Comments

wrote:
Looks like it could be some old glass IV bottles. Way back in the day, those things rocked.
Shannon, are you a therapist?
Motts, I love your work. I would like to know a little more about the camera you use. I have a Canon Rebel 6.3 Mega Pixel. I would like to try to get take shots like this around my house as a start. What suggestions or additions would I need to do this.

I know I need a tripod. But what type of Lens. I don't think the EF-S lens that I have is fast enough for these low light levels you seem to be using. Also, my Canon only opens up to 30 seconds max. How can I increase it to like 5 minutes.

Thanks.
wrote:
Thanks, Rich! Now, Motts, when you look at the aircraft boneyards, doncha wanna go take some pictures? PUHLEEEEZE! (still waiting on the Dixmont photos, too!!!!)
Errr....wouldn't all that stuff be getting in the water anyway?
wrote:
Maybe it's the ghost of the cat from the drawer.
wrote:
Yes, I see it very clearly now. I guess between classes, tests, studying, work, no sleep....let's see, I need even MORE excuses...nope that's about it, excuse-wise. Would it be ridiculous for me to say, I see a cat's head...look for the ears.
That too!
yes, it is.... I do often wonder if the type of monitor people use plays a role in how things are viewed on here, to me the face is very clear. :-)
wrote:
I can't understand why these boats werent cut up and sold for scrap? At least its more dignified than just dumping the vessel. Scrap steel must not have been worth much in 1958?
wrote:
Sure a lot of room for a band to set up a gig. Anybody have an extension cord? I'll bring the keyboard. =:o )
wrote:
tell ya the truth many of these ships were meant to serve as reserves or extra parts. Ever since WWII the US has been savin decomishoned naval and civilian boats here just incase we need em.
wrote:
motts, of course, you are correct! ansel most certainly enhanced his photos, e.g. burning in the sky to give his pictures greater depth and bolder relief. if it weren't for darkroom techniques, his photographs would be nothing more than snapshots. with the advent of digital photography, the classic darkroom manipulation (of which there are MANY ways!) is rendered obsolete, with such camera equipment, anyway. and no one can tell me that things like the "old" way of superimposing are really much different (i.e., better) than modern day photoshop. a lot of things have changed over the years and, imo, for the better. it is the way one is able to utilize the means that makes one a true artist, and not simply the means. or else, the louvre would only have cave paintings in it to this day.
wrote:
yes, now they're putting milfs in milk cartons with nip-, er, strongback thingys for, um, easy access.

whew, is it getting hot in here, or what?

(must be the boiler room)
wrote:
For some odd reason this picture reminds me of the Titanic...