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: Savageduck on 3 Jul 2010 01:39 On 2010-07-02 22:22:55 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 20:06:41 -0700, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > Naw, the car I saw that day that I would like to restore was this one: > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-06-30-002/919446464_RcCHu-XL.jpg Being > > a Hoosier by birth, I've always had a soft spot for Studebakers. '47 OK, but I would prefer one of the "bullet-nose" Champions. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 3 Jul 2010 04:47 On 2010-07-03 01:36:38 -0700, SneakyP <48umofa02(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> said: > Gil <Gil(a)nilspam.xyz> wrote in > news:ksidnfaT5esUObPRnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d(a)giganews.com: > > >> So, what did you think of the car, or did you even see it? >> > > I didn't even see who you were replying to, but the car seemed nostalgic. It seems "he of a 1000 nyms," this time posing as one "R Davis," found fault with my shot of the Hudson. I only read what he had to say when Gil recycled it. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: dadiOH on 3 Jul 2010 08:16 Savageduck wrote: > For those who care, a 1948 Hudson Commodore, downtown this morning. > > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3644w.jpg > Dang...a car with a useable back seat! And wind windows!!! I miss both... Are you sure about the year though? I don't remember them looking like that until later (circa 1950 -1951). -- dadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
From: Peter on 3 Jul 2010 08:40 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010070221075264440-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-07-02 20:47:58 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said: > >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >> news:2010070220160127544-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>> 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? >>> >> >> >> Sedan, black. I traded it in for a Nash Rambler. (2nd worse car I ever >> owned) My Olds diesel being the worst, even though it was a tank and >> probably saved my daughter's life when she got sideswiped by a >> motorcycle. > > Aah! A Nash, there was a big AMC goof on your part. You should have stuck > with the Hornet. Well the Rambler had seats that folded into a bed. And I was single at the time. -- Peter
From: Robert Coe on 3 Jul 2010 08:43
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:46:15 -0400, Gil <Gil(a)nilspam.xyz> wrote: : : : 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? Car? What car? He never even went to the site. Which actually makes perfect sense. He intended to comment on aspects of the picture that are unlikely to be apparent at Web resolution, and in such cases there's no point in wasting the time it takes to actually look at the picture. Maybe he's not as crazy as we thought. Whose is he anyway? If he's ours, maybe he'll blow his head off this weekend, trying to shoot off fireworks. I wouldn't actually hope for such an outcome, but I think I could live with the resulting peace and quiet. Bob |