Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / June 2007
Odditoria
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Nicholas O. Lindan - 27 May 2007 01:32 GMT For those, like me, who like -odd- images, I have come across a site that collects the stuff, vast quantities of the stuff. A few samples:
http://www.filemagazine.com/thecollection/archives/2007/02/harrier.html
http://www.filemagazine.com/thecollection/archives/2007/02/untitled_201.html
http://www.filemagazine.com/thecollection/archives/2007/02/burning_inside.html
 Signature Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
Duncan Chesley - 27 May 2007 01:44 GMT >For those, like me, who like -odd- images, I have come >across a site that collects the stuff, vast quantities >of the stuff. Thanks Nicholas! I love it!
Cheers, DuncanC
Paul Furman - 27 May 2007 03:40 GMT > For those, like me, who like -odd- images, I have come > across a site that collects the stuff, vast quantities > of the stuff. A few samples: > > http://www.filemagazine.com/thecollection/archives/2007/02/harrier.html Nice. Thanks!
JimKramer - 27 May 2007 12:51 GMT > For those, like me, who like -odd- images, I have come > across a site that collects the stuff, vast quantities [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Metershttp://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com What ever happend to Lewis Lang? He would have loved tha site.
m II - 27 May 2007 22:45 GMT >> For those, like me, who like -odd- images, I have come >> across a site that collects the stuff, vast quantities [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What ever happend to Lewis Lang? He would have loved tha site. That reminds me...Where is Tony Spadaro?
mike
JimKramer - 27 May 2007 23:46 GMT > >> For those, like me, who like -odd- images, I have come > >> across a site that collects the stuff, vast quantities [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > mike Tony, last I heard, three-four months ago; is still living in NC. His eyes got really bad and he's pretty much given up photography and is now working on his music.
Jim
m II - 28 May 2007 03:34 GMT >> That reminds me...Where is Tony Spadaro?
> Tony, last I heard, three-four months ago; is still living in NC. His > eyes got really bad and he's pretty much given up photography and is > now working on his music. I'm sorry to hear that. We had fun trying to sell him on eBay.
mike
contaxman@aol.com - 29 May 2007 22:40 GMT > > >> For those, like me, who like -odd- images, I have come > > >> across a site that collects the stuff, vast quantities [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'm sorry to hear about his eyes/the photography. I hopehis music is fullfilling. I miss him/his keen sensitivity and vocal presence on this newsgroup.
Lewis
Alan Browne - 28 May 2007 16:55 GMT > What ever happend to Lewis Lang? He would have loved tha site. He got tired of the crap.
 Signature -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
contaxman@aol.com - 29 May 2007 22:42 GMT On May 28, 11:55 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > What ever happend to Lewis Lang? He would have loved tha site. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Still am (tired of the crap/trolling) :-) ;-).
Regards,
Lewis
contaxman@aol.com - 29 May 2007 22:38 GMT > > For those, like me, who like -odd- images, I have come > > across a site that collects the stuff, vast quantities [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What ever happend to Lewis Lang? He would have loved tha site. Floating in cyber space where only the air is thinner than the sanity ;-)
Thanks for thinking of me :-).
I don't re-interpret traditional genres, I am my own untraditional genre and I'm not odd (or odd for odd's sake) - only me. What little I have seen of the site seems fun but it seems more of an oddness for oddness sake kind of thing/style rather than "vision".
As for myyself, I'm still shooting 35mm film (mainly Kodacolor 200, Velvia 100F (wish I had this stuff back in the eighties - really sharp and fine grained though I wish its darker blues were more brighter (contrast slightly high, saturation it has in spades) and E100VS (when I can afford the slide film stuff) though my more recent work is a strange admixture of surrealism, photojournalism, portraiture that resembeles these genres only vaguely - in other words it is thoroughly me :-).
I don't exhibit any more (haven't since the 20th century, though it feels more like since the 19th century -- did I see Stieglitz chimping? ;-)).
My Contax "system" recently "died" on me during a shoot in a swimming pool that got a little to close to the water (but I more than have the feeling the shutter gave out way before then b/c a flash shoot I did w/ the camera also had shutter problems). I am wont to send it to Germany for repair (time and money) and I'll probably just end up getting another used somewheres. Happy to shoot Pentax with its fantastical 50mm f/1.4 M lens bokeh (blows out backgrounds like an air brush/water color brush). If I do get another Contax I have my heart set on a 50mm f/1.7 (whose bokeh I've heard is better than the 1.4 version - I'll have to research this on Flickr/elesewhere).
Don't even show my post 1998-present shots online - only friends get to see it in person. I am not a charity and have funded too many years of gallery/museum/fine art shows so either people will see my work in print (where I can get paid for it) or not at all. Either way, as always, I'll shoot for myself.
As for the future of film, I don't care (to an extent) - I have a feeling it (film) will always be there in one form or another and I believe the evaporation of the film using/buying public has gone from precipitous drop to levelled off horizontal skydiving skimming the ground at low altitude (a stable amount of die hard users who are, or at least seem to be more serious about their photography whether personal, commercial or fine art) - I'll shoot film as long as its there (and even when its not so long as I can et my hands on it some way) I am messy enough as it is and have neither the patience nor the capitol/capital for canvas/tubes of paint. I love the look of film. On video, er, digital, the highlights blow out abruptly (reminds me of posterized white out blobs), in film the highlights "blow out" are more gradated and the color/tonal subtleties/transitions just appear more "luscious"/rich to me (for lack of a better term) plus I want my originals to outlast me and my full frame Pentax lenses work at their denominated focal lengths which suits me just fine for my ultra wide angle zoom 20-35 and 50/1.4 (I have a 70-300 Sigma but rarely use it even though it has beautiful bokeh) - plus I hate the look of skin under harsh direct sunlight no matter how well flash-filled the skin looks fake/mannequinn-like and the specular highlights look not only nuclear but flat/paper white - in other words, digital looks antiseptic "clinically dead" to me. There are more minuses than pluses for digital to me. The results I get from film (35mm and other formats) are simply more satisfying to me (though I do realise that for some PJ and commercial work digital has its place/purpose/uses).
Enough of my raving/ranting.
Just wanted to say that the rumors of my (and film's) demise are greatly exagerrated :-).
"Lemon Wacky Hello"/Regards to (almost - except for the trolls) all,
Lewis
Ken Nadvornick - 30 May 2007 03:40 GMT "Lewis" wrote:
> Floating in cyber space where only the air is thinner than the > sanity ;-) [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > "Lemon Wacky Hello"/Regards to (almost - except for the trolls) all, Ahh... Lewis. Had I any money and knew you were lurking so close by, I would have *paid* you to ship something off to the SI Odditorium for display to the rest of we misfits. Verne DeWitt would have been beside himself... <g>
Good to read a post from you. Makes me think of better times gone by on this NG.
Ken
P.S. Kodachrome fresh-out-of-the-can still smells wonderful...
contaxman@aol.com - 31 May 2007 19:30 GMT On May 29, 10:40 pm, "Ken Nadvornick" <register.nad...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Lewis" wrote: > > Floating in cyber space where only the air is thinner than the [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > would have *paid* you to ship something off to the SI Odditorium for display > to the rest of we misfits. Thanks for the thought, though...
Verne DeWitt would have been beside himself...
> <g> Who's Verne DeWitt and why would he be beside himself?
> Good to read a post from you. Thanks :-)
Makes me think of better times gone by on
> this NG. > > Ken Roll back the clock 2-7 years - there were so many fine photographers/ afficianado/mindss on this newsgroup -- now it has become a bit of a wasteland :-(
> P.S. Kodachrome fresh-out-of-the-can still smells wonderful... And fresh out of the foil wrapper too (Kodachrome Super 8 movie film in the foil wrapper smelled better than any fine Cuban cigar - my apologies to any Cubans, cigars, and/or Cuban cigars but its true) :-)
Pudentame - 31 May 2007 21:10 GMT > Who's Verne DeWitt and why would he be beside himself? Split personality?
Ken Nadvornick - 05 Jun 2007 06:42 GMT "The One And Only Lewis" wrote:
> Who's Verne DeWitt and why would he be beside himself? Why, the original owner, proprietor, performer and ringmaster of _The_Odditorium_&_Wax_Museum_ featuring _Objects_De-Art_&_De-Odd_ , located in the tiny town of Duvall, Washington state. Inspiration for SI Mandate #105. And a helluva nice guy...
"Admission is free, you pays to get out." -- Verne DeWitt
http://www.pbase.com/ganks/image/1236422
Ken
Annika1980 - 30 May 2007 04:00 GMT On May 29, 5:38 pm, contax...@aol.com wrote:
> Don't even show my post 1998-present shots online - only friends get > to see it in person. I am not a charity and have funded too many years > of gallery/museum/fine art shows so either people will see my work in > print (where I can get paid for it) or not at all. Either way, as > always, I'll shoot for myself. Hey Lang, if idiosyncrasy was talent you'd be HCB. However, I've always found your photos to be far below the level of your inflated opinion of yourself. I'm sure you have taken great pix in the past 9 years .... its just that we aren't worthy to view them. Whatever.
You remind me of the guy at the golf course who played all week by himself. He came in after each round and bragged, "I shot 68 today," or "Today I fired a 66." On Saturday he played with the usual weekend group and shot his usal 85. I said, "A little tougher playin with people, ain't it?"
"All hat and no cattle" as they say down in Texas.
contaxman@aol.com - 31 May 2007 20:12 GMT On May 29, 11:00 pm, SpAmmika1980 <SpAmmika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 5:38 pm, contax...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hey Lang, if idiosyncrasy was talent you'd be HCB. Hey ____, thanks, coming from a ____ like you that means alot! ("____" means insert your favorite word or thumb up your *ss/foot in your mouth as usual). HCB? Then you can call me Hank, LOL. Then isn't it a good thing I have both (idiosynhrastic vision and talent) and you have neither then, isn't it?
If idiocy was talent, you'd actually have some talent.
> However, I've always found your photos to be far below the level of > your inflated opinion of yourself. Funny how you accuse me of what you actually _ARE_ - all oh-how-ho-ver- inflated opinion and no talent.
Jealous much/always?
Found? Found? When it comes to judging the worth of _anybody's_ photography you couldn't find the battleship good photography if it were as large as the Queen Mary, inserted up your mouth/a.s (you choose which sine with you they're both one and the same) and surgically tied to your brain/belly button with Alfred Stieglitz' cable release and a life saver for a shutter button that said "press here dummy". LOL
Get real, your work aspires to scrape the pimple on the underbelly of mediocre stock photography, you boast about your cameras and smother this newsgroup with self-aggrandizing links to your mindless snapshot efforts then have the nerve to call me self-inflated? As the Hakowees would say about your hot air posts/ego infecting usenet... "IT IS (CAN- OOOOOON) BA-LLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOON!" I have the work, past and present (of which others may see but you will never see on this newsgroup because it is _YOU_ who are unworthy, not the "we" you refer to) that shows a mind and a vision. Just like your mouth your pictures say nothing. Your work at best shouts "I love to fire off both a shutter and my mouth at 8+MP at 5 f.p.s. with about the same lack of thought." Don't lump yourself with anybody else in this group. THERE IS NO "WE" just trolls like you and decent folk _UN_LIKE _YOU_ who want to rise beyond your level of high-tech snapshot mediocrity.
I'm sure you have taken great pix
> in the past 9 years .... <LYING (AND/OR AN ASSUMPTION AT BEST USED FOR) PATRONIZING SARCASM LEADING UP TO...>
its just that we aren't worthy to view them.
> Whatever. <...A NON-SEQUITOR/LOGICAL FALLACY OF TOTAL REVERSE SNOBBING TWISTED STUPIDITY INTO FALSE GUILT/SYMPATHY -- IN OTHER WORDS, MORE TROLLING>
"Whatever" yourself.
Anybody (who's sincere and not a troll and/or a blowhard) can see them in person, just _NOT_ _YOU_ - EVER!!!
Worthy or not, I show my work to people I care about, and people who have or at least are willing to express sensitivity, not mouth- crapping camera slapping total oral a.ses and camera/sports nerd blowhards like yourself.
Again, there is no "WE", just trolls/a.ses, you in particular and your kind (other trolls/a.ses which have infested usenet w/ your b.s.), of which you are the very definition of one/both, neither of whom will ever see my work, so thanks for both giving an example and proving my point simultaneously. I don't show pearls before swine, and you may consider yourself for all intents and purposes in the latter category Spammika with your own over-inflated opinion of yourself and your pointless work, your mindless trolling and your spamming of rec.photo.equipment.35mm by turning it into the Mickey Mouse Tiger Woods Canon Camera Club of Cyberspace extension of your bloated talentless ego with your viral self-replicating sub-mediocre sub par stock shot snapshots skat imagery bebopping of hawks, golf, dogs and other mindless snapshot ephemera.
> You remind me of the guy at the golf course who played all week by > himself. You remind me of a fat bloated talentless rank amature little boy turd with a camera whose made cyberspace his ego's playground because nobody with any self-respect or respect for the art or craft of photography would want to be around.
He came in after each round and bragged, "I shot 68 today,"
> or "Today I fired a 66." On Saturday he played with the usual weekend > group and shot his usal 85. > I said, "A little tougher playin with people, ain't it?" Pot, kettle, black. What a maroon you are. You really are worse than ignorant aren't you?
"Got photography?"
"A little tougher making real photographs, not just play'n around with oyur mouth and the shutter button, ain't it?"
All you do is play. Its the photographer not the equipment that counts. All that equipment and what do you have to show for it? - a mouth and a motor-drive stuck in air sucking mode and a baziilopixels worth of meaningless snapshots."Craptography" Your playing is just that, just mindless exposing - shot after shot of barely technically competent crap. Instead of playing with people or your equipment why don't you try getting a mind and doing some real photography that transcends an exercise in adding to more than the mountain of meaningless pixels upon which to place the golden calf of your camera/ ego-posting - stop taking snapshots and start taking real shots. Photographyg to you is nothing more than a sport/a game - that's why you will be forever playing and making snapshots instead of art.
What have you done that's worthwhile except rearrange pixels in the form of hot air posts with links to mediocre snapshot imagery with or without people you blowhard schill for a camera company to mask your own complete lack of anyrhing that resembles talent?? Where are the Fabulous Spammika articles, the Fabulous Spammika books? All you do is create newsgroup and camera bullshit. Go play with people, play with your cameras sports nerd, you have the perfect mentality for "playing" since all you do is b.s.
Fetch Brettie! Fetch the doggie biscuit you just made out of your mouth/a.s. That's a good doggie. Knew ya could. Taste bad? Add some more b.s. for flavor. Now that's yummy for your tummy!
Its funny (as in strangely appropriate) that you use a golf analogy since your work is sub-par and somewhere between the level of an amature with rectal cranal inversion digititus and the lowest level of Royalty free stock photography. I'd say go inhale yourself but you are already so full of hot air (and yourself) that you'd either float up like the hot air balloon that you are explode like a bottle rocket.
As for playing with people I don't see your work publish anywhere except the imaginary fifedom of cyberspace and your own mind.
> "All hat and no cattle" as they say down in Texas. How fitting, as to your own supercalifragilistically expeallodocious something quite atrocious "work" and over-inflated opinion of your own work I consider you "All hat and All Bovine droppings All the time". "The Cat that Shat in the Hat." Green eggs and Spammika.
You are the king of "All hat no cattle" as you have nothing but mediocre snapshots - H.L.O.M., to be precise ("Highest Level of Mediocrity") to show for all your blunderbussing and all the talent of a trigger happy mindless snapshooting amature. You are all mouth and equipment and no talent beyond the mere operation of your equipment as your work (as well as your numerous posts) shows this in spades, so when you accuse me of what _YOU_ ACTUALLY_ ARE_ I consider it a high if unintentional complement as it proves that what you accuse me of is what you are all about - an over-inflated opinion of yourself.
Your work will never transcend the mundane because the mind it comes from is so mundane and lost in the mindless muck stage of ego-bloated equipment worship and the conceptual/symboloic level of your shots doesn't transcend beyond the level of mere skat-shooting camera operator chimpanzee-level simulcrum replication/mimicry of whatever unfortunate mundane subject in the world is in front of your lens. KoKo (or its descendants) the gorilla could do an equal job if given a fabulous AF camera as opposed to an old MF Olympus. (My apologies to KoKo and/or its descendants as well as any thoughtful/intelligent chimpanzee photographers if it thinks that I have in any way demeaned their photographic prowess too far by being compared with a lower order of photographic devolution such as Spammika).
In other words. You are all equipment and ego. You lack vision. And what you lack in vision you uselessly try to make up for by posting inane snapshots and bloated self-aggrandizingly titled posts. You are all sight (or shite. might be a better desciption) and no insight and both your way way way below par work and hyper-inflated equipment and subject worshipping posts only prove this ever the more.
The years have not changed you. You are as Boss Hogg (Dukes of Hazard) as ever. You are still the same fat ego-bloated talentless hacky sack of an equipment fetishistic hot air ballon you were 5 years ago when you were shooting film and spouting the same b.s. (pixels and/or posts) with different Canon cameras.
Go back to worshipping your equipment and posting your mediocrity and drivel -- your fabulous Canons are getting lonely. Stick to pixels as it avoids the global warming that takes place had you spoken with your own deliriously over-inflated ego/breath or digital mindless meaningless abortions of aspiring to scrape the underbelly/anus of mediocrity.
I have no respect for you either as a "photographer" or a human being so your opinion, even if it wasn't biased by a desire to put my work down in order to lift your own lacking work up (as if your hot air didn't already accomplish that) is both specious and worthless at best. To paraphrase Churchhill, never have so many owed so much nausea (from bloated newsgroup bellowing using equipment/ego-worship as a form of self-glorification/crutch and posted links of mediocre snapshots) to so few intimations of any talent.
Oh yeah and...
P*L*O*N*K
Hoooooooooooeeeeeeeeee, LOOK OUT BELOW!!!! as Spammika's hot air of self-aggrandizing B.S. comes a swooping down like a deluge of mindless photos Harry the Hawk and other crapshot photos!!!!
Y'all don't come back down now, ya heeeyah?! Yeehaaaaaawwwwwww!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++
You are now on *****TOTAL PERMANENT _IGNORE_*****. Go play with your hawks, doggies, cheerleaders and golf buddies and go add to Canon's profit line since you can't/are unwilling to add anything beyond snapshots and egotistically titled camera worshipping posts. To paraphrase Edward R. Murrow... "Goodbye and good riddance to bad rubbish!" "Lameikka"
=============================================================================
That_Rich - 31 May 2007 11:37 GMT >On May 29, 11:00 pm, SpAmmika1980 <SpAmmika1...@aol.com> wrote: >> On May 29, 5:38 pm, contax...@aol.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 219 lines] > >============================================================================= Welcome back Lewis.... I need a fix of LewisVision :)
As always, some wonderfully accurate insight / truisms in the above post.
Cheers,
RP© - www.pbase.com/that_rich
contaxman@aol.com - 01 Jun 2007 21:40 GMT > >On May 29, 11:00 pm, SpAmmika1980 <SpAmmika1...@aol.com> wrote: > >> On May 29, 5:38 pm, contax...@aol.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 229 lines] > RP© > -www.pbase.com/that_rich Thanks for the welcome back and the complements, Rich. While I may be sorry for _some_ of the harshness of the words I use, I'm not sorry for the intent of defending my photographic work and personhood against the don't have aleg to stand on/baseless false attacks of Spammika. I don't mind genuine criticism, but anybody who calls me "all hat" will have to eat their hats - in other words (not to you but to trolls) "don't poke the bear!", LOL.
Regards,
Lewis
John McWilliams - 01 Jun 2007 23:39 GMT > Thanks for the welcome back and the complements, Rich. While I may be > sorry for _some_ of the harshness of the words I use, I'm not sorry [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "all hat" will have to eat their hats - in other words (not to you but > to trolls) "don't poke the bear!", LOL. Fair enough. Would you consider trimming replies in the future?
 Signature john mcwilliams
contaxman@aol.com - 02 Jun 2007 00:25 GMT > Fair enough. Would you consider trimming replies in the future? > > -- > john mcwilliams No problem, consider it done :-)
Regards,
Lewis
Annika1980 - 02 Jun 2007 02:17 GMT > I don't mind genuine criticism, Yeah, I could tell. You're still a sensitive Sally.
>but anybody who calls me > "all hat" will have to eat their hats - in other words (not to you but > to trolls) "don't poke the bear!", LOL. You may have work exhibited in all the finest galleries of the world, but until you link us to some of it you are still all hat and no cattle. Mr. Big Talk. Uses lots of words, repeats the same thing 10 times, can't spell for sh.t, and afraid to show his own work.
Frank ess - 31 May 2007 21:28 GMT > On May 29, 11:00 pm, SpAmmika1980 <SpAmmika1...@aol.com> wrote: >> On May 29, 5:38 pm, contax...@aol.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hey ____, thanks, coming from a ____ like you that means alot! [ snippage has occurred ] ====================
I can see why they missed you.
 Signature Frank ess
Annika1980 - 02 Jun 2007 02:37 GMT On May 31, 3:12 pm, contax...@aol.com wrote:
>Then isn't it a > good thing I have both (idiosynhrastic vision and talent) and you have > neither then, isn't it? Mama said, "Toot your own horn. Nobody else will."
>I have the work, past and present > (of which others may see but you will never see on this newsgroup > because it is _YOU_ who are unworthy, not the "we" you refer to) that > shows a mind and a vision. Gay guys wearing diapers. Impressive. http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll2.htm
> Anybody (who's sincere and not a troll and/or a blowhard) can see them > in person, just _NOT_ _YOU_ - EVER!!! If I want to see gay guys wearing diapers I'll crash your next scat party. Or join the Catholic Church.
> Worthy or not, I show my work to people I care about, and people who > have or at least are willing to express sensitivity, not mouth- > crapping camera slapping total oral a.ses and camera/sports nerd > blowhards like yourself. Hmmmm ... more scatalogical references. Crapping, oral, a.ses, blowhards, ..... Sounds like gay guys wearing diapers.
> "Got photography?" > > "A little tougher making real photographs, not just play'n around with > oyur mouth and the shutter button, ain't it?" What are "real photographs?" Oh, you mean like gay guys wearing diapers, maybe?
> Its funny (as in strangely appropriate) that you use a golf analogy > since your work is sub-par and somewhere between the level of an > amature with rectal cranal inversion digititus and the lowest level of > Royalty free stock photography. That may or may not be true, but the difference between me and you is that I am improving and I'm not afraid to show my work. Oh yeah, and the gay guys wearing diapers thing.
> As for playing with people I don't see your work publish anywhere > except the imaginary fifedom of cyberspace and your own mind. And your work would be where? In your bathroom? Viewed by hundreds of .... let me guess .... gay guys wearing diapers??
> > "All hat and no cattle" as they say down in Texas. > > How fitting, as to your own supercalifragilistically expeallodocious > something quite atrocious "work" and over-inflated opinion of your own > work I consider you "All hat and All Bovine droppings All the time". > "The Cat that Shat in the Hat." Green eggs and Spammika. More sh.t jokes. Can't get enough chocolate, Louise?
> In other words. You are all equipment and ego. You lack vision. Perhaps. I've always been more right-brained than left-brained ... more analytical than creative. But just because you create something wacky (like gay guys wearing diapers, for example) that doesn't make it good or even "art."
>I have no respect for you either as a "photographer" or a human being I am f.cking crushed!
bob hickey - 03 Jun 2007 14:32 GMT > On May 29, 11:00 pm, SpAmmika1980 <SpAmmika1...@aol.com> wrote: underbelly/anus of ============================================================================ =
So, Lewis, don't hold back; waddaya really think? Bob Hickey
contaxman@aol.com - 05 Jun 2007 01:45 GMT > <contax...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So, Lewis, don't hold back; waddaya really think? > Bob Hickey Me thinks Spammika is a brain fart that imploded and too stupid for words and I'm glad he's on ignore :-).
ZZZZZZZZZZZWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPP! - Now where did he go??? LOL :-)
contaxman@aol.com - 29 May 2007 22:45 GMT > For those, like me, who like -odd- images, I have come > across a site that collects the stuff, vast quantities [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Metershttp://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com Thanks for the links, Nicholas. One of them reminds me of a(n incomplete) surreal shot I did back in 2000.
Regards,
Lewis
|
|
|