Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Images: Debbie's New BMW

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:49:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw

More about : images debbie bmw

Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:56:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³" <ftlbard@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:112bh3lkii2b907@news.supernews.com...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>
>
>

It's, ahem, a nice car...
March 2, 2005 2:49:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

that's one skank lookin' chick.

It would be difficult to sit in those seats knowing that thing got out of
it.


"Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³" <ftlbard@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:112bh3lkii2b907@news.supernews.com...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 3:26:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Debbie would be hotter if she smiled at some point and took off her
top, the boobs look more worthy of photography than the face (or the
car).
March 2, 2005 6:46:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A failed attempt at recapturing her obviously long-faded youth.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 9:43:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³" <ftlbard@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:112bh3lkii2b907@news.supernews.com...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw

Photography is all about reactions, right?
Here's mine.

The girl looks OK until the shot with the cigarette...
Then all I can think of are her tar-covered lungs, nasty breath, yellow teeth, and stained
fingers.
That just ain't sexy.

What's worse... It's gonna stink up that nice new ride...
Leather smells great until you dump a bunch of tobacco skank into the interior.

Yuck.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 9:48:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Debbie got a new (used) BMW 323i.
The car has very low miles and not a single ding on it."
---------------

Unlike Debbie.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 9:57:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³" <ftlbard@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in
> message news:112bh3lkii2b907@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>
> Photography is all about reactions, right?
> Here's mine.
>
> The girl looks OK until the shot with the cigarette...
> Then all I can think of are her tar-covered lungs, nasty breath,
> yellow teeth, and stained fingers.
> That just ain't sexy.
>
> What's worse... It's gonna stink up that nice new ride...
> Leather smells great until you dump a bunch of tobacco skank into the
> interior.
> Yuck.

I cringe when I see an otherwise presentable person wth a cigarette.

I don't think she is a particularly attractive example, but that may be
just a taste thing.

I see the photographer is able to control the model's behavior for a
period of time. It seems to me he should cash in a little of his
influence to move the set to a less distracting venue. Or figure out how
to restrict the in-focus features to the car and model.

Leading me to the underlying question: what is the purpose of these
little sessions this photographer invites us to 'vote' on?


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 10:42:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:n8edneU5zuGG4LvfRVn-qA@giganews.com...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³" <ftlbard@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> message news:112bh3lkii2b907@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>>
>> Photography is all about reactions, right?
>> Here's mine.
>>
>> The girl looks OK until the shot with the cigarette...
>> Then all I can think of are her tar-covered lungs, nasty breath,
>> yellow teeth, and stained fingers.
>> That just ain't sexy.
>>
>> What's worse... It's gonna stink up that nice new ride...
>> Leather smells great until you dump a bunch of tobacco skank into the
>> interior.
>> Yuck.
>
> I cringe when I see an otherwise presentable person wth a cigarette.
>
> I don't think she is a particularly attractive example, but that may be just a taste
> thing.
>
> I see the photographer is able to control the model's behavior for a period of time. It
> seems to me he should cash in a little of his influence to move the set to a less
> distracting venue. Or figure out how to restrict the in-focus features to the car and
> model.
>
> Leading me to the underlying question: what is the purpose of these little sessions this
> photographer invites us to 'vote' on?
>
>
> --
> Frank ess

I get the impression that this lady is a friend of the photog.
She was probably excited about her new-used BMW, so he snapped some shots of her.
He just forgot to remind her that she might want to smile, and/or try and look like she is
pleased with her new vehicle.
I suspect she will NOT be pleased with these shots...
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:10:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2 Mar 2005 12:26:36 -0800, revbob17@gmail.com wrote:

>Debbie would be hotter if she smiled at some point and took off her
>top, the boobs look more worthy of photography than the face (or the
>car).

Riiggghttt.

Dean, if photographing buxom women is your thing, get yourself down to
the Renaissance festival this weekend at Deerfield Beach. Lots of
college girls demonstrating the uplifting wonder of corsets.

It ends on the March 13th.

Lousy Example:
http://ren-fest.com/clothier2003.html

Main site:
http://ren-fest.com/fla1.html

--
Owamanga!
March 3, 2005 12:36:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:49:18 -0500, "Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³"
><ftlbard@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>
>What car? :) 

I didn't see one either.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:37:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³" <ftlbard@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:112bh3lkii2b907@news.supernews.com...
>
>

Was there a dreadful accident with her previous car, in which she suffered
some sort of facial disfugurement? My sympathies to her.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 7:28:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> The girl looks OK until the shot with the cigarette...
> Then all I can think of are her tar-covered lungs, nasty breath, yellow
> teeth, and stained fingers.

This reminds me of a picture I put up on pBase. It shows the cellular
structure of a smoker's lung. With polarized light I was able to emphasize
particulates, which are more commonly found in lungs of smokers than in
healthy lungs due to their restricted capacity to move out impurities. The
darker areas show residuals that actually come from smoking.

BTW, the picture is at http://www.pbase.com/overney/image/38621705 if you
really need to see it ;-(

Gregor
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 9:21:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SAGOTEB remakrs:

You all (with the comments on the lady), have to be verry good looking,

or have a verry pretty looking wife/girlfriend. Bless you all!

Yeah. I'd love to see some photos of those who are making the snide
remarks.

Critique the photos, not the people in them. There's at least one shot
where a pole is growing out of her head. That's a fairly basic mistake
and there are others. But all the Mr. Perfections are worried about her
looks and her cigarette.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:48:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dumb question- why is everything shot at ISO 1600? It's great at showing off
high shutter speeds, but what am I missing? Is the noise part of an effect
that you're trying to accomplish? Not much noise, I'll admit, but wouldn't
the images look smoother at a lower ISO?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:48:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ZizVd.2269$C47.471@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Dumb question- why is everything shot at ISO 1600? It's great at showing off
> high shutter speeds, but what am I missing? Is the noise part of an effect
> that you're trying to accomplish? Not much noise, I'll admit, but wouldn't
> the images look smoother at a lower ISO?
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Based on the subject, exposure times, and noise level I'd say it's due
to not knowing how to use the camera.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:20:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> Dumb question- why is everything shot at ISO 1600? It's great at showing off
> high shutter speeds, but what am I missing? Is the noise part of an effect
> that you're trying to accomplish? Not much noise, I'll admit, but wouldn't
> the images look smoother at a lower ISO?

Your question doesn't make much sense. Very few people shoot everything
at ISO 1600. Many digital cameras don't even go that high so it's
impossible for many to shoot at that speed.

Who do think only shoots at ISO 1600 ?
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:31:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³" <ftlbard@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:112bh3lkii2b907@news.supernews.com...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>
>


Looks like a hairdressers' car driven by an ,er, hairdresser!!

Check out the old lady arms on DSC_7822.jpg....nasty.

Like other people have said, a few nice photos, but too much clutter in the
background for me.

Might be improved with Debbie naked on the bonnet, but I think that would
probably put a "ding" in it.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 2:24:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7nwVd.560539$6l.455304@pd7tw2no...
> Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³ wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>>
>>
>>
> Hi,
> Hot car with dumb blonde.
> Tony

You all (with the comments on the lady), have to be verry good looking,
or have a verry pretty looking wife/girlfriend. Bless you all!
Sagoteb.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 2:24:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"SAGOTEB" <a.doorn6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:utCVd.254536$PH1.245266@amsnews05.chello.com...
>
> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:7nwVd.560539$6l.455304@pd7tw2no...
>> Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³ wrote:
>>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hi,
>> Hot car with dumb blonde.
>> Tony
>
> You all (with the comments on the lady), have to be verry good looking,
> or have a verry pretty looking wife/girlfriend. Bless you all!
> Sagoteb.

I would agree that some comments here have been rather cruel.
Unfortunately, when a photog includes a line like, "Please vote for Debbie if you think
she is hot", it's just asking for abuse...
:( 
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 2:24:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> "SAGOTEB" <a.doorn6@chello.nl> wrote:
>>
>> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³ wrote:
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>>>>
>> You all (with the comments on the lady), have to be verry good looking,
>> or have a verry pretty looking wife/girlfriend. Bless you all!
>> Sagoteb.
>
> I would agree that some comments here have been rather cruel.
> Unfortunately, when a photog includes a line like, "Please vote for Debbie
> if you think she is hot", it's just asking for abuse...
> :( 

I was more concerned about the lens flare that her lit cigarette was
causing.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 5:33:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 3/3/05 5:24 AM, in article utCVd.254536$PH1.245266@amsnews05.chello.com,
"SAGOTEB" <a.doorn6@chello.nl> wrote:

>
> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:7nwVd.560539$6l.455304@pd7tw2no...
>> Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³ wrote:
>>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hi,
>> Hot car with dumb blonde.
>> Tony
>
> You all (with the comments on the lady), have to be verry good looking,
> or have a verry pretty looking wife/girlfriend. Bless you all!
> Sagoteb.
>
>
Yep. ALL of them have been on the cover of "GQ" magazine...


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
March 3, 2005 5:45:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> a écrit dans le message de
news:112ear6p4micof1@news.supernews.com...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> > Dumb question- why is everything shot at ISO 1600? It's great at showing
off
> > high shutter speeds, but what am I missing? Is the noise part of an
effect
> > that you're trying to accomplish? Not much noise, I'll admit, but
wouldn't
> > the images look smoother at a lower ISO?
>
> Your question doesn't make much sense. Very few people shoot everything
> at ISO 1600. Many digital cameras don't even go that high so it's
> impossible for many to shoot at that speed.
>
> Who do think only shoots at ISO 1600 ?

no one shoot always at ISO 1600.

I only use it in very low light, And with noise ninja, you can still get
very good pictures if you use a 20D.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 5:46:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 3 Mar 2005 14:33:27 GMT, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/3/05 5:24 AM, in article utCVd.254536$PH1.245266@amsnews05.chello.com,
>"SAGOTEB" <a.doorn6@chello.nl> wrote:
>>
>> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:7nwVd.560539$6l.455304@pd7tw2no...
>>> Hi,
>>> Hot car with dumb blonde.
>>> Tony
>>
>> You all (with the comments on the lady), have to be verry good looking,
>> or have a verry pretty looking wife/girlfriend. Bless you all!
>> Sagoteb.
>>
>>
>Yep. ALL of them have been on the cover of "GQ" magazine...

You mean the Guerilla Quasimodo Magazine?

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 8:19:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hannah responds:

Careful on the use of "Mr" there please. We females are also concerned
about
the waste of electrons on a model who was overlooked when the looks
were
given out and to whom the ageing process has been very unkind, never
mind
the photographer's very mistaken belief in his ability to make an
image. Is
it your contention that a cigarette is an attractive item to be seen in
a
photograph? This is just a series of bad snapshots of a distressing
female,
who occasionally sprouts a headpole, posing with a highly overrated
vehicle,
nothing more.

So you're Ms Perfection?

Somehow, I'm willing to bet the opposite way.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 8:19:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:M76dnX4MqtRIsrrfRVn-jw@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>> "SAGOTEB" <a.doorn6@chello.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³ wrote:
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>>>>>
>>> You all (with the comments on the lady), have to be verry good looking,
>>> or have a verry pretty looking wife/girlfriend. Bless you all!
>>> Sagoteb.
>>
>> I would agree that some comments here have been rather cruel.
>> Unfortunately, when a photog includes a line like, "Please vote for Debbie if you think
>> she is hot", it's just asking for abuse...
>> :( 
>
> I was more concerned about the lens flare that her lit cigarette was causing.

I was busy wondering why he wanted to actually post these shots at all.
The model looks quite displeased/uncomfortable/unhappy, and the car isn't really
emphasized.
All in all, a rather bleak collection.
The cigarettes were just sludge on the cow-pie...
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 8:29:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:p IOVd.148894$0u.101996@fed1read04...
>
> "Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:M76dnX4MqtRIsrrfRVn-jw@speakeasy.net...
>>
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "SAGOTEB" <a.doorn6@chello.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³ wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>>>>>>
>>>> You all (with the comments on the lady), have to be verry good looking,
>>>> or have a verry pretty looking wife/girlfriend. Bless you all!
>>>> Sagoteb.
>>>
>>> I would agree that some comments here have been rather cruel.
>>> Unfortunately, when a photog includes a line like, "Please vote for Debbie if you
>>> think she is hot", it's just asking for abuse...
>>> :( 
>>
>> I was more concerned about the lens flare that her lit cigarette was causing.
>
> I was busy wondering why he wanted to actually post these shots at all.
> The model looks quite displeased/uncomfortable/unhappy, and the car isn't really
> emphasized.
> All in all, a rather bleak collection.
> The cigarettes were just sludge on the cow-pie...

And no...I am NOT referring to the girl.
She's not bad looking at all.
She just needs to smile a bit.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 10:53:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All I see is a car.


clutch@lycos.com wrote:

> secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 08:49:18 -0500, "Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³"
>><ftlbard@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>>
>>What car? :) 
>
>
> I didn't see one either.
>
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 11:11:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

From: "Mark²" <mjmorgan

And no...I am NOT referring to the girl.
She's not bad looking at all.
She just needs to smile a bit.
---------------------------

Does the phrase, "Rode hard, and put up wet," mean anything to ya?
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 11:28:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³ wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>
>
>

I'm sure she's really happy with the car, and I feel others have been a bit
harsh. Not everyone's partner is a supermodel, and if she is your partner, don't
pay any attention to the bitches in here. Fortunately some people had some
constructive comments.

Ben
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 11:28:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:D j8kf2-euc.ln1@centauri.unico.com.au...
> Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³ wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm sure she's really happy with the car, and I feel others have been a bit harsh. Not
> everyone's partner is a supermodel, and if she is your partner, don't pay any attention
> to the bitches in here. Fortunately some people had some constructive comments.
>
> Ben

Good advice.
I'm hoping this isn't the photog's wife...sister...girlfriend...mother...aunt, etc.

If she is (to the original poster)...
....Just be mindful of the fact that those who were cruel here are likely porn-site
addicts...who get to pick and choose their "beauties" with a mouse-click...and who have
lost all sense of genuine, internal beauty. On the other hand...It's fairly certain that
the internals of her lungs look like poo. But on the THIRD hand... they say it clears up
if you quit soon enough. So take heart!!

And to all you meanies out there...

:) 

....Don't get steamed.
March 3, 2005 11:50:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3SOVd.148958$0u.108540@fed1read04>, Mark² < here)@cox..net>
wrote:

> And no...I am NOT referring to the girl.
> She's not bad looking at all.
> She just needs to smile a bit.

The problem is the photographer. He is getting the worst from the girl,
not the best. The truth is that most of these images are not very good.
Same as the images he showed from the protest. Those were not very good
either.

--
Charles
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:26:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109859719.087951.275320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Critique the photos, not the people in them. There's at least one shot
> where a pole is growing out of her head. That's a fairly basic mistake
> and there are others. But all the Mr. Perfections are worried about her

Careful on the use of "Mr" there please. We females are also concerned about
the waste of electrons on a model who was overlooked when the looks were
given out and to whom the ageing process has been very unkind, never mind
the photographer's very mistaken belief in his ability to make an image. Is
it your contention that a cigarette is an attractive item to be seen in a
photograph? This is just a series of bad snapshots of a distressing female,
who occasionally sprouts a headpole, posing with a highly overrated vehicle,
nothing more.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:05:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³" <ftlbard@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:112bh3lkii2b907@news.supernews.com...
>
>>http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/debbiebmw
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> It's, ahem, a nice car...
>
>
Also nice airbags :) ))
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:16:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3SOVd.148958$0u.108540@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> And no...I am NOT referring to the girl.
> She's not bad looking at all.
> She just needs to smile a bit.

But what if she's a snaggletooth?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
March 4, 2005 7:16:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:

> In article <3SOVd.148958$0u.108540@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>> And no...I am NOT referring to the girl.
>> She's not bad looking at all.
>> She just needs to smile a bit.
>
> But what if she's a snaggletooth?

Teeth look fine to me.

http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/image/40338533

She just doesn't look comfortable being photographed by this person and
looks like for good reason. Posting this to a group of people who would
NEVER complement anything they don't own? :-)

These are bad shots and an even worse choice of a place to take them. I love
the shot with the school buses in the background!


--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:45:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109899166.695287.152120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> So you're Ms Perfection?
>
> Somehow, I'm willing to bet the opposite way.
>

Very impressed with the solid quality of your response to her.
Is that the best you can do?
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:48:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³" <ftlbard@nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:112bh3lkii2b907@news.supernews.com...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/
>

I think you're a troll Lautermilch. You've had a lot of response to your
"photographs" (using the term advisedly) and have not responded to a single
post.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:09:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> I was busy wondering why he wanted to actually post these shots at all.
>> The model looks quite displeased/uncomfortable/unhappy, and the car isn't
>> really emphasized.
>> All in all, a rather bleak collection.
>> The cigarettes were just sludge on the cow-pie...
>
> And no...I am NOT referring to the girl.
> She's not bad looking at all.
> She just needs to smile a bit.

Dean has posted more than one collection like this. Remember his
http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/breakdown series two months ago? He might
just have an aesthetic for this type that not everyone shares. Or maybe his
family likes to smoke a lot?
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:09:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:bLOdnWIt8aaQ57XfRVn-vQ@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>> I was busy wondering why he wanted to actually post these shots at all.
>>> The model looks quite displeased/uncomfortable/unhappy, and the car isn't really
>>> emphasized.
>>> All in all, a rather bleak collection.
>>> The cigarettes were just sludge on the cow-pie...
>>
>> And no...I am NOT referring to the girl.
>> She's not bad looking at all.
>> She just needs to smile a bit.
>
> Dean has posted more than one collection like this. Remember his
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/breakdown series two months ago? He might just have an
> aesthetic for this type that not everyone shares. Or maybe his family likes to smoke a
> lot?

Hmmm...
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:15:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
news:g82dnWc4oYNiE7rfRVnyhg@pipex.net...
>
> "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1109859719.087951.275320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Critique the photos, not the people in them. There's at least one shot
>> where a pole is growing out of her head. That's a fairly basic mistake
>> and there are others. But all the Mr. Perfections are worried about her
>
> Careful on the use of "Mr" there please. We females are also concerned
> about
> the waste of electrons on a model who was overlooked when the looks were
> given out and to whom the ageing process has been very unkind, never mind
> the photographer's very mistaken belief in his ability to make an image.
> Is
> it your contention that a cigarette is an attractive item to be seen in a
> photograph? This is just a series of bad snapshots of a distressing
> female,
> who occasionally sprouts a headpole, posing with a highly overrated
> vehicle,
> nothing more.

I think the issue here isn't that he said just "what do you think of these
photos?" but "please rate the model." Although that's not on the site now,
so maybe I imagined it.

I'd like Dean to explain why he chose to shoot at ISO1600, 1/4000 sec at
f/5.6. Since the backgrounds are distracting on this shot, wouldn't it have
been better to go with the lowest ISO possible and maybe even an ND filter
to lower the f-stop so that we wouldn't have to see as much of the
model...er...background? Not that I should judge, because I'm the World's
Worst Photographer.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:46:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1109899166.695287.152120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
charliediy@aol.com (Charlie Self) wrote:

> Somehow, I'm willing to bet the opposite way.
Writes the person that can't even quote properly.

Iain
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:39:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:09:00 -0500, "Cynicor"
<j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote:


>Dean has posted more than one collection like this. Remember his
>http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/breakdown series two months ago? He might
>just have an aesthetic for this type that not everyone shares. Or maybe his
>family likes to smoke a lot?

DUDE!

For the sake of our lunch, please post a warning before that link
(especially this one):

http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/image/38298652

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:39:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>Dean has posted more than one collection like this. Remember his
>>http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/breakdown series two months ago? He might
>>just have an aesthetic for this type that not everyone shares. Or maybe
>>his
>>family likes to smoke a lot?
>
> DUDE!
>
> For the sake of our lunch, please post a warning before that link
> (especially this one):
>
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/image/38298652

Hey, you'd be happy too if you'd just tied a cigarette into a knot with your
tongue.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:52:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike,

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Dumb question- why is everything shot at ISO 1600? It's great at showing off
>high shutter speeds, but what am I missing? Is the noise part of an effect
>that you're trying to accomplish? Not much noise, I'll admit, but wouldn't
>the images look smoother at a lower ISO?

I usually shoot at 1600 only when I need to, given the light, the depth of
field I need and the shutter speed I need.

Just after I got my 20D, I went to a Fitness contest (no flash allowed). They
had quite a bit of light (for the video they were taking), but I still needed
to shoot at 1600 and 3200. At 5.6 (and maybe 1/3 a stop under exposed), the
shutter speed worked out to 1/200 for 1600. When I looked at the shots the
first day, many of them had motion blur (picture a woman doing a series of
backflips across the stage). The next day, I did all my shooting at 3200, and
1/400. That stopped the motion.

I take shots of my friend's model RC race cars at races. On a cloudy day, I
still need 1600 to get above 1/1000, to stop the motion of the cars going by.

>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles

Jerry
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 6:06:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jerry Shaw <jnshaw@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Mike,

>"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>Dumb question- why is everything shot at ISO 1600? It's great at showing off
>>high shutter speeds, but what am I missing? Is the noise part of an effect
>>that you're trying to accomplish? Not much noise, I'll admit, but wouldn't
>>the images look smoother at a lower ISO?

>I usually shoot at 1600 only when I need to, given the light, the depth of
>field I need and the shutter speed I need.

>Just after I got my 20D, I went to a Fitness contest (no flash allowed). They
>had quite a bit of light (for the video they were taking), but I still needed
>to shoot at 1600 and 3200. At 5.6 (and maybe 1/3 a stop under exposed), the
>shutter speed worked out to 1/200 for 1600. When I looked at the shots the
>first day, many of them had motion blur (picture a woman doing a series of
>backflips across the stage). The next day, I did all my shooting at 3200, and
>1/400. That stopped the motion.

>I take shots of my friend's model RC race cars at races. On a cloudy day, I
>still need 1600 to get above 1/1000, to stop the motion of the cars going by.

Agreed. I have also gone to 1600 ISO at home when I had to
shoot with available light inside the house at night. That
got me a decent compromise between aperture and shutter
speed.

And yes, the shots were more "grainy" (i.e. noise from the
digital sensor) but quite usable.

---- Paul J. Gans
!