A little nostalgia this morning
in [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: tony cooper on 2 Jul 2010 22:47 On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 19:38:20 -0700, "John Sisker" <jsisker(a)sprynet.com> wrote: >"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. > Interesting critique, John. Feel free to offer a critique on my recent photograph of an automobile. Note that there are no distracting reflections. No special effects were used. While I could have used my Bondo or my Turtle Wax filter, I didn't. http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-06-30-003/919446485_6YMQ7-XL.jpg -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Savageduck on 2 Jul 2010 23:04 On 2010-07-02 19:38:20 -0700, "John Sisker" <jsisker(a)sprynet.com> said: > "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 You are correct. It is nothing more than an opportunistic snapshot, no cropping, I didn't care about the reflection. The reflection was of my car which I had to park along side. This was not a competition entry, just a shot of a car I haven't seen for some time, and I thought some here might be interested. Another example might be something like this; < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3479w.jpg > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3485w.jpg > -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 2 Jul 2010 23:06 On 2010-07-02 19:47:41 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 19:38:20 -0700, "John Sisker" <jsisker(a)sprynet.com> > wrote: > >> "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. >> > > Interesting critique, John. Feel free to offer a critique on my > recent photograph of an automobile. Note that there are no > distracting reflections. > > No special effects were used. While I could have used my Bondo or my > Turtle Wax filter, I didn't. > > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-06-30-003/919446485_6YMQ7-XL.jpg I'm > thankful you took care of those annoying reflections there Tony. A fine capture of American iron. Thinking of a full restoration are you? -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 2 Jul 2010 23:11 On 2010-07-02 19:46:15 -0700, Gil <Gil(a)nilspam.xyz> said: > > > 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? For our resident troll content is irrelevant. He continues to miss the point. His vitriol is only to be expected. It would be best for all here, to refrain from from responding to any of his many persona. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 2 Jul 2010 23:16
On 2010-07-02 19:19:40 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said: > "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 > >> > > > Reminded me of my old 1952 Hudson Hornet. Well at least you had a "real" Hornet, not one of the AMC abominations. Was yours a Coupe, sedan, or convertible? -- Regards, Savageduck |