SERIOUSLY GUYS??????..............it's a CON, you understand a CON Right??!¬..................however many prices fit into your ideal world, Michelle Pfeiffer will not come and F**K you because you would wish it so!!


MOVE ON......nothing to see here.....unless you believe the EU will limit immigration figures because Mr Cameron is such a great negotiator.......then Michelle Pfeiffer WILL DEFINITELY be coming to shag you this weekend

Just a quick heads up for the forthcoming A & E this coming weekend...................... something down South for a change!!

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?52355-A-amp-E-2016-the-weekends-itinera...

Broadmayne, Dorchester, Tank Museum and Weymouth all in one weekend...........life can't get any better!!


except of course one week later we have
TANKFEST 25-26th June
http://www.tankmuseum.org/whats-on/events/bovevt53277


followed by
War Gamer's Weekend 2nd-3rd July
http://www.tankmuseum.org/whats-on/events/bovevt53503

http://www.scamadviser.com/is-levaretech.com-safe.html

should tell you all you need to know

Well aware of that Richard but I think (and Stu will have to come back to the thread to confirm) that Stu's point was that, even if we set up everything beforehand and then take the picture we still don't have to be happy with it and can change it to look completely different if we so desire, so in fact the whole concept of "original" photograph no longer exists.

We see it every day in the movies when scenes are shot against green screens and complete worlds can be added later. Stu might find consolation in sending off 36 snaps to the Chemist and only having half a dozen that are any good (but are at least his "original" shot) whereas we can revel in pre and post processing if we want to and dramatically alter the original photo to look like anything we want it to, even abstract, regardless of what we originally saw.

I think that was the crux of his original comment, but photography, likes all things in the modern world has moved on to a point where we don't have to see the ugly any more, we just erase it for perfect because it's generally pleasing to more people, and that was the point of my posting the two snaps straight from camera.........I could make them more this, that or the other with post processing but that's the image I took as I set the camera up....and I like the ugly, gnarled flower as it is....regardless of whether it could do with a plethora of tweaks to make it even half decent .

Perhaps Stu just pines for the good old days, whatever they were, or more likely, he just loves to inflame and incite and step back and watch the flames burn for a bit of fun. Either way there is no need for anyone to get precious or defensive about his comment, it's just an opinion, and there are Millions of those on the Internet every day

All great but 1 and 3 for me......just love the is it isn't it a Swan feel.....mixed up crazy photo that just makes me want to smile.

3 has that beautiful mix of subject and background both being distinct yet the sum of the parts is what makes it outstanding.



I think John should make you take a month's holiday now.......you've been posting too many good photo's lately and it has to STOP do you hear!!

Totally get where Stu is coming from though, but the truth is who wants to see ugly when you can make it beautiful.....when in fact I do
[IMG]http://i68.tinypic.com/2604jn8.jpg[/IMG]

I loved the decay, the irregular and the singularity.....but of course if I post this on (insert whatever famous picture hosting of your choice) it wouldn't win any prizes and certainly no fans.

Whereas
[IMG]http://i68.tinypic.com/mhpo94.jpg[/IMG]

might (I said might) find more favour to a wider audience.

Truth (to me) is, whether its heavily processed or just base......the beauty is always in the eye of the creator......your photo might be technically brilliant and aethestically pleasing to the eye, but my dog eared capture speaks more to me.

The last word, and ultimately decision, should really go to Stu..........................do you prefer your wife with or without the slap of makeup!!?



neither has been processed by the way.....as they were taken at the time

Didn't I just say just that??

The uniformity, conformity, parallel lines and military precision......didn't you get all of that from my photo??

Straight out of camera, as opposed to a tin

[IMG]http://i68.tinypic.com/dmf7yr.jpg[/IMG]

Giggles uncontrollably like a schoolboy

Sounds like you have something else you should get a new one of!!