Oooo, pretty
July 27, 2007 5:19 AM Subscribe
It's Friday, time to relax and look at pretty pictures [maybe nsfw in the banner ads]
You may want "NSFW". Not that I care, but people will.
posted by chuckdarwin at 5:36 AM on July 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by chuckdarwin at 5:36 AM on July 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
I meant: *to add* the word NSFW
posted by chuckdarwin at 5:36 AM on July 27, 2007
posted by chuckdarwin at 5:36 AM on July 27, 2007
Apologies on the NSFW. My browser (Camino) doesn't show the banner ad.
I flagged it so the admins could throw on a NSFW.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:42 AM on July 27, 2007
I flagged it so the admins could throw on a NSFW.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:42 AM on July 27, 2007
Love the underwater tiger shot. There's a lot of good pix here.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:51 AM on July 27, 2007
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:51 AM on July 27, 2007
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!
posted by imperium at 6:07 AM on July 27, 2007
I enjoyed this exactly as billed. Thanks. Catching a rainbow and a lightning strike in the same shot? Patience required!
posted by imperium at 6:07 AM on July 27, 2007
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.
posted by DU at 6:52 AM on July 27, 2007
...as long as they are reading from home or their workplaces allow them to install software.
posted by DU at 6:52 AM on July 27, 2007
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.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:07 AM on July 27, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 7:07 AM on July 27, 2007 [3 favorites]
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)
posted by hexatron at 7:27 AM on July 27, 2007
...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)
posted by hexatron at 7:27 AM on July 27, 2007
Copyright infringement and no photo credits! Love it.
Bears repeating. Don't do this, kids.
posted by sidereal at 7:32 AM on July 27, 2007
Bears repeating. Don't do this, kids.
posted by sidereal at 7:32 AM on July 27, 2007
No Goatse?
posted by Optamystic at 7:36 AM on July 27, 2007
posted by Optamystic at 7:36 AM on July 27, 2007
This post is useless without words.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:49 AM on July 27, 2007
posted by Deathalicious at 7:49 AM on July 27, 2007
90 year old, wrinkled Indian men - making photography a profitable career choice since the 1970's.
posted by fire&wings at 8:21 AM on July 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by fire&wings at 8:21 AM on July 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
As if the sharks and jellyfish weren't doing enough to keep me on dry land, now I gotta worry about Tigers?!?
posted by billyfleetwood at 8:30 AM on July 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by billyfleetwood at 8:30 AM on July 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
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)
posted by KokuRyu at 8:30 AM on July 27, 2007
(Hate to snark, but this is photography, after all)
posted by KokuRyu at 8:30 AM on July 27, 2007
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.
posted by jamuraa at 2:19 PM on July 27, 2007
posted by jamuraa at 2:19 PM on July 27, 2007
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
posted by mazola at 10:38 PM on July 27, 2007
...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
posted by mazola at 10:38 PM on July 27, 2007
« Older A week-long diary by The Economist's obituaries... | Google-white=blackle??? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
not to mention a NSFW banner ad!
posted by photoslob at 5:24 AM on July 27, 2007