From: Jeff Jones on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:45:13 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:46:40 -0500, George Kerby
><ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
><C821D9A0.4613A%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>:
>
>>On 5/25/10 6:37 PM, in article
>>Of2dnc1_OuyxwmHWnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d(a)supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
>><larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Even the shiest of models will pose for the 24/1.4G. I can't believe it,
>>> but this lens works really well at f/5.
>>>
>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Breaking_Out.jpg>
>
>>Nice shot. Too bad you couldn't get it in focus...

>
>A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into. ~Ansel Adams

Very true. That's what makes this one nothing but another crapshot, not a
photograph. When the snapshooter's errors overwhelm the content then it's
not worth viewing.

From: John Navas on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:23:26 -0500, Jeff Jones
<jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote in
<0c1pv5dl6d71hukrhi3kvoe01v3trr1h0a(a)4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:45:13 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:46:40 -0500, George Kerby
>><ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
>><C821D9A0.4613A%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>:
>>
>>>On 5/25/10 6:37 PM, in article
>>>Of2dnc1_OuyxwmHWnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d(a)supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
>>><larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even the shiest of models will pose for the 24/1.4G. I can't believe it,
>>>> but this lens works really well at f/5.
>>>>
>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Breaking_Out.jpg>
>>
>>>Nice shot. Too bad you couldn't get it in focus...
>
>>A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into. ~Ansel Adams
>
>Very true. That's what makes this one nothing but another crapshot, not a
>photograph. When the snapshooter's errors overwhelm the content then it's
>not worth viewing.

What you see as "errors" have nothing to do with photography.
One person's errors are another persons desired features.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Jeff Jones on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 20:07:01 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:23:26 -0500, Jeff Jones
><jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote in
><0c1pv5dl6d71hukrhi3kvoe01v3trr1h0a(a)4ax.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:45:13 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:46:40 -0500, George Kerby
>>><ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
>>><C821D9A0.4613A%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On 5/25/10 6:37 PM, in article
>>>>Of2dnc1_OuyxwmHWnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d(a)supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
>>>><larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even the shiest of models will pose for the 24/1.4G. I can't believe it,
>>>>> but this lens works really well at f/5.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Breaking_Out.jpg>
>>>
>>>>Nice shot. Too bad you couldn't get it in focus...
>>
>>>A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into. ~Ansel Adams
>>
>>Very true. That's what makes this one nothing but another crapshot, not a
>>photograph. When the snapshooter's errors overwhelm the content then it's
>>not worth viewing.
>
>What you see as "errors" have nothing to do with photography.

Getting all the important areas of the subject in focus has nothing to do
with photography? Yes, I guess you would think that way. Enjoy your Pollack
style snapshots. They're so "ARTISTIC"! There's about 99% of all DSLR
owners/snapshooters who can't even get their subjects in focus as well due
to too shallow DOF of their equipment that will be agreeing with you.

Never before in the history of photography have I ever seen people trying
to justify their lack of talent by claiming that blurry main subjects are
better by throwing the nebulous "it's ARTISTIC" joker-wildcard after the
fact. Sorry, I'm not so easily swayed by idiot con-artists and fools. Their
emperor is not only stark raving naked he's hopelessly blurry too.











From: Bruce on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:37:06 -0400, "Larry Thong"
<larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote:
>Even the shiest of models will pose for the 24/1.4G. I can't believe it,
>but this lens works really well at f/5.
>
><http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Breaking_Out.jpg>


Cute subject, but a smaller aperture would surely have delivered a far
more attractive result ...

From: George Kerby on



On 5/25/10 10:07 PM, in article vv3pv5hdh5lc5brsdkgpdm5et80ffjpsut(a)4ax.com,
"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:23:26 -0500, Jeff Jones
> <jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote in
> <0c1pv5dl6d71hukrhi3kvoe01v3trr1h0a(a)4ax.com>:
>
>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:45:13 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:46:40 -0500, George Kerby
>>> <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> <C821D9A0.4613A%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 5/25/10 6:37 PM, in article
>>>> Of2dnc1_OuyxwmHWnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d(a)supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
>>>> <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even the shiest of models will pose for the 24/1.4G. I can't believe it,
>>>>> but this lens works really well at f/5.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Breaking_Out.jpg>
>>>
>>>> Nice shot. Too bad you couldn't get it in focus...
>>
>>> A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into. ~Ansel Adams
>>
>> Very true. That's what makes this one nothing but another crapshot, not a
>> photograph. When the snapshooter's errors overwhelm the content then it's
>> not worth viewing.
>
> What you see as "errors" have nothing to do with photography.
> One person's errors are another persons desired features.
> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Philosophy another sideline to your "Software Professional" title, NavAss?!?