 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / July 2007Ping: Annika
Instead of bating the Aussie idiot why don'y you contemplate this: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3283127&size=lg and shutup until you beat it. >Instead of bating the Aussie idiot why don'y you contemplate this: > >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3283127&size=lg > >and shutup until you beat it. Heck, that should be easy for "The Best Nature Photographer in the World Using a 20D". Great photo. RP© On Jul 14, 9:34 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > Instead of bating the Aussie idiot why don'y you contemplate this: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3283127&size=lg > > and shutup until you beat it. Looks like a studio shot. I'd have posed the birds toward the camera. > On Jul 14, 9:34 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Looks like a studio shot. You're wrong. On Jul 14, 2:22 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > >>http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3283127&size=lg > > Looks like a studio shot. > > You're wrong. No I'm not. It DOES look like a studio shot. > On Jul 14, 2:22 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No I'm not. It DOES look like a studio shot. Yes, you're wrong. It looks like a very sharp shot with a shallow DOF and smooth OOF BG. It happens thusly: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6046398&size=lg outdoor with the BG dead grass just smoothed to oblivion. Cheers, Alan  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. >>>>Looks like a studio shot. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6046398&size=lg outdoor with > the BG dead grass just smoothed to oblivion. I agree with Annika...it's not the depth of field or background that makes this appear to be a studio shot, it's the lighting. > >>>>Looks like a studio shot. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I agree with Annika...it's not the depth of field or background that makes > this appear to be a studio shot, it's the lighting. Agreed. The lighting is the dead give away that this is a stuido shot. I think Softboxes or umbrellas were used. Possibly this can be detected in the bird's eyes. Helen On Jul 14, 4:28 pm, helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > >>>>Looks like a studio shot. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > detected in the bird's eyes. > Helen Sorry my wrist is acting up today, I sprained it. I meant "studio". > Agreed. The lighting is the dead give away that this is a stuido > shot. I think Softboxes or umbrellas were used. Possibly this can be > detected in the bird's eyes. It's called proper use of fill flash. Rita >>>>> Looks like a studio shot. >>>> You're wrong. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I agree with Annika...it's not the depth of field or background that makes > this appear to be a studio shot, it's the lighting. Be specific. It's very odd that other shots that Bret posted today have a similar smooth, obfuscated OOF BG. 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. > I agree with Annika...it's not the depth of field or background that makes > this appear to be a studio shot, it's the lighting. Exactly. The OOF background does not concern me. That's common with a large aperture. However, catchlights in both bird's eyes on opposite sides gives the impression of two light sources. Of course, he could have Phtoshopped them in. Also, it would appear the the primary light source is from the right, with fill flash used on the left. Note the lack of shadows except in the small area between the birds. It's a very nice look that one might see in a studio, but would never see outdoors in the wild. I have the same reaction when I view many professional hummingbird shots. These are usually taken in outdoor studios with multiple lighting setups. While these pics can look lovely with great colors, they don't look at all natural. Most macro shots also have that same limitation. Flash is required at those magnifications so about all one can do is to try to minimize the "flash look." Very difficult to do without building some sort of outdoor diffused lighting tent for the macros. > The OOF background does not concern me. That's common with a large > aperture. However, catchlights in both bird's eyes on opposite sides > gives the impression of two light sources. Of course, he could have > Phtoshopped them in. <SNIP> This all sounds like a bunch of poor excuses and sour grapes made by a person that lacks the skills to pull off the same level of photographic competency. Keep practicing and one day you will reach this level. If not, you can always Photoshop it. Rita On Jul 15, 7:55 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > > The OOF background does not concern me. That's common with a large > > aperture. However, catchlights in both bird's eyes on opposite sides [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > competency. Keep practicing and one day you will reach this level. If not, > you can always Photoshop it. Poor excuses for what? I thought it was a nice pic. My skill level has nothing to do with it. You insecure bastards are the ones trying to make it into some sort of competition between my pics and that guy's pic. Hell, I can search the internet and find lots of photos better than the ones I take, so what? I do what I can with what I got. And the bottom line is that I strive to improve all the time. Just like in golf, I'll never be as good as Tiger Woods, but that doesn't mean I can't strive to get better. Don't be such a playa hater. On Jul 15, 7:55 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > Annika1980 wrote: > > The OOF background does not concern me. That's common with a large [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > not, > you can always Photoshop it. Poor excuses for what? I thought it was a nice pic. My skill level has nothing to do with it. You insecure bastards are the ones trying to make it into some sort of competition between my pics and that guy's pic. Hell, I can search the internet and find lots of photos better than the ones I take, so what? I do what I can with what I got. And the bottom line is that I strive to improve all the time. Just like in golf, I'll never be as good as Tiger Woods, but that doesn't mean I can't strive to get better. Don't be such a playa hater. ----------- Now that's what I call a sweet reply. Rita, I'm jealous of you now. All I ever get is a load of insults and Doug gets even worse from him. How do you find Such finesse in your wording? JA SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Now that's what I call a sweet reply. > Rita, I'm jealous of you now. All I ever get is a load of insults and > Doug gets even worse from him. How do you find Such finesse in your > wording? I like Bret and there's no need for bad blood between us. He's a good guy that likes to have fun as I do. We don't take each other seriously and it keeps us on our toes. Rita >> This all sounds like a bunch of poor excuses and sour grapes made by >> a person that lacks the skills to pull off the same level of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to make it into some sort of competition between my pics and that > guy's pic. From reading what you posted I didn't see any compliments coming from you. Maybe you thought it was a nice pic in your own sweet way? > Hell, I can search the internet and find lots of photos > better than the ones I take, so what? I do what I can with what I > got. And the bottom line is that I strive to improve all the time. > Just like in golf, I'll never be as good as Tiger Woods, but that > doesn't mean I can't strive to get better. Yep! Practice, practice, practice. > Don't be such a playa hater. Me hate a playa? No way! One thing I learned about playa's is they will always be playa's and stay in one spot while the world passes them by. Playa's come and go and are forgotten much quicker than they come. Rita On Jul 15, 6:40 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > > Hell, I can search the internet and find lots of photos > > better than the ones I take, so what? I do what I can with what I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yep! Practice, practice, practice. I shot a 71 today in only my 4th round of golf this year. Had 4 birdies on the back-9. Who needs practice? I think photography is similar to most sports, however. The more you do it the better you become. Unless you're an Aussie retard, of course. > I think photography is similar to most sports, however. The more > you do it the better you become. Unless you're an Aussie retard, > of course. I starting to wince when I see this. Not all Aussies are retards, OK? >> I think photography is similar to most sports, however. The more >> you do it the better you become. Unless you're an Aussie retard, >> of course. > > I starting to wince when I see this. Not all Aussies are retards, OK? "an Aussie retard" -singular. When I brought up the notion, I had a specific retard in mind, and I'm sure you know which specific one. 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. >>> I think photography is similar to most sports, however. The more >>> you do it the better you become. Unless you're an Aussie retard, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "an Aussie retard" -singular. No need for sarcasm. > When I brought up the notion, I had a specific retard in mind, > and I'm sure you know which specific one. Repetition of a phrase creates an association between the words. E.g. if only the first moron to say "safe haven" had taken a moment to think ... Not all Aussies are retards, OK? > Not all Aussies are retards, OK? I never said so. I used the singular. I must say, that with reflection, comparing "the Aussie retard" to people who are mentally retarded is a terrible insult to the mentally retarded everywhere. Therefore I apologize to the mentally retarded for my careless statement. Cheers, Alan. 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. >> Not all Aussies are retards, OK? > > I never said so. I never suggested you did. > I used the singular. I never suggested you didn't. > I must say, that with reflection, comparing "the Aussie retard" to people > who are mentally retarded is a terrible insult to the mentally retarded > everywhere. LOL. OK. Just stop saying "Aussie retard" (everyone), unless you want to spend the rest of your life thinking retard whenever you hear "Aussie". > Therefore I apologize to the mentally retarded for my careless statement. Accepted. :-) >>> Not all Aussies are retards, OK? >> I never said so. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Accepted. :-) Aren't all Aussies retarded? By about 10 hours? >>>> Not all Aussies are retards, OK? >>> I never said so. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > By about 10 hours? Oops! Just thought that through. It's us that are retarded. But the Americans more so by 5-8 hours. Doh! >>>> Not all Aussies are retards, OK? >>> I never said so. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > By about 10 hours? Nope, the exact opposite. Only places like eastern Russia and NZ are further advanced than us. I don't know where you are, but according to the timezone maps I can find, no-one is more retarded than the USA. We're so far advanced from them that it's usually already tomorrow here. >>>>> Not all Aussies are retards, OK? >>>> I never said so. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > :-D Yeah I immediately realised my stupid error as I let go of the send button. And I deal with people around the world every day, too. Doh! >>> Aren't all Aussies retarded? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And I deal with people around the world every day, too. Doh! If you are in the Northern Hemisphere, you're upside-down all the time, and the blood pools in yer head. >>>> Not all Aussies are retards, OK? >>> I never said so. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > By about 10 hours? No. They are earlier by several hours.....When the sun is overhead in the US, it hasn't risen yet in Australia......... > Just stop saying "Aussie retard" (everyone)..... Yeah, I hate redundancy, too. >> Just stop saying "Aussie retard" (everyone)..... > > Yeah, I hate redundancy, too. LOL. Nasty! :-) >>> I think photography is similar to most sports, however. The more >>> you do it the better you become. Unless you're an Aussie retard, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "an Aussie retard" -singular. When I brought up the notion, I had a > specific retard in mind, and I'm sure you know which specific one. It's all right Alan... Wilba is just super sensitive about his affliction. You'll probably get a lot of replies from upset aus.photo contributors. There's a 20 year wait on the operation you know? They get a little sensitive when someone talks about their mother like you did without being specific. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> I think photography is similar to most sports, however. The more >> you do it the better you become. Unless you're an Aussie retard, >> of course. > > I starting to wince when I see this. Not all Aussies are retards, OK? Of course we all know they are not just because we had a bad sample. (And if it was the case his sentence would then become a tautology.) Michel On Jul 15, 6:40 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > From reading what you posted I didn't see any compliments coming from you. > Maybe you thought it was a nice pic in your own sweet way? I said it looked like a studio shot. That's about the highest praise a wildlife pic can get. Unless of course, it is a studio shot. Then Alan said that one of my pics looked like a studio shot. I thanked him for the compliment. Then he called D-Mac an Aussie retard. That was cool. > I said it looked like a studio shot. That's about the highest praise > a wildlife pic can get. Hardly. A wildlife pic should give the viewer a sense of the location, environment... > Unless of course, it is a studio shot. > Then Alan said that one of my pics looked like a studio shot. > I thanked him for the compliment. It wasn't a compliment - it was to show you why the other image is just as likely to be a non-studio shot... just full of fine, contrasty detail. > Then he called D-Mac an Aussie retard. That was cool. I didn't call anyone specific a retard. Your reading comprehension level is fairly low, however. 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. >> I said it looked like a studio shot. That's about the highest praise >> a wildlife pic can get. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Your reading comprehension level is fairly low, however. That matches his intelligence. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ... >> Then he called D-Mac an Aussie retard. That was cool. > > I didn't call anyone specific a retard. > > Your reading comprehension level is fairly low, however. Alan, my reading comprehension of the English language is also fairly low. Who else could you refer to in that reply to Helen? "Shut up? I'll shut up when you and Bret BOTH stop engaging with the aussie retard. That means you BOTH don't reply to the aussie retard ever, regardless of his mindless provocations." Michel :-) >... >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >retard. That means you BOTH don't reply to the aussie retard ever, >regardless of his mindless provocations." Browne is such a spineless coward. Everyone knew exactly whom he meant by "aussie retard", he's just trying to wriggle out of it because that is what spineless cowards do. There have been times when Browne has joined up with the same "aussie retard" in attacking other contributors to this newsgroup. Perhaps he is in denial about that too. >> ... >>>> Then he called D-Mac an Aussie retard. That was cool. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > retard" in attacking other contributors to this newsgroup. Perhaps he > is in denial about that too. Tony, Tony, Tony, just put up or shut up. You are the greatest coward of all ... you've never backed up your claim of having a cover photo on Paris Match, nor retracted you claim in the absence of proof. You've NEVER, NOT ONCE, posted an aesthetically pleasing or technically competent photo despite claims of prodigious photographic work (such as 50 rolls per average *week* and architectural, calendar, wedding, portraiture, etc.). While I've never claimed or implied to be a great photog, I've posted images for people to comment on, for better or for worse. You're truly a spineless coward, you won't admit your failings, and you won't post photography for people to see and comment on. Keep attacking me Polson, I'll keep reminding people that you've made claims on the net that you fail to backup with the images. ;-) 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. > > I agree with Annika...it's not the depth of field or background that makes > > this appear to be a studio shot, it's the lighting. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "flash look." Very difficult to do without building some sort of > outdoor diffused lighting tent for the macros. They are right - they do look like studio shots. And a look around at that photographer's other gallery shows that all of his photo.net shots, except maybe one or two, were most likely taken in an aviary, and almost certainly involved controlled lighting. They are nice shots, but have a distinct "non-wild" look. Several show very obvious double catchlights and flash shadows, and the conveniently positioned branches/twigs that have little or no clutter nearby should give you further clues as to the controlled nature of these images, as do the odd straight lines in some of the backgrounds... Don't get me wrong - I am not denigrating this work - it is excellent. But it is quite different from what you would expect from 'true' wildlife shots. His *own* 'true' wildlife shots show this - many of those are excellent in their own right, and in my opinion, have a much better 'feel'. But you won't see them at photo.net, eg: http://groups.msn.com/09azAZfotomolon/cigeuelasenelespejo.msnw?action=ShowPhoto& PhotoID=333 ..here he may still be using a little fill flash, but it is a much less contrived, truly outdoor shot - look at the other shots nearby and they all look *very* different to the pbase set (and many are a lot less sharp!). >> On Jul 14, 2:22 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Cheers, > Alan Aaah! I see you had to chain those hummers down. :) CS3 comes in useful when it comes to cloning those links out. Otherwise nice pic. > On Jul 14, 2:22 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No I'm not. It DOES look like a studio shot. He could have taken them on a tree limb, and then put in the clean background with Photoshop...... >> On Jul 14, 2:22 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >He could have taken them on a tree limb, and then put in the clean >background with Photoshop...... Why don't you ask him? I'm sure that he would tell you. >>> On Jul 14, 2:22 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Why don't you ask him? I'm sure that he would tell you. Well, I tried.....But it is not easy to get in touch with him. He does say that the photo is "unmanipulated", but they define manipulated to mean "dodged and burned", rather than Photoshopped with digital techniques......I still don't know whether it is stuffed bids in a studio, or real birds in a natural setting......I really don't care....It's a nice photo, and that's all that matters to me...... >>>> On Jul 14, 2:22 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > or real birds in a natural setting......I really don't care....It's a nice > photo, and that's all that matters to me...... The picture 6th from the right here: http://www.ryadia.com/album1/index.html is an example of naturally obtained creamy backgrounds. Take away the palm and the background is a creamy mush of nothing, just like Alan's example. No flash, no Photoshop just a 200mm lens with a 2x converter on it. There is no 'trick' to images like this. You can't beat God for lighting. Hey, If Doug (the world's worst photographer according to many) can do for a living, surely the world's best wildlife photographer can do it on demand too! JA SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The picture 6th from the right here:http://www.ryadia.com/album1/index.html > is an example of naturally obtained creamy backgrounds. Take away the palm > and the background is a creamy mush of nothing, just like Alan's example. No > flash, no Photoshop just a 200mm lens with a 2x converter on it. You mean the kooka pic? That's the 6th from the left, not the right. Hey maybe we've found the problem. You can't tell left from right so you get confused with the buttons on the camera. >> The picture 6th from the right >> here:http://www.ryadia.com/album1/index.html [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hey maybe we've found the problem. You can't tell left from right so > you get confused with the buttons on the camera. It all depends wether your are down under or not. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > You mean the kooka pic? That's the 6th from the left, not the right. > > Hey maybe we've found the problem. You can't tell left from right so > > you get confused with the buttons on the camera. > > It all depends wether your are down under or not. Or whether you are an Aussie retard who doesn't know right from left. Do your hands ever get confused when you are having sex? >> > You mean the kooka pic? That's the 6th from the left, not the right. >> > Hey maybe we've found the problem. You can't tell left from right so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Or whether you are an Aussie retard who doesn't know right from left. > Do your hands ever get confused when you are having sex? Having sex in front of a computer screen, whilst being a recognized pastime in Chatanooga, is not actually something we do in the Southern Hemisphere. I'll leave it to you then, to answer your own question. JA SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Instead of bating the Aussie idiot why don'y you contemplate this: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Looks like a studio shot. I'd have posed the birds toward the camera. Nope, that's how *REAL* photographers do it! Rita > Instead of bating the Aussie idiot why don'y you contemplate this: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3283127&size=lg > > and shutup until you beat it. Then you'll be waiting till hell freezes over! That is a beautiful pic that can only be taken with the proper equipment, a Nikon and totally awesome Nikkor glass. Of course, this photographer did it all in-camera and didn't need to do any post with an "unauthorized" copy of CS3. This is a great example of photography at its finest. Rita >> Instead of bating the Aussie idiot why don'y you contemplate this: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that > can only be taken with the proper equipment, Yep. A dead stick (placed near a feeder, house or other attraction) between two umbrellas, one upper left and one right. As Helen pointed out, the reflections in the eyes are a dead giveaway, along with the glare on the feathers on the birds' right sides. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com > Yep. A dead stick (placed near a feeder, house or other attraction) > between two umbrellas, one upper left and one right. As Helen pointed > out, the reflections in the eyes are a dead giveaway, along with the > glare on the feathers on the birds' right sides. I disagree. The reflection and glare can be as simple as a bright opening in the tree canopy or from fill flash. Rita >> Yep. A dead stick (placed near a feeder, house or other attraction) >> between two umbrellas, one upper left and one right. As Helen pointed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Rita The fill flash would have to be coming from a direction other than the camera to leave: 1) visible shadows on the right side of the left bird, who feathers just above the shadow are obviously illuminated by the same source [and that would have been filled by "fill flash" coming from the direction of the camera]; and, 2) glare cause by light reflecting at an oblique angle, i.e., coming from a direction beyond the bird. That glare is the result of the bird being very close to a large umbrella on the upper right right. You can see the characteristic circular reflection in the right bird's eye. Further, the reflection in the left birds eye is obviously coming from a light source at approximately the same level and to the left of that bird, not from above or from the direction of the camera. It is also the same basic shape of the reflection in the right bird's eye, i.e., another umbrella. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com On Jul 18, 10:33 am, Eric Miller <millereric_nosp...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> Instead of bating the Aussie idiot why don'y you contemplate this: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Eric Millerwww.dyesscreek.com If anyone knows about shooting hummingbirds, it's Eric. He knows his stuff. Helen > Instead of bating the Aussie idiot why don'y you contemplate this: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3283127&size=lg > > and shutup until you beat it. The thing is Alan. Bret got the offer to agree to end it and decided he got his rocks off doing it rather than living in peace. You're right to address your desire for ending it to him. He's the one who started it. His latest pathetic attempt aimed at me is gone from flickr as will any other attempts he tries using copyright images. JA SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder "Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental illness that involves holding one or more non- bizarre delusions in the absence of any other significant psychopathology (signs or symptoms of mental illness)." "Persecutory Type: delusion that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way." Willa Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/willarojo “I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.” Thoreau, Civil Disobedience “We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.” Thoreau, Walden On Jul 14, 9:34 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > Instead of bating the Aussie idiot why don'y you contemplate this: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3283127&size=lg > > and shutup until you beat it. Beautiful shot. Francisco Hoyos has done a wonderful job of capturing the two Abejarucos. The OOF DOF really make them jump off the page. I am wondering if he shot them in a zoo with a lighting system or with two lights in the field? Or even one light with an assistant and reflector? No matter, the final image speaks for the craftmenship of the photographer.Weither it is a studio or in the field shot, it is a great shot. So Alan until you can beat this, IMHO follow you own advise. Draco Getting even isn't good enough. Doing better does. > great shot. So Alan until you can beat this, IMHO follow you own > advise. eh? I'm not engaging the Aussie idiot in any way. He and his alter-ego are plonked. 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. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.