A little nostalgia this morning [Digital Cameras]

Prev: Ugg! Ricoh 28-300mm superzoom module for the GXR (horrific at 800ISO)
Next: Ugg! Ricoh 28-300mm superzoom module for the GXR (horrific at 800ISO)

From: Savageduck on 2 Jul 2010 20:59

For those who care, a 1948 Hudson Commodore, downtown this morning.

< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3644w.jpg >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: R Davis on 2 Jul 2010 21:50

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:59:01 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>For those who care, a 1948 Hudson Commodore, downtown this morning.
>
>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3644w.jpg >

Now that was a perfectly good example of wasted bandwidth if I ever saw
one. Telephone poles and street-signs apparently affected by earthquakes, a
composition that would bring a tear of pain to anyone's eye ... I don't
think I've ever seen any lens have that much geometric distortion before.

Do everyone a little favor, title your posts with something like "CRAPSHOT"
or "SNAPSHOT", "TAKEN WITH SHITTY GEAR" or some kind of warning so those
who care to see decent photography won't waste their time looking at images
that any 3 year-old with any camera could have done. Actually, a 3 year-old
would probably have a camera with less distortion in the images.

Whoever sold you that lens must have seen you coming from a long way off.

From: Peter on 2 Jul 2010 22:19

From: John Sisker on 2 Jul 2010 22:38

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010070217590116807-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> For those who care, a 1948 Hudson Commodore, downtown this morning.
>
> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3644w.jpg >
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>

Interesting picture of the car itself, but the photo looks like nothing more
than my typical travel snapshots. A slightly different angle would have been
much better, plus some serious cropping for a better composition, and if you
actually intended that reflection, that could have been done much better as
well. In this particular case, I would assume that you did have amply time
in taking the picture, even with the possibility of using different lenses
and/or special effects.

John Sisker - Huntington Beach, California

From: Gil on 2 Jul 2010 22:46

R Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:59:01 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> For those who care, a 1948 Hudson Commodore, downtown this morning.
>>
>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3644w.jpg >
>
> Now that was a perfectly good example of wasted bandwidth if I ever saw
> one. Telephone poles and street-signs apparently affected by earthquakes, a
> composition that would bring a tear of pain to anyone's eye ... I don't
> think I've ever seen any lens have that much geometric distortion before.
>
> Do everyone a little favor, title your posts with something like "CRAPSHOT"
> or "SNAPSHOT", "TAKEN WITH SHITTY GEAR" or some kind of warning so those
> who care to see decent photography won't waste their time looking at images
> that any 3 year-old with any camera could have done. Actually, a 3 year-old
> would probably have a camera with less distortion in the images.
>
> Whoever sold you that lens must have seen you coming from a long way off.
>

So, what did you think of the car, or did you even see it?

| Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: Ugg! Ricoh 28-300mm superzoom module for the GXR (horrific at 800ISO)
Next: Ugg! Ricoh 28-300mm superzoom module for the GXR (horrific at 800ISO)