Comments on: Oooo, pretty

Oooo, pretty

Brandon Blatcher — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:19:08 -0800

It's Friday, time to relax and look at pretty pictures [maybe nsfw in the banner ads]

By: photoslob

photoslob — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:24:23 -0800

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:36:27 -0800

You may want "NSFW". Not that I care, but people will.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:36:55 -0800

I meant: *to add* the word NSFW

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:42:17 -0800

Apologies on the NSFW. My browser (Camino) doesn't show the banner ad. I flagged it so the admins could throw on a NSFW.

By: GhostintheMachine

GhostintheMachine — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:51:25 -0800

Love the underwater tiger shot. There's a lot of good pix here.

By: imperium

imperium — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:07:48 -0800

OK, I think it's reasonable to operate on the idea that literate adults using the web also use ad-blockers. I enjoyed this exactly as billed. Thanks. Catching a rainbow and a lightning strike in the same shot? Patience required!

By: DU

DU — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:52:47 -0800

OK, I think it's reasonable to operate on the idea that literate adults using the web also use ad-blockers. ...as long as they are reading from home or their workplaces allow them to install software.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:07:31 -0800

meh, any idiot could have taken these photos. All they require is a digital camera, an extraordinary amount of talent, a knowledge of composition, lighting, and knowing how to tell a story with a picture.

By: hexatron

hexatron — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:27:21 -0800

meh, any idiot could have taken these photos ...and most important, the taste to omit the 99.99% of your photos that are worse than the remaining 0.01% (In the ancient days of film, my photography teacher observed that you get about one usable picture from 80 square inches of negative, no matter what the format. An 8x10 camera hits on most every shot--35mm and roll film gets about one good picture per roll)

By: sidereal

sidereal — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:32:35 -0800

Copyright infringement and no photo credits! Love it. Bears repeating. Don't do this, kids.

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:36:31 -0800

No Goatse?

By: Deathalicious

Deathalicious — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:49:36 -0800

This post is useless without words.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:21:18 -0800

90 year old, wrinkled Indian men - making photography a profitable career choice since the 1970's.

By: billyfleetwood

billyfleetwood — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:30:14 -0800

As if the sharks and jellyfish weren't doing enough to keep me on dry land, now I gotta worry about Tigers?!?

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:30:58 -0800

Typical photos you would find postered on dorm-room walls throughout the land. Now these are photos. (Hate to snark, but this is photography, after all)

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:31:11 -0800

Sorry, here.

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:31:56 -0800

Susan Meiselas

By: Shakeer

Shakeer — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:38:43 -0800

TRULY INSPIRING

By: jamuraa

jamuraa — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:19:49 -0800

I have to agree with sidereal and photoslob. I would love to use some of these (wonderful) pictures in a presentation or two - the tiger one would be excellent - but I can't because I don't know what the rights are.

By: mazola

mazola — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:38:37 -0800

meh, any idiot could have taken these photos ...and most important, the taste to omit the 99.99% of your photos that are worse than the remaining 0.01% There are two schools of photography: 1) take a hell of a lot of pictures and throw out the crap 2) take a hell of a lot of pictures and only keep the good stuff