bought it and sold time slots to use it.
r
- Original Message -
From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003
I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was taken
with
the Hubble
Really good to see you back Norm!
Lasse
- Original Message -
From: Norm Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003
Except that this plane is showing contrails...generally denotes high
altitude.
Norm
Ya, but does the hubble have SMC - I think not!
-Original Message-
From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 January 2004 21:07
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003
I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was
taken
Hi,
Jostein wrote:
If the boeing/moon is a double, it's well done. The light angle fits very
well, and the plane is slightly blurred.
But it seems almost too good to be true, though.
I've seen this happen at night, so all I could see were the contrails'
shadows behind a black jet shape.
I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was
taken with the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going
to be a Pentax version . ..?
Bayonet type still to be decided :-)
Dario
Steve Desjardins wrote:
I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was taken
with the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going to be a Pentax
version. ..?
There was but they canceled it because there was too much bitching about
it not being compatible with K and M lenses.
;-)
You call some excellent photography pap?
No, it isn't reportage or documentary.
Must good photography be one or the other to you?
I guess we have different viewpoints about what is good. Not that that's
a problem, but I'm surprised you find it hardly worth your time, because
Surprisingly lacking
-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:08:37 +1000
On 29 Jan 2004 at 10:03, Keith Whaley wrote:
Sounds to me those images were chosen because of universal appeal, and
excellence of the process of recording the image, all of which
Exactly, does every photo have to have meaning or give insight? Some
are
just pretty pictures, nice to look at, maybe a brief pictorial glimpse of
the
world the photog saw and wanted to share.
Finally, someone who shares my philosophy!!!
Thanks Rob
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29 Jan 2004 at 10:03, Keith Whaley wrote:
Sounds to me those images were chosen because of universal appeal, and
excellence of the process of recording the image, all of which exhibited
to a fine degree.
I liked them!
Exactly, does every photo
3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003
I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was taken with
the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going to be a Pentax version
. ..?
Just had this link sent to me. Some excellent stuff.
http://www.fifth-essence.com/archive/bestpix2003/index.htm
Mostly pap, cute animal pics, and flashy colors. A few
nice pics. Surprisingly lacking by comparison is
reportage or documentary work.
Doug Brewer wrote:
Just had this link sent to me. Some excellent stuff.
http://www.fifth-essence.com/archive/bestpix2003/index.htm
At 10:48 AM 1/28/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Mostly pap, cute animal pics, and flashy colors. A few
nice pics. Surprisingly lacking by comparison is
reportage or documentary work.
The mother and child escaping from the fighting in Macedonia and the
Palestinian
Hi Shel,
I think what you have to remember here is that tthis is a gallery of
People's Choice photos. I think that's why it's largely comprised of
work that entertains rather than informs. I too appreciate pictures that
tell a deeper story, but I don't think that any of these are pap.
They're all
I said lacking by comparison, not lacking.
Brewer wrote:
At 10:48 AM 1/28/04, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Mostly pap, cute animal pics, and flashy colors. A few
nice pics. Surprisingly lacking by comparison is
reportage or documentary work.
The mother and
Well, maybe pap was too strong a word. I'm real cranky
this morning.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
but I don't think that any of these are pap.
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 January 2004 17:01
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003
Well, maybe pap was too strong a word. I'm real cranky
this morning.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
but I don't think that any of these are pap.
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Best pix of 2003
Ya don't say!
I almost sent a sarcastic reply to your comment aimed at
Sylwester, but when two similar comments came in together I
figured 'give the guy a break - he is obviously having a bad day!'
I actually quite like many of the shots in Doug's
Rob Brigham posted, among other things:
I actually quite like many of the shots in Doug's link though...
Then again I am more into nice pics than reportage/docupics so I guess
I would, wouldn't I?
I liked the pics Doug shared, too. Especially with the relative lack of
I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was taken with
the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going to be a Pentax version
. ..?
Hi,
Mostly pap, cute animal pics, and flashy colors. A few
nice pics. Surprisingly lacking by comparison is
reportage or documentary work.
it was a vote. It's why there are no great mass-circulation
documentary magazines any more. Only about 13 people on the planet
are interested.
--
]
Subject: RE: Best pix of 2003
Ya don't say!
I almost sent a sarcastic reply to your comment aimed at
Sylwester, but when two similar comments came in together I
figured 'give the guy a break - he is obviously having a bad day!'
I actually quite like many of the shots in Doug's link
Hi,
The airplane and moon shot is highly suspect.
I disagree. A few years ago I did a contract in West London, near
Heathrow airport. I used to get the train home from Syon Lane. In the
late autumn at about 5.30/6pm the moon was generally very low in the sky
and planes were coming in once a
Except that this plane is showing contrails...generally denotes high
altitude.
Norm
Bob W wrote:
snipIn the late autumn at about 5.30/6pm the moon was generally very
low in the sky
and planes were coming in once a minute exactly as you see in that photo.
snip
-
From: Thomas Stach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Best pix of 2003
Hi list,
...
t Just out of curiousity...do any of these looked dovtored to you?
What do you think about the 747 passing the moon?
I think with a focal
Also happens at high humidity.
I've seen vortex trails off the rear wings of race cars,
which generally run at a fairly low altitude :-)
Except that this plane is showing contrails...generally denotes high
altitude.
Norm
Bob W wrote:
snipIn the late autumn at about 5.30/6pm the moon
Steve wrote:
I do admit to feeling a bit outclassed when one of these was taken with
the Hubble telescope. Damn, when is there going to be a Pentax version
. ..?
Steve, I think it's safe to say that even if Pentax makes a version of the
Hubble, none of us will buy it. But whomever could
-Original Message-
From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I don't think the ones I watched had vapour trails - I didn't
really think about that when I write the email.
When considering whether or not any of the pictures have been
'sexed up' it seems useful to me to look
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:33:12 -0500, Christian Skofteland wrote:
Ralph Schumacher, Australia 2002
http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelk1/mpegs/2002/aus-car.wmv
Yep, that was nasty. About a week later they interviewed the widow of
that corner worker. She was sad, of course, but said it's the way
It seems to be human nature to want to know there are those worse off than you
are. At least the news media seems to believe that.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Brigham posted, among other things:
I actually quite like many of the shots in Doug's link though...
Then again I am more into
31 matches
Mail list logo
