Leica Glow ?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by pensacolaphoto, Aug 16, 2005.

  1. Here are three recent photos of my family, taken with a Bessa T and a
    collapsible 50/2 Summicron with Fuji 160 film. Is there a "Leica
    Glow"? Either way, I like the results. Hope you like the photos too.

    <br> <br>
    <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3641449-md.jpg"> <br> This
    is a photo of my wife just outside our home. <br>

    <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3641445-md.jpg"> <br>
    This is Dana, my older daughter. <br>

    <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3641452-md.jpg"> <br>
    This is Lina, my youngest. <br> Since I got "them", they have become
    my primary source of photogarphy.
     
  2. SCL

    SCL

    Wonderful shots. Take lots more year after year and you will have a treasure which is irreplacable. I don't know about "Leica glow", for 35 years I've heard about it, read about it, talked to people about it, and shot mostly with my Leicas...love the results, but "Glow"...I'm not too sure. Razor sharpness, Bokeh, etc...etc..

    Mostly enjoy what you do, learn, keep your family a part of the process.
     
  3. Very nice shots, very sweet looking family there, Raid. I'd agree that the bokeh is very nice, but I don't see a "glow". I've seen it before, but I just don't see it here.

    George
     
  4. Very nice photos Raid! If you are like me, you are probably using your Leicas every single day! :)
     
  5. I don't see much in the way of glow, either. As for liking the photos, the middle is a decent snapshot--pleasant lighting and her expression's kind of amusing. The other two are mediocre snaps. Other than loving the subjects of the images, what do you find appealing about the shots?
    Leica glow?
     
  6. Mike: Thanks for your frankness, but why be so hostile? Constructive crtiticism may be more appropriate and more effective. try it out when you can.
     
  7. I see no hostility in Mike's assessment. He's just being frank. Nice family, but the photos
    suffer from harsh light.
     
  8. raid, i'm seeing some un pleasant artifacting in the first image. did you downsize and save for web after your colour and curves? and spending a minute with dust and scratch removal goes a mile. try the healing brush if you have ps 7, it'll be your new best friend :)

    as for glow...definately glow in your older daughter's hair :)
     
  9. What was hostile about my reply? I answered your direct question, commented on the strengths of the best image, and asked what you think are the strengths of the other images (because, other than your relationship to the subjects, I don't understand why you think they're enjoyable images).

    If someone asked the same kind of questions about the image I linked to, I could give straight answers to the questions rather than accusing them of being hostile.
     
  10. Raid,

    Don't worry about Mike's comments. He has his period more than once a month so we learn how to get used to his mood-swings.
     
  11. If you are going to post a question here for which there is only one acceptable answer then you should include that answer with the post to save us time spent groping. There is a Leica glow which is not demonstrated by any of the photos exhibited with your question. The photos of your family members do not forward your premise. While you clearly like the family photos, you seem to invite others to express their like or dislike of them. In reacting to the quality of the photos, Mr. Dixon was tactful and, in my opinion, not as critical as some might be. G.E.
     
  12. Knew it wouldn't take long for the insults to start--after all, someone dared to NOT heap praise on shot taken with a Leica. Still waiting for an actual answer to my questions . . .
     
  13. Mike's a nice guy who made honest and helpful criticism here. The pics, esp, the first one, look like scanned prints, a tad fuzzy. The only sharpness is on the polka dots in the baby chair on the third pic. Leica "glow" is supposed to be a 3-D effect, called a "roundness" by some writers. It may be all hype; it could be you can get the same effect with your old Ricoh Singlex. There's a glow in your daughter's hair, but that's because it's caught the sun. Here's a collapsible Summicron image, that demonstrates a 3-D effect.
    00DFAV-25201584.jpg
     
  14. Jack, that's an excellent picture.
     
  15. >Knew it wouldn't take long for the insults to start--after all, someone dared to NOT heap praise on shot taken with a Leica. Still waiting for an actual answer to my questions . . .

    There's nothing wrong, at all, being frank. But, there's a nice way and courteous way to present your frankness and there're uncouth ways.
     
  16. But, there's a nice way and courteous way...
    Funny, seeing the above lecturing, when just a moment earlier he jumped to the bottom of the barrel with: He has his period more than once a month so we learn how to get used to his mood-swings.
     
  17. gee Arthur, first you suggest a man has a "period," and then you claim one shouldn't be "uncoth" don't you think before you type?
     
  18. I think the leica glow refers to the colour of your wallet after forking out for any new bits of gear.

    JJ
     
  19. Nice pic Mike. As usual, ignore the mental runts.
     
  20. Jack, how old are ya? What's wrong with a wide opened 68'?
     
  21. r s

    r s

    I personally don't read Mike's comment as 'hostile'.
    As far as Leica 'pop' or 'glow' goes I think the common belief is that it's a combination of light, aperture, background - and some good glass.

    Out of your three posted photos I also find the second one to be the most pleasing (great light, composition, subject, colours and depth of field). I don't really see a 'glow' in any of the photos that can't be contributed to the light and depth of field chosen.

    Nice photos overall - make sure you take many more as these are certainly ages and moments that you want to preserve. :)

    [​IMG]
    Leica M3, Elmarit 90, Acros. Extremely backlit shot in the shade on a sunny day
     
  22. It would be more meaningful if the criticism contained some hints on actually improving Raid's photos of his gorgeous wife and lovely children. Maybe he should concentrate on filling the family album with with dark murky black and white images that look more "artistic"? I'm not sure his relatives would be all that eager to hang them on their walls to show their friends what the kids look like. Some people actually just want to take nice pleasant looking photographs of their loved ones. Raid accomplished his mission! A pretty good job, too!
     
  23. the 3rd shot showed a bit of glow. Nice family!
     
  24. Maybe he should concentrate on filling the family album with with dark murky black and white images that look more "artistic"? I'm not sure his relatives would be all that eager to hang them on their walls to show their friends what the kids look like.
    Where did that come from? Where has anyone suggested anything even remotely like that?
    Some people actually just want to take nice pleasant looking photographs of their loved ones.
    If that was his goal, there are some dramatic improvements that could have been made to his shots. (I didn't list these in the first place since, in the past, Raid's extensive experience has been empasizied, and these are all basic stuff.) For example, in the first portrait of his wife, the side lighting in this image burns out her left arm and the papers she's holding in her hand, creating distracting white blobs in the photo. She's positioned straight on toward the camera which emphasizes the width of her hips. Her eyes are very dark and murky--there's little light to draw attention there. Much of the image is soft (in a way that implies missed focus, not a "dreamy mood"). Her expression looks slightly irritated or, at best, patiently tolerant, rather than engaged or open. Again, this is all basic, Portrait 101 stuff--exactly the kinds of things you look out for when taking shots that will please the family. Does Raid's wife think this is a good photo? She seems to be an attractive woman, but this is simply not an engaging or flattering photo of her.
     
  25. "Is there a "Leica Glow"?"

    Well, I could see a little bit of glow on the first image, but it looks more a symptom of a
    dusty scanner than anything to do with the lens that took the picture.

    "why be so hostile? Constructive crtiticism may be more appropriate and more effective.
    try it out when you can."

    Raid, this is really inappropriate in itself, and entirely unfair on Mike who has a track
    record
    of
    offering meaningful advice. If you ask people to comment then you have to be able to deal
    with the rough as well as the smooth. Why are you so sensitive? On a previous thread
    when I, amongst others, had the audacity to question your credentials as a teacher of
    photography you theatrically announced that you wouldn't be forced off the forums, when
    nobody had tried any such thing. Strange.
     
  26. Maybe he should concentrate on filling the family album with with dark murky black and white images that look more "artistic"?
    Now that would be dumb... Why would he want to do that?
    Seeking better light and less contrasty situations would help tremendously. There's a pretty good color cast as well that's not flattering.
    Being open to honest and helpful criticism would be good, too.
     
  27. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I don't see the photos. Did they get pulled? Is that a reaction to critique?
     
  28. IMHO photographic "glow," especially in portraits, emanates (or not) from the subject(s)--not from the optics. Yes, yours have glow.
    Leica Glow? Maybe. Amin Glow. Definitely.
     
  29. "I don't see the photos"

    They're just obscured by the glow. If you look hard enough you'll see them glinting
    through.
     
  30. The hostility in this thread comes from Raid and, to some extent from Al Kaplan, not from
    Mike Dixon.

    Raid, you indicate that you are happy with the pictures but you asked whether they have
    the Leica Glow; and Mike answered politely, in effect, that they were snapshot taken with
    below average skill. If I was taking pictures of my family I wouldn't be happy with pictures
    such as these, for the reasons Mike has stated.

    --Mitch/Bangkok
     
  31. I am coming too late, the pictures have been removed. Too bad. <br>
    As for the Glow (Leica or not) it seems to be a matter of well controlling the depth o Field. Stand close to your subject, focus precisely on the eye (or whatever you find worthy of focusing on) then open between f2 and f5.6 (that's what I do with a 50mm lens).
    Then if you have a lens that makes a nice smooth transition from the focused to the unfocused area, you will have 3D-glow. Leica lenses have a good reputation for this...
    Actually, the picture that Mike linked to is a nice example of this (but I do not know what aperture he used). Now, is it Leica or XYZ glow, it is not that relevant. <br>
    I actually have been shooting with wider aperture, not relying as much on a big DOF, and I have to say I am happy with the results, the subject stand out more, even on family snapshots.<br>
    Last thing, I think family snapshots should be executed with a lot of attention and care, because your loved one will be more pleased -and greatful- to see themselves in a pleasing way than just on an other so-so family snapshot.<br>
    Happy shooting- <br>
    Ps: I whish my Leica had a Hasselblad glow! <br>
     
  32. These question-marks have a great glow indeed!
     
  33. And why shouldn't it glow. For that much money it should make coffee too.
     
  34. It is very difficult to work a loaded term like "mediocre" into a constructive criticism. Although a wholly subjective adjective, it has a dismissive connotation and makes opinions come off as declarations of fact. A word with similar features is "charmless." Once you use terms like these, you are in a hole if your intetion is to communicate constructive criticism.
     
  35. Raid, for some reason, my browser isn't showing your photos. As to the others, by the
    response to Mike's to my sense, pretty straight forward response, that there is some deep
    seated animus in Leica land towards a certain way of seeing photography that doesn't seem
    to neccessarily have to do with Mike or any individual at all. Am I wrong?
     
  36. Raid,

    I tried to view this page in both Firefox and IE - neither will display your photos.

    Carsten
     
  37. I, for one, would like to see a work of genius on these forums. No, I demand it!
     
  38. Genius work? Here it is...
    00DFHf-25204884.jpg
     
  39. Nice family, Raid. I didn't see the glow at first, but after downing several litres of Kosher wine, the glow radiated out and made me red!
     
  40. I would assume, if someone posts images on a photography forum and asks for comments he/she is looking for an honest answer. I don't think an honest comment, even if it's a negative one, is necessarily hostile. I didn't see anything hostile in Mike Dixon's comments.

    I also don't see anything in Raid's pics that suggest a "Leica glow." But I do in Jack Lo's which I think is a great image. Subject, composition, lighting, aperture, bokeh, everything is great.

    My wife uses an Olympus Stylus Epic p&s for family pics, buys her print film at the supermarket, has them developed at CVS, and she consistently gets better results that Raid has shown here, and she has no interest whatsoever in achieving photographic greatness. All she does is point and shoot, pretty much at random. Sorry Raid, but that's what I see.
     
  41. I agree with Bernard and some others. When I commented "Very nice" I wasn't critiquing the pics per se, but remarking on the family, and the fact that you obviously enjoy taking their photos, (altho I've seen the same expression on my wife's face, impatience. Perhaps you took too long to focus & compose?)

    I tried to hold my comments to the question asked- about the "Leica glow", and is it here or not.

    When you post here on the internet, you expose yourself to criticism, whether you want it or not. Replies posted in this type of medium don't convey the "tone" of the comments, so you must have a thick skin or you shouldn't post here. What may sound abrupt or mean (not that Mike's comment was mean, I'm speaking in general here)may not be the poster's intent. If you think comments are abrupt here, just try submitting work to people in the photo business, the 'real world', you'll get an earful and then some, and all not very polite!
     
  42. >I see no hostility in Mike's assessment. He's just being frank.<

    No matter what you think of the guy, there's no need to call him Frank.
     
  43. I have only seen glow from slow b/w film, and older lens samples?including Leica. Low sun angle does not constitute such glow, glowing would be more a more appropriate description. Mike Dixon is a great guy, a good photographer, and very accurate in this case.
    GLOW
     
  44. Thanks everyone for your comments. Maybe it's time to move on.
     
  45. Does the image in the above link show 'glow'?
     
  46. No matter what you think of the guy, there's no need to call him Frank.​

    Shirley you're joking.
     
  47. Some of the responses to Mike's comments are quite typical of forumers' reactions to honest (and not hostile) criticism. Over the years, I've figured out that these responses are typical of people who believe that spending much money on Leica gear somehow substitutes for actually learning photography.
     
  48. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Mike Dixon probably holds the record here for not having EVER made an unwise or unkind post to this forum. I suggest that rather than childishly attack him you might start actually listening and learning. This forum reminds me of first grade sometimes.
     
  49. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    I don't see the photos, either.
     
  50. m_.

    m_.

    look what you guys did to raid. now he abandoned his presdentation on "leica grow"...

    http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=296656
     
  51. Raid,

    Why is it time to move on? You obviously love your family. Why not take the better pictures of them? I should note I got here too late to see these pictures.

    Mike, Brad, and Jeff give some of the best critiques. They also put their works up on the web for others to comment. What they want from others is an honest critique. It is what helps them improve.

    I remember taking a summer photography at a local college. The class was filled with art majors picking up an elective. Many of them had trouble initially with their cameras and with work in the darkroom. It was amazing to see their work improve over several weeks.

    Where I really benefited was in their critiques of my work. They were honest and could be harsh. They weren't being mean. They took art seriously.

    It can seem harsh when a bunch of strangers are commenting on your pictures, especially when it is pictures of your family. Why not take advantage of this opportunity to improve one's photography? We all need it.
     
  52. When I want to be assured of an enthusiastic, happy smile of approval for my pics, I show them to my dog.
     
  53. "Either way, I like the results. Hope you like the photos too."

    With an imposition like that it was wrong of poor Mike Dixon to offer any "unkind" comments/critiques (whether or not they were justified at all).

    Raid, Instead of being a bit delicate, you should explicitly ask for appreciation, next time. Dropping any questions (such as "Leica Glow") would spare any critiques, IMO.
     
  54. <This forum reminds me of first grade sometimes.>


    Now there is a critical comment. First grade, never! More like second. ;)
     
  55. This little thread sure stirred up the teapot, eh? Though I think it's easier to spot
    defensiveness in others than in oneself, I found Mike's critique blunt, informed, and
    potentially useful, rather than hostile. Interesting to read his followup too, in which
    he hinted at some of the factors that go into his own image-making (which I think
    tends to be among the finest regularly posted to this site).

    That said, I disagreed with Mike (and others after him) in that I found the first image
    (of Raid's wife) more arresting than the other two. Perhaps this was due to its greater
    size or to the bolder, slightly fizzy colors in it, as well as the curiously small core of
    sharpness in her face. Now that they're all unclickable, it is that first image that
    sticks most strongly in my mind, however nice the lighting might have been in the
    second one.
     
  56. The images are not opening up for me either. I just get the squares with the red x inside. I don't see Mike's comments as hostile. Since he is an accomplished photographer, I would take what he says seriously.
     
  57. Hey Raid, imagine if you had an agent? You'd have to PAY him to get
    comments like that! (Mine, faced with a crucial piece of work, used the phrase,
    'mmm, it's just over half-way there'.). He made me to re-do my second attempt
    too. <p>
    If we want to be good, we need guys like this.
     
  58. I'm here late, but speaking only for myself, if Mike Dixon wants to comment on one of my pictures, I'm all ears.
    00DFex-25220684.jpg
     
  59. I can't see them either. And as much as Mike, Jeff, and Doug have truly, truly TRULY annoyed the tits off me here on the fora from time to time, they've each demonstrated long term, well formed, and GENUINE photographic ability on a regular and lengthy basis. Plus, I think you should be more realistic about your photos - you really should like them enough that you don't care what other people think, and share them light-heartedly- plus, be aware that you can't score a winner every time.If you never lose, how can you ever win?I have no idea what "Leica glow" could ever possibly contribute to improving a photograph. I've NEVER seen one where it has .
    00DFks-25223284.jpg
     
  60. I wasn't going to comment anymore on my own posting, but allow me to clarify that I do accept constructive criticism when offered and that I am not too receptive to comments that seem to be made in an unfriendly manner. Mike's first comment is in my view not constructive whereas his second is. I have never made an unfriendly comment on anyone's photos ... ever. Either offer good tips (as some of you have done) or try to be polite about things. When it comes to photos of my own family I take thing seriously, and that's why I have removed them. There was no request for a critique. I see some type of a "glow" in the second photo (maybe not when scanned and seen on monitors), and that was the real reason for the posting. An answer that defines the "Leica Glow" and pointing out there wasn't any would have been sufficient. I am not out to offend anybody here in any way. I already have emailed Mike.
     
  61. I don't see the photos.

    Me neither. However, he has done some nice work in my opinion...so let's be a bit kind.

    Hey, at least he takes and post photos.......

    A bit of crit should not upset anyone...no need to be too sensitive. .
     
  62. Thank you Allen.
     
  63. "I wasn't going to comment anymore on my own posting, but allow me to clarify that I do
    accept constructive criticism when offered and that I am not too receptive to comments
    that seem to be made in an unfriendly manner"

    Raid, has it crossed your mind that maybe you've set yourself up for criticism
    - constructive or otherwise - because you've repeatedly made it clear that you're far more
    than the typical forum amateur with an interest in Leica cameras:

    "I have plenty of knowledge and experience on teaching photography.....I have over 25
    years experience in photography.....I will focus on my expertise area (quality control) and
    photography....a photographer with published photo essays and many award winning
    exhbits, I am quite confident about my ability to deliver.....How do you infer that I am not
    a photographer? Has it occured to you that a person can be both a professor and a
    professional photographer?.....By the way, my photos are marketed in Asia by Mega Press
    (one of the most prestigious stock agencies in Japan).....I have over 25 years of experience
    in photography....I will give my students excellent training in photography.....I have done
    professional work for the past years and I would not be represented by a prestigous stock
    agency as Mega Press if my work is lousy"

    Given your apparently illustrious past you really shouldn't
    be too surprized if people hold you to a higher standard than the rest of us.
     
  64. I wasn't going to comment anymore on my own posting, but allow me to clarify that I do accept constructive criticism when offered and that I am not too receptive to comments that seem to be made in an unfriendly manner. Mike's first comment is in my view not constructive whereas his second is.
    Raid, in the past, you've made a point of emphasizing your experience as a photographer. Again, all the points in my second post were basic things that are listed in most beginner's guides on taking portraits. I assumed that you would know them. It was an incorrect assumption, but it wasn't an unreasonable one.
    Because I assumed you already knew these things, I figured the reason you hadn't taken them into account was because of your emotional attachment to the subjects. That's why I asked what you believed was good about the images (a question that remains unanswered). If you had devoted some thought to examining your own images, you could have figured out their weaknesses yourself.
    When presented with criticism of my images, I consider a list of possibilities:
    1) The picture simply isn't very good, and the criticism is quite valid.
    2) The person making the criticism is evaluating the image for something other than it's intended purpose. [Though Al K. implied that I was doing this, it should have been obvious from my comments about the second image that I was, in fact, evaluating them as pleasing shots of your family and not as artwork intended for museum walls.]
    3) The person making the criticism has fundamentally different tastes than I do.
    4) The person making the criticism has some kind of personal issue with me, and they're attacking my images rather than attacking me directly.
    I've already asked (indirectly) why you immediately assumed that 4) was the case, but I received no reply. Do you assume your images are so wonderful and have such universal appeal that the only possible reason for criticism would be a personal grudge?
    Thanks to everyone who noted that they didn't see my initial post as hostile.
    p.s. Raid, I never received an email from you.
     
  65. Mike: I sent it to your website. Check it out.
     
  66. Again, this is all basic, Portrait 101 stuff-

    In real life nobody behaves like a model, and the world isn't a studio. This is the sort of stuff that has always made me never ever wanted to take a photography class, nor ever want to be called a "professional" photographer. I like my subjects unposed, my light as-is. Real life isn't "professional", it's real. I think it's a matter of philosophy, in the end. I could very well say that pictures of women in transluscent wet shirts are technically deficient because it's against Shirt-Wearing 101, shirts are just meant to be dry when you wear them. --- It's all relative, and posing implicitly hostile questions as "your shots are mediocre, what do you find appealing about them?" are, well...unprofessional.
     
  67. Mike Johnson's article (see Skip's Link "Glow" provides the basics on how to the look. I would add that used Ansco 130 paper developer often creates a light print stain with 3 min development on warm black paper.

    David Vestal is one of my favorite photo magazine author. He currently pens an article in DarkRoom Techniques. He has a wonderful kind, direct, gentle, uncomplicated way of communicating. We need more David Vestals in this world who can effectively guide learners.
     
  68. In real life nobody behaves like a model, and the world isn't a studio. This is the sort of stuff that has always made me never ever wanted to take a photography class, nor ever want to be called a "professional" photographer. I like my subjects unposed, my light as-is.
    I noted those basic "Portrait 101" guidelines in response to Al's post about the family not wanting dark, arty photos--the point was that two of Raid's shots were still not strong in terms of conventionally pleasing portraits. I'm curious now: if it's unfair to assess the quality of portraits based on the lighting, on the pose, on the expressions and mood, or on how well it engages the viewer, what are we left with?
    If you were familiar with my photography, you'd know that, aside from some model portfolio work and paid portraiture, the vast majority of my shots are of unposed people in available light. That was the sensibility with which I approached Raid's shots, taking into account that they were intended as "family reportage" rather than some other genre.
    So far, only one person, Nathaniel Pearson, has disagreed with my assessment by noting things he liked about the images. While we may disagree, I certainly respect his effort to articulate his thoughts on the image.
     
  69. Mike Dixon's list of possibilities for photo criticism is quite reasonable and comprehensive.
     
  70. Raid pulled the photos belonging to this thread, but if you look at his portfolio you see
    a collection of mostly amateur photos. I haven't followed any earlier discussions
    referenced here, but I'm astounded that he apparently teaches photography and
    considers himself a pro.
     
  71. Since my main income does not come from photography, I certainly "do not think of myself" as a pro. Secondly, I am not a photography teacher. I teach statistics.
     
  72. How about this .... I had no glow in any of the three photos, and Mike is a nice guy but I misunderstood his comments as hostile. Is this a good way to end this posting or should it go on for another month or so?
     
  73. Raid apparently forgot the words he wrote (reposted by Doris) in which he calls himself
    a pro and a teacher of photography.
     
  74. This is my biography as in photonet:
    "biography: I am a Professor in a Department of Mathematics and Statistics at a university in the southern part of the USA. I have been involved in photography since over 20 years. For some reason, I prefer film based photography and I have been avoiding getting into digital photography.I don't believe that I am a collector as my cameras are often inexpensive and I actually use them all. I love the beautiful craftmanship in the older manual cameras like Rolleiflex, Leica, and Canon."
     
  75. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Raid, relax! :) It's sometimes easy to misinterpret things said on the internet, and it looks like that is what has happened here, at least a little. Let's move on now. Keep posting.

    Baily, shut up already. Don't egg people on. OK?
     
  76. I'm not saying this is a good photo. But it does have something that surprised me when I
    saw the negative scan. A real sense of space. I'm not used to seeing that.
     
  77. Ed, If you mean to say that you are seeing what appears like a 3D effect, you may have something here.
     
  78. check please!
     
  79. u dodge it, u glow it.
     
  80. (...) if it's unfair to assess the quality of portraits based on the lighting, on the pose, on the expressions and mood, or on how well it engages the viewer, what are we left with?

    That is a very fair question; I do believe you are right in that respect. I believe I was just underscoring what others were perceiving and not quite eloquating. It is hard to read somebody when the underlying tone is rude, and if that was not your intention I guess that, at least to me, has been pretty much made clear it wasn't.

    Now I wonder, which is worse to have, F.G., or Phil Z? Both clearly just add fire to the derailment of the forum's topics.
     
  81. Raid, I merely noted previous claims by you quoted by Doris. What difference does it
    make what your biography statment is? Are you trying to claim you never made those
    statements, or are you attempting to cloud the issue, or what?
     
  82. I never claimed that I am a photography professor ... anytime.
    As for being a Pro, I don'r recall ever making such a statement. I may have said that I market my photos but I don't recall saying that I am a pro in photography.
     
  83. Z, the quotes are accurate. They're from a couple of recent threads (while you were in
    prison) in which Raid got prickly when eyebrows were raised at his accounts of instructing
    students in photography. I'm amazed you didn't have wifi in your cell.......
     
  84. Teaching one course does not make anyone a "teacher of photography". Therefore, I never made such a claim. Read the discussions made.
     
  85. I'm amazed you didn't have wifi in your cell.......
    Wifi coverage is usually handled by the prison's Starbucks franchise.
     
  86. Is this a good way to end this posting or should it go on for another month or so?
    This thread does seem to have legs...
     
  87. "I never made such a claim"

    Hmmm. Time for the semantic showdown?

    "I have plenty of knowledge and experience on teaching photography....I will give my
    students excellent training in photography"
     
  88. Eighty three per cent flies. Eleven per cent mash. Six per cent D76 powder. A healthy and
    balanced diet.
     
  89. Raid's claims have been raided.
     
  90. Here's some glow for ya

    unwrapping
    libstatue
    kid

    The 1st is with a 35mm pre-asph Summilux. The 2nd with a Summar. The 3rd with a red scale Elmar.
     
  91. Worthwhile thread; some very nice photos....thanks, enjoyed.

    Z, you really need to calm down after you prison experience. Yes, he still loves you (that's what he said, anyway). And remember, your boils...over excitement does not help.
     
  92. Anyway, time for a photo from me.......Bikers, Purple Hair! They will start taking photos soon........
    00DHn6-25270584.jpg
     
  93. I'm into to the saturated image, lately. I believe, it makes you famous, from what i've seen.....anyway;) Not that i'm not already famous,maybe.
     
  94. Allen, grant & I learned much from out stay at Gitmo. One is to stay calm in the face of
    blather. ;-)
     

Share This Page

1111