:thumbup: :thumbup: Just seeing these relaxed me as if I were seeing them directly. Great shots, beautiful subjects, great composition.
:) :thumbup: :thumbup: Even when double magnified on my monitor the color and focus is stunning, especially the veins in the petals, beautiful!!
boberic wrote:
That last one got me, I'm still laughing
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
bcheary wrote:
My apologies. Every now and then someone gets into the chat room and complains about it not being about photography. :(
Someone tried to troll this space once and I thought it innappropriate (his comments) I thought this was hilarious and was trying to be sort of sarcastic. I will try to make the adjustment. I'm sorry I didnt make myself clear, my apologies.
bcheary wrote:
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
I can read. My humor (or attempt) has eluded you.
Oh, how I love photography
Yep, by that time its been certified, verified and accompanied by eye witness testimony... OOPS!!
Until they see themselves on CNN. lol
Use of 'superzooms' would help here also. Kind of hard to claim interference if the person is 30-40 yards away, plus the photog has a better running chance to get away
Still a mighty fine fantasy!
Morning Star wrote:
Wake up folks, and next time you take a photo, photoshop everything that could give you away: The label says 700, the number on the barrel go from 70 to 200.....
Budnjax wrote:
This is totally understandable when you elect an idiot who is close to being a communist as mayor....although he does seem to fit right in pretty well with the rest of the politicians in NY. I'm afraid the rest of the country is not far behind NY in sliding into failure, especially when we have two political parties which exist only to convince dumb people that they have a choice-they don't.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
I wonder just what all this "troll talk" has to do with photography. I enjoy reading, especially about things I'm interested in, this goofy rambling and on and on talk about windmills and coal and clean air and dirty lungs has just about caused me to stop reading this thread. When it seeps or bleeds over into another one or two, I think I'll just delete "The ugly hedgehog", and find something toread which has cameras, pixels, and maybe just a smidgen of film.
sb wrote:
I look back at some of my old photos and realize that Kodachrome and Ektachrome really had a huge dynamic range - something we have to tweak out of our digital images nowadays. And Kodachrome really was tremendous for reds, oranges, and yellows!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: