grant_. Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 YEA! frikkin canuks! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 and isn't it a bit hypocritial to criticize bashing politicians down here when 1 million baby seals are bashed up there? what did they ever do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 oh yeah, they ate all the cod!!! not like the cod were overfished by people!!!! ;) i feel better now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 i'll have one of whatever shes drinking, sir... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absinthe Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 William, these are film, but my scanner is wonkey so the contrast is kicked way up & highlights are getting blown. I have a somewhat OK workaround to make the scans viewable, but a lot of tonality is lost. Thats why they may look digital. I have a digital P&S, but I hardly use it. I would like a digital SLR for color work, but funds are very tight right now. I do enjoy my darkroom time & find it relaxing so I doubt I will be going digital for my B&W stuff any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absinthe Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 Randy, not once did I partake in any "Bush Bashing" I simply stated that I was at an anti-Bush event & took pictures. That is not "Bush Bashing". I didn't speak one negative comment about the man. I did, however, question why others would choose to bash my post rather than comment on the pictures. I never stated that they couldn't disagree with me. Heck, I'll engage in a little debate, but I still wanted some comments on the pictures which only Grant & Trevor seemed to do in the beginning. People would rather argue about the use of the phrase "Neo-Con" and attribute its usage to me falsely. I am sorry if my calling their sad little nipping out hurt people's feelings, but I figured this to be a thick skinned group. One is allowed to set up photos of anything else utilizing a little background info, but obviously not if its political. better to leave people flapping in the wind I suppose <p> Thinskinned, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absinthe Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 When you get around to the Tuna Bashing, please let me know 'cause I would like to pick up a few steaks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 yea, count me in...i prefer porkchops tho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattalofs Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 4 and 14 are the only ones that do it for me. I think grant is onto something with the DOF comments. There isn't enough definition between subject and surroundings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot_rosen Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Heather, if the intro had been framed as it is now, most of us (including me) would have been happy to comment on the pics. Randy, Trevor, and James O'G were right, it was framed as an anti-Bush editorial, not a neutral comment. And then you insulted and dismissed the people who pointed that out. Most of us don't respond well to that kind of thing. Just a friendly comment. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absinthe Posted August 25, 2004 Author Share Posted August 25, 2004 The comment that you left that started this whole thing ws hardly friendy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 People are sure jumpy here. Neo-Con, it's just a term. Jeez... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 It's all very well to break into the White House, drop some bombs, dress up in uniform and let your friends help themselves to the liquor cabinet, but it's certainly NOT ok to talk about it until such time as suitable euphemisms are available for use in polite company. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_m__toronto_ Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 quiche, i don't care who gets bashed. i'm just openly telling you that ya'll sure like to whine. :-) if kerry gets in, when will you start being un-satisfied with that? i'm by all means no fan of either, but it's your system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 hey matt....whining is part of our "system." we bash and whine, bash and whine. then after 4 years we start all over again. gotta prolem with that? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy_skopar Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 When we stop having elections every four years, we will have civil wars every four years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsr Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Matt, it's a rare President that is still popular six months after his inauguation. There's a brief honeymoon followed by a prolonged hate-fest. Come to think of it, I seen many Premiers suffer the same fate in my long, dreary life! Best regards, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 When I was shooting newspaper asignments 20 or 30 years ago I don't remember anybody carrying around a slower speed film on any kind of regular basis. Most photographers shot Kodak Tri-X, a few shot Ilford HP4, and there was always Diafine ready for those times when 400 wasn't enough. That's when you were glad that you chose Tri-X because HP4 wouldn't get as much speed boost from the Diafine. Hmmm. Strange that hip hugger bell bottoms were fashionable 30 years ago too! The Hula Hoops, though, date all the way back to the 1950's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy_skopar Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 The bare-midriff look came along in 1973, but didn't last long. The current bare midriff style has been going for years--since 1995 or so. There's been some elaboration of the style this time; I guess that is what keeps it going. First, pierced navels were added, and then lower-back tattoos. And thong underwear. Finally, the jeans are cut low, whereas in 1973 it was mostly short tops that bared the flesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 The current bare midriff style.......<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now