A little nostalgia this morning

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

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

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:59:01 -0700, Savageduck
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 ****TY 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.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010070217590116807-savageduck1@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.

--
Peter

R Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:59:01 -0700, Savageduck
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 ****TY 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?

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 19:38:20 -0700, "John Sisker"
wrote:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010070217590116807-savageduck1@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/...5_6YMQ7-XL.jpg



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2010-07-02 19:38:20 -0700, "John Sisker" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010070217590116807-savageduck1@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

On 2010-07-02 19:47:41 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 19:38:20 -0700, "John Sisker"
wrote:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010070217590116807-savageduck1@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/...5_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

On 2010-07-02 19:46:15 -0700, Gil said:



R Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:59:01 -0700, Savageduck
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 ****TY 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

On 2010-07-02 19:19:40 -0700, "Peter" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010070217590116807-savageduck1@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

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-07-02 19:38:20 -0700, "John Sisker"
said:
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010070217590116807-savageduck1@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

There is a Hudson in here, too (If you are looking for "photography",
don't look; it's just interesting cars, caught as catch could) :

http://www.fototime.com/inv/D95D32BD9BAC223

--
Frank ess