Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Images: Beverly

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 3:32:21 AM

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

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

More about : images beverly

September 10, 2005 10:49:28 AM

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

Dean S. Lautermilch wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/bev
>


Just curious... why are some of the images reversed?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 3:18:13 PM

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

When are we gonna see the rest of her tatoos?

I'll bet 5 bucks she's got a big Tramp Stamp right above her ass.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 9:00:46 PM

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

"Dean S. Lautermilch" <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11i4kuifo96cnc2@news.supernews.com...
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/bev
>
More of your mediocre snapshots.
BTW, when did "Beverly" become female, and was the surgery painful?
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 5:18:04 AM

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

Never have I seen so many photos with no need of a copyright notice.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group
www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
"Dean S. Lautermilch" <calldean@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11i4kuifo96cnc2@news.supernews.com...
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/bev
>
>
>
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 7:25:57 AM

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, at 17:00:46 [GMT +0100] (02:00:46 Sunday, 11 September
2005 where I live) "Gormless" wrote:

> BTW, when did "Beverly" become female, and was the surgery painful?

LOL. Yes, I thought I could see the slug still hanging between the legs.

--
Conservative: One who admires old, dead liberals.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 7:25:58 AM

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

John Phillips wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, at 17:00:46 [GMT +0100] (02:00:46 Sunday, 11
> September 2005 where I live) "Gormless" wrote:
>
>> BTW, when did "Beverly" become female, and was the surgery painful?
>
> LOL. Yes, I thought I could see the slug still hanging between the
> legs.

A slug like this one?
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49043194/original

Eeeew!
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 2:55:33 PM

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, at 15:54:17 [GMT -0700] (08:54:17 Sunday, 11 September
2005 where I live) "Mark²" wrote:

> Don't wanna be the one to say it...
> ...but this is about the most UN-sexy shot I've seen in some time:

I love that "come hither" look in the eyes!

And the tantalising glance of the ferret between the legs!

--
I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 2:56:11 PM

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, at 23:19:17 [GMT GMT] (09:19:17 Sunday, 11 September
2005 where I live) "kashe@sonic.net" wrote:

> Peewee Herman in drag?

ROFLOL

--

I'm not paranoid! Which of my enemies told you this?
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 3:33:47 PM

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

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
> "Mark²" wrote:
>> Dean S. Lautermilch wrote:
>> > http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/bev
>>
>> Don't wanna be the one to say it...
>> ...but this is about the most UN-sexy shot I've seen in some time:
>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/image/48999356
>
> But you gotta admire the D70 handling of the black negligee - lessee
> your film cameras do that!

If you overexposed a film shot that badly using negative film, the film shot
would do just as well as the D70 on the black negligee. And it wouldn't have
blown the highlights.

That was exposed at f/2.8 at 1/2000. The correct exposure for bright
sunlight is "sunny 16", i.e. f/16 at 1/200 (for ISO 200), which is f/5.6 at
1/1600. So it's basically two stops overexposed. (Presumably the matrix
metering got confused by the large area of black at the center of the image.
Hmm. Maybe it's just user error. If the D70 only goes up to 1/2000, then the
user messed up by specifying too wide an f stop in aperture priority mode.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 3:33:48 PM

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

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 09:11:03 +0900, in rec.photo.digital "David J.
Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>Hmm. Maybe it's just user error. If the D70 only goes up to 1/2000, then the
>user messed up by specifying too wide an f stop in aperture priority mode.)

Nope 1/8000 sec.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 4:38:29 PM

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

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, at 23:32:21 [GMT -0400] (13:32:21 Saturday, 10 September
2005 where I live) "Dean S. Lautermilch" wrote:

> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/bev

Guys, I think we are too hard On "Dean".

It must be "love" on his part.

They say "beauty is in the eye of the beer holder."

--
An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 4:38:30 PM

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

John Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, at 23:32:21 [GMT -0400] (13:32:21 Saturday, 10
> September 2005 where I live) "Dean S. Lautermilch" wrote:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/bev
>
> Guys, I think we are too hard On "Dean".
>
> It must be "love" on his part.
>
> They say "beauty is in the eye of the beer holder."

I think you're right.
He's posted other real beauties...like this one:
http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/image/46383736

I just don't get what you're going after, Dean.
Maybe you can 'splain.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 4:38:31 PM

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

Mark² wrote:
> John Phillips wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, at 23:32:21 [GMT -0400] (13:32:21 Saturday, 10
>> September 2005 where I live) "Dean S. Lautermilch" wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/bev
>>
>> Guys, I think we are too hard On "Dean".
>>
>> It must be "love" on his part.
>>
>> They say "beauty is in the eye of the beer holder."
>
> I think you're right.
> He's posted other real beauties...like this one:
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/image/46383736
>
> I just don't get what you're going after, Dean.
> Maybe you can 'splain.

OK, that wasn't really fair, since there's also this one:
http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/image/46383734
:-)

But lets not forget THIS one!
http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/image/46734766

Now you're talkin' Dean!
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 5:15:06 PM

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, at 20:08:22 [GMT -0700] (13:08:22 Sunday, 11 September
2005 where I live) "Mark²" wrote:

> He's posted other real beauties...like this one:
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/image/46383736

Puleeeze! Not at lunch time!
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 5:16:14 PM

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, at 20:11:06 [GMT -0700] (13:11:06 Sunday, 11 September
2005 where I live) "Mark²" wrote:

> But lets not forget THIS one!
> http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/image/46734766

> Now you're talkin' Dean!

Way to go!
!