved when I decided the Circulons just weren't cutting it
and went back to my mangy but much loved cast iron cookware.
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
We need a cookware thread. I like heavy copper-bottom stuff with no
non-stick surface.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:14 PM, William Robb
anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/01/2011 11:36 AM, Bob W wrote:
my cooking improved enormously when I bought decent pots
My cooking improved when I
On 30/01/2011 3:45 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
For those that think better equipment makes a photographer better (and
assuming he would then take better images) I throw this out for you to
tell me how 'better' equipment would make this a better photo.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12483032
I have a 30 year old set of Magnalite pro cookware. It's no longer made, but
the pans are hard anodized aluminum and magnesium alloy. They're similar to
Caphalon but with thicker metal they heat more evenly. Omelets slide right off
my omelet pan. No teflon or other crap of course. Just great
On Jan 30, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
We need a cookware thread. I like heavy copper-bottom stuff with no
non-stick surface.
I like medium-weight bottoms with a definite curve to them.
Oh wait, that would be another thread!
stan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Of course clarity isn't always necessary, but there are certainly occasions
when it is required. (I don't think I'll last long if I start sending soft
photos of cars to my auto clients.) Good equipment is necessary to deliver
everything that a photographer has to do. And better equipment -- as
Oh, now there's an insult...
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:46 AM, William Robb
anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/01/2011 10:19 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Steven Desjardins
If you have a Porsche you still have to drive it. It doesn't mean
that a better driver won't do better in the
On 11-01-27 12:23 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Too much clarity can spoil a shot. Very often you need to hide as much as you
reveal; submerge it in the shadows, unsaturate, untint or lower its contrast,
or defocus it; all reduce clarity.
Clarity:
From: Larry Colen
OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image
stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from
criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of
clarity.
Larry,
When you go out on a limb, be careful which side you're sawing off.
On 11-01-27 11:27 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Larry Colen
OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image
stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from
criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of
clarity.
Larry,
When you go out on a limb, be
My real objection is generalizations like equipment doesn't matter.
For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is
that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment
is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic
situation than lousy
On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:27 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Larry Colen
OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image
stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from
criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of
clarity.
Larry,
When you go out
From: Bob Sullivan
Oh, now there's an insult...
Nah! Sticks 'n stones ... Besides, I'm still better looking.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:46 AM, William Robb
anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/01/2011 10:19 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Steven Desjardins
If you have a Porsche
From: Larry Colen
On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:27 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Larry Colen
OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary.
Image stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden
from criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any
lack of clarity.
Larry,
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:05:54 -0800, Larry Colen wrote:
If I were more careful about what I said, my writing would be much less
interesting to read.
Now *that's* a Mark!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
On 23 January 2011 12:50, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
I'd rather have a lens that makes life worth living.
MARK!
—M.
\/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com
http://EnticingTheLight.com
A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On 11-01-27 12:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
My real objection is generalizations like equipment doesn't matter.
For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is
that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment
is far less likely to be inappropriate
On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
On 11-01-27 12:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
My real objection is generalizations like equipment doesn't matter.
For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is
that for a great majority it does make a difference.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Paul Stenquist
pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
On 11-01-27 12:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
My real objection is generalizations like equipment doesn't matter.
For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it
On Jan 27, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Paul Stenquist
pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
On 11-01-27 12:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
My real objection is generalizations like equipment
If I were more careful about what I said, my writing would be much less
interesting to read.
True for a lot of the 'Marks'
MARK!
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com
Subject: Re: What gear is on your
On 11-01-27 12:05 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
If I were more careful about what I said, my writing would be much less
interesting to read.
So you're saying that clarity is actually undesirable.
fx ricochet /fx
:-)
-bmw
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: What gear is on your short list?
On 11-01-27 12:05 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
If I were more careful about what I said, my writing would be much
On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:28 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
On 11-01-27 12:23 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
You and I differ on a definition then. I define lack of clarity by all of the
antonyms of clarity. You define lack of clarity as simply unsharp.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Paul Stenquist
pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
... You're right of course. I didn't meant to imply that I'd rather shoot
with a Barnack Leica. They're a pain. What I meant was that neither the Leica
nor the Fuji would serve me very well as a photographic tool,
On 11-01-27 5:13 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
What I suspect that you really mean is not that nothing in the photo
needs to be clear, but that not everything in the photo needs to be
clear. While I'm saying that while not everything in the photo needs
to be clear, the fast majority of the time,
On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
On 11-01-27 5:13 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
What I suspect that you really mean is not that nothing in the photo needs
to be clear, but that not everything in the photo needs to be clear. While
I'm saying that while not everything in the photo
On 11-01-27 5:13 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
one of the photos that I'm almost certainly going to submit to the annual:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/4603493834/in/set-72157625712393314/
I don't think that there is anything in the picture that is perfectly sharp,
although I think it would
On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
On 11-01-27 5:13 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
one of the photos that I'm almost certainly going to submit to the annual:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/4603493834/in/set-72157625712393314/
I don't think that there is anything in the picture
On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:43 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Paul Stenquist
pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
... You're right of course. I didn't meant to imply that I'd rather shoot
with a Barnack Leica. They're a pain. What I meant was that neither the
Leica nor
On 28 January 2011 11:46, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I'm having a hard time picking my third one. I want something significantly
different. One of my absolute favorites is a rather edgy profile of a model
licking a chainmail leash, but I'm pretty sure that it's a bit too edgy for
On Jan 27, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 28 January 2011 11:46, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I'm having a hard time picking my third one. I want something significantly
different. One of my absolute favorites is a rather edgy profile of a model
licking a chainmail
On 28 January 2011 12:47, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I sort of figure that the photos should be suitable for the children's cancer
ward that it's raising money for.
So it's really up to the individuals discretion, the images I'm
referring to I could show (and have) to my 4 yo but
From: Steven Desjardins
I am what I am and that's all what I am - Popeye the Sailor ;-)
Well, that clears one thing up. It always sounded to me like he was
saying I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam.
Never could figure out what that had to do with spinach.
the yam is a
I'm always impressed by how you guys can put a spin on the pun itch.
Jostein
2011/1/26 Bob W p...@web-options.com:
From: Steven Desjardins
I am what I am and that's all what I am - Popeye the Sailor ;-)
Well, that clears one thing up. It always sounded to me like he was
saying I yam
It's not that it matters all that much but I do have to practice these
why equipment matters arguments to use on my wife.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:50 AM, AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm always impressed by how you guys can put a spin on the pun itch.
Jostein
2011/1/26 Bob W
On 11-01-25 7:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Better equipment won't make you a better photographer, and one can argue that
equipment that is too good at doing everything automatically can interfere with
you becoming a better photographer. And while a good photographer can get great
pictures with
Equipment upgrades can definitely improve the quality and efficiency of one's
work. For example, the much improved metering of the K-7 made it a much better
tool than the K20. Likewise, the improved autofocus and low- light noise levels
of the K-5 make it a better tool than the K-7. I shot some
On 1/26/2011 1:33 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 1/26/2011 12:12 AM, Bob W wrote:
Hmm. That would not be photography. Photography is the _direct_
action of
light on the film / sensor. It would be photography if you replaced your
retina with Velvia.
B
I thought retina (tm) was some kind of
So a retina (about 1100 mm^2) is bigger than FF (864 mm^2)?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:02 PM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/26/2011 1:33 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 1/26/2011 12:12 AM, Bob W wrote:
Hmm. That would not be photography. Photography is the _direct_ action
On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
On 11-01-25 7:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Better equipment won't make you a better photographer, and one can argue
that equipment that is too good at doing everything automatically can
interfere with you becoming a better photographer. And
On 11-01-26 1:37 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
On 11-01-25 7:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Better equipment won't make you a better photographer, and one can argue that
equipment that is too good at doing everything automatically can interfere with
you
From: Boris Liberman
On 1/26/2011 12:12 AM, Bob W wrote:
Hmm. That would not be photography. Photography is the _direct_ action of
light on the film / sensor. It would be photography if you replaced your
retina with Velvia.
B
I thought retina (tm) was some kind of display technology /wink
On 27 January 2011 11:16, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I beg to differ, and offer just a few from an innumerable list of excellent
images with little or no clarity. These shots are not mine--all taken from
Flickr ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548
Most of these images rely on an element of clarity in a diffuse field.
Awesome shots, BTW, I really like that face and the wharf/dock.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11-01-26 1:37 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Bruce Walker
1 - 100 of 252 matches
Mail list logo
