STAREDOWN WITH THE 40D !

Whenever the 40D goes out to shoot on a rainy day, it always
attracts some stares.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90922173/original

That is an actual size crop, BTW.

On Dec 28, 4:20*pm, Annika1980 wrote:
Whenever the 40D goes out to shoot on a rainy day, it always
attracts some stares.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90922173/original

That is an actual size crop, BTW.

Very nice shot.

Scott

On Dec 28, 9:20*pm, Annika1980 wrote:
Whenever the 40D goes out to shoot on a rainy day, it always
attracts some stares.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90922173/original

That is an actual size crop, BTW.


AWW, it's a little doe! I have a brooch on my coat that looks just
like her.
What a sweet shot! The detail is absolutely superb! As always,
another fantastic job!
Helen

On Dec 29, 1:20 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
Whenever the 40D goes out to shoot on a rainy day, it always
attracts some stares.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90922173/original

That is an actual size crop, BTW.

finally! something that is not ridiculously
over-sharpened. good shot!

On Dec 28, 4:32*pm, Noons wrote:
On Dec 29, 1:20 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

Whenever the 40D goes out to shoot on a rainy day, it always
attracts some stares.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90922173/original

That is an actual size crop, BTW.

finally! something that is not ridiculously
over-sharpened. good shot!

When you are use to soft images from your film scans any decently
sharp image will look over sharpened to you.

In this case we are looking at a 100% crop and it is very sharp for a
100% crop, but down size a bit and it would look "over-sharpened" to
your eyes.


Scott

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:38:20 -0800 (PST), Scott W wrote:

On Dec 28, 4:32*pm, Noons wrote:
On Dec 29, 1:20 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

Whenever the 40D goes out to shoot on a rainy day, it always
attracts some stares.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90922173/original

That is an actual size crop, BTW.

finally! something that is not ridiculously
over-sharpened. good shot!

When you are use to soft images from your film scans any decently
sharp image will look over sharpened to you.

In this case we are looking at a 100% crop and it is very sharp for a
100% crop, but down size a bit and it would look "over-sharpened" to
your eyes.


Scott

I've got about 150 shots just like it, or much better, taken over the years with
P&S cameras. What was the point of posting something so ordinary that anyone can
do with any camera?

Just to waste our bandwidth? To appease your need for attention?

I don't get it.

You could have at least done something about that rotten white-balance that your
camera created. A deer's coat isn't magenta. Get your monitor adjusted, or get a
better camera, or something. How about some talent, see if you can buy that
somewhere while you're at it.

What a waste of time.

russ templeton wrote:

I've got about 150 shots just like it, or much better, taken over the years with
P&S cameras. What was the point of posting something so ordinary that anyone can
do with any camera?

Please post a few.

Many Thanks

Walter Banks

On Dec 29, 6:02 pm, 'russ templeton' troll of the multitude of
identities, vomited:
I've got about 150 shots just like it, or much better

Yes, 'russ' of oh-so-many-names, post a few. Or ... just one...

For it is now genberal knowledge that you are a sad little no-talent
liar.

And CAN'T (not 'won't') prove otherwise.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:49:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 29, 6:02 pm, 'russ templeton' troll of the multitude of
identities, vomited:
I've got about 150 shots just like it, or much better

Yes, 'russ' of oh-so-many-names, post a few. Or ... just one...

For it is now genberal knowledge that you are a sad little no-talent
liar.

And CAN'T (not 'won't') prove otherwise.

I already have. But you insecure idiots that don't know the first thing about
photography claimed they were all stolen. Because none of you could believe that
P&S cameras can take pictures that nice.

Only a fool would play into your ridiculous resident-troll games again.

You want to see them? Pay me for prints. $25,000 per print is the going cost and
that's just for the 8x10s.

You ****ingly useless wastes of flesh. You think I'm going to show you my best
work for free? Then if I do show you a downsized one then you claim that that's
not good enough or it must be someone else's or the EXIF data was forged. So
what then? I post a large one so you can all steal them like you all have in the
past?

**** off you loser asswipes. You're not even good enough to lick the
buffalo-**** off of the bottom of my hiking boots after I've traipsed through a
field.

Learn to use a camera, ANY camera. If you do you'll find out you wasted money on
those beloved DSLR noise-traps of yours.

Go pick out another virtual camera to go along with that virtual photography
experience that you have. That's all you'll ever have. Then go trick someone
else into entertaining you with their decent photography. I'm not as gullible
and insecure as the rest of your troll-food. I don't have to prove one thing to
idiots like you. I already have and that was a waste of my time. I'm not going
to do it again.

**** OFF you useless talentless hacks.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:02:36 -0600, russ templeton wrote:


You could have at least done something about that rotten white-balance
that your camera created. A deer's coat isn't magenta. Get your monitor
adjusted, or get a better camera, or something. How about some talent,
see if you can buy that somewhere while you're at it.
I think you need a new monitor or lessons in setting it up.


What a waste of time.
At least you realise you are.



--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851