Punctuation that Basks
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: George Kerby on 28 Jul 2010 18:02 On 7/28/10 4:22 PM, in article 2010072814221164440-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-28 13:15:45 -0700, DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> said: > >> On Jul 28, 4:53�pm, Ben Dover <bdo...(a)somewhere.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:22:41 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 28, 11:28�am, Ben Dover <bdo...(a)somewhere.org> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:06:23 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrot >> e: >>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:17:15 -0500, Ben Dover <bdo...(a)somewhere.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Find a small shaft of sunlight breaking through the canopy in some d >> eep >>>>>>> dark woods and you may find butterflies basking in the last rays of >> the >>>>>>> late evening sun. A Comma butterfly doing just that. >>> >>>>>>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/4837011284_86f09633bd_b.jpg> >>> >>>>>> Beautiful lighting. �A very nice shot. �Thanks for posting. >>> >>>>> What about the lighting in this one, another basking pose and >>>>> angle-composition theme (to reflect this representative of the >>>>> "Angled-winged Butterfly Family"). >>> >>>>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4144/4837286834_9b6dd0bffb_b.jpg> >>> >>>>> I liked the way the dark cracks in the bark lead the eye to their >>>>> respective subject/shadow counterparts. I have about a dozen of these >> to >>>>> play with. I just couldn't decide (and it seems neither could the butt >> erfly >>>>> decide), just which shadow created the most interesting shapes and ang >> les >>>>> as it struck about a dozen different wing-angle and body-angle poses w >> hile >>>>> watching its shadow. >>> >>>>> Though the high jpg-compression badly polka-dotted the colors in the w >> ings >>>>> it's the composition that I thought might be interesting. >>> >>>> First one is great, the shape of the wings is clear. >>>> Try a square crop on it. >>> >>>> The second one has too much detail in the bark and my eye is atracted >>>> by the shadow too much. >>> >>>> DanP >>> >>> You know absolutely NOTHING about composition. If your own photography >>> wasn't proof enough, thanks for proving it again. >> >> If you were serious abut photography you'd have an online portfolio. >> But you real hobby is pissing in the pool. >> >> DanP > > More, and more he reminds me of "Buffalo Bill" from "Silence of the Lambs." Damn sure!
From: Ben Dover on 28 Jul 2010 19:54 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:27:16 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:22:41 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> >wrote: > >>On Jul 28, 11:28�am, Ben Dover <bdo...(a)somewhere.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:06:23 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:17:15 -0500, Ben Dover <bdo...(a)somewhere.org> >>> >wrote: >>> >>Find a small shaft of sunlight breaking through the canopy in some deep >>> >>dark woods and you may find butterflies basking in the last rays of the >>> >>late evening sun. A Comma butterfly doing just that. >>> >>> >><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/4837011284_86f09633bd_b.jpg> >>> >>> >Beautiful lighting. �A very nice shot. �Thanks for posting. >>> >>> What about the lighting in this one, another basking pose and >>> angle-composition theme (to reflect this representative of the >>> "Angled-winged Butterfly Family"). >>> >>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4144/4837286834_9b6dd0bffb_b.jpg> >>> >>> I liked the way the dark cracks in the bark lead the eye to their >>> respective subject/shadow counterparts. I have about a dozen of these to >>> play with. I just couldn't decide (and it seems neither could the butterfly >>> decide), just which shadow created the most interesting shapes and angles >>> as it struck about a dozen different wing-angle and body-angle poses while >>> watching its shadow. >>> >>> Though the high jpg-compression badly polka-dotted the colors in the wings >>> it's the composition that I thought might be interesting. >> >>First one is great, the shape of the wings is clear. >>Try a square crop on it. > >A square crop would work, but not offer much in the way of >improvement. Kinda iffy on square or rectangular on this one. A square composition would not work for this one. I knew that when I shot it. Thanks for showing the whole world how little you know about composition. > >>The second one has too much detail in the bark and my eye is atracted >>by the shadow too much. >> >The best post-processing step for this shot would be to add a new >layer over the image and fill that layer with a solid color, then >flatten. This would solve the only thing wrong with the shot: bad >photography. Showing everyone again how much you don't know about photography and composition. The dark shadow areas in an image are every bit as important as the lit subject areas in an image. The empty space in an image just as important as those areas with details in them. I doubt you'll ever comprehend this. You've proved yourself to be just another of the hundreds of typical crapshooters and role-playing trolls that infest these newsgroups.
From: George Kerby on 28 Jul 2010 21:31 On 7/28/10 6:54 PM, in article 49g1561thvho0h2dv9ludg1j0qthnlq1f2(a)4ax.com, "Ben Dover" <bdover(a)somewhere.org> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:27:16 -0400, tony cooper > <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:22:41 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 28, 11:28�am, Ben Dover <bdo...(a)somewhere.org> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:06:23 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:17:15 -0500, Ben Dover <bdo...(a)somewhere.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Find a small shaft of sunlight breaking through the canopy in some deep >>>>>> dark woods and you may find butterflies basking in the last rays of the >>>>>> late evening sun. A Comma butterfly doing just that. >>>> >>>>>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/4837011284_86f09633bd_b.jpg> >>>> >>>>> Beautiful lighting. �A very nice shot. �Thanks for posting. >>>> >>>> What about the lighting in this one, another basking pose and >>>> angle-composition theme (to reflect this representative of the >>>> "Angled-winged Butterfly Family"). >>>> >>>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4144/4837286834_9b6dd0bffb_b.jpg> >>>> >>>> I liked the way the dark cracks in the bark lead the eye to their >>>> respective subject/shadow counterparts. I have about a dozen of these to >>>> play with. I just couldn't decide (and it seems neither could the butterfly >>>> decide), just which shadow created the most interesting shapes and angles >>>> as it struck about a dozen different wing-angle and body-angle poses while >>>> watching its shadow. >>>> >>>> Though the high jpg-compression badly polka-dotted the colors in the wings >>>> it's the composition that I thought might be interesting. >>> >>> First one is great, the shape of the wings is clear. >>> Try a square crop on it. >> >> A square crop would work, but not offer much in the way of >> improvement. Kinda iffy on square or rectangular on this one. > > A square composition would not work for this one. I knew that when I shot > it. Thanks for showing the whole world how little you know about > composition. > >> >>> The second one has too much detail in the bark and my eye is atracted >>> by the shadow too much. >>> >> The best post-processing step for this shot would be to add a new >> layer over the image and fill that layer with a solid color, then >> flatten. This would solve the only thing wrong with the shot: bad >> photography. > > Showing everyone again how much you don't know about photography and > composition. The dark shadow areas in an image are every bit as important > as the lit subject areas in an image. The empty space in an image just as > important as those areas with details in them. I doubt you'll ever > comprehend this. You've proved yourself to be just another of the hundreds > of typical crapshooters and role-playing trolls that infest these > newsgroups. > Tell me about your interest in "metamorphosis" since you have a special interest in moths, 'Buffalo Bill'. Does this also explain your interest in killing and mutilation of small domestic pets? You really need to get back to civilization and find help now. You ARE psychotic and you really don't realize. Do it now before you take the life of another human, you fit the profile. Please! You are FUBAR, but it can be taken care of - IF you submit.
From: Shiva Das on 28 Jul 2010 22:06 In article <49g1561thvho0h2dv9ludg1j0qthnlq1f2(a)4ax.com>, Ben Dover <bdover(a)somewhere.org> wrote: > Fubjvat rirelbar ntnva ubj zhpu lbh qba'g xabj nobhg cubgbtencul naq > pbzcbfvgvba. Gur qnex funqbj nernf va na vzntr ner rirel ovg nf vzcbegnag > nf gur yvg fhowrpg nernf va na vzntr. Gur rzcgl fcnpr va na vzntr whfg nf > vzcbegnag nf gubfr nernf jvgu qrgnvyf va gurz. V qbhog lbh'yy rire > pbzceruraq guvf. Lbh'ir cebirq lbhefrys gb or whfg nabgure bs gur uhaqerqf > bs glcvpny pencfubbgref naq ebyr-cynlvat gebyyf gung vasrfg gurfr > arjftebhcf. Wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank wank.
From: Peter on 28 Jul 2010 23:18
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010072814221164440-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > > More, and more he reminds me of "Buffalo Bill" from "Silence of the > Lambs." > Don't criticize anyone until you've walked a mile in his shoes. By then you'll be a mile away and he'll be barefoot. -- Peter |