Comments on: No, not dead. http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2009/10/18/no-not-dead/ Missives From the Reality-Based World Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:46:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: lunatrix http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2009/10/18/no-not-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-6927 lunatrix Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:01:57 +0000 http://indigestible.nightwares.com/?p=1777#comment-6927 Thanks Warren. Looking forward more of your pics :o) Thanks Warren. Looking forward more of your pics :o )

]]> By: Warren http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2009/10/18/no-not-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-6922 Warren Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:56:45 +0000 http://indigestible.nightwares.com/?p=1777#comment-6922 Zebra: It's WordPress, with the theme by Glamour Gaby at http://wpglamour.com/ . I deleted your URL on suspicion of spam. Zebra: It’s WordPress, with the theme by Glamour Gaby at http://wpglamour.com/ . I deleted your URL on suspicion of spam.

]]> By: Zebra Rainboots http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2009/10/18/no-not-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-6921 Zebra Rainboots Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:55:32 +0000 http://indigestible.nightwares.com/?p=1777#comment-6921 Is this a wordpress or a typepad blog? The theme is real nice. Is this a wordpress or a typepad blog? The theme is real nice.

]]> By: Warren http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2009/10/18/no-not-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-6920 Warren Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:36:18 +0000 http://indigestible.nightwares.com/?p=1777#comment-6920 Oh, those are both quite lovely. Well done. The second has really vibrant colors and gorgeous skin tones; the first is gritty and textured and has a marvelous contrast. Superb control of depth of field on both, as well. I don't think I was throwing away any merit — after all I thought enough of the pics to put them up here, and brag a little. I just wanted to cut the boast factor with a little bit of self-analysis. False modesty, perhaps. Oh, those are both quite lovely. Well done. The second has really vibrant colors and gorgeous skin tones; the first is gritty and textured and has a marvelous contrast. Superb control of depth of field on both, as well.

I don’t think I was throwing away any merit — after all I thought enough of the pics to put them up here, and brag a little. I just wanted to cut the boast factor with a little bit of self-analysis. False modesty, perhaps.

]]> By: lunatrix http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2009/10/18/no-not-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-6919 lunatrix Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:02:37 +0000 http://indigestible.nightwares.com/?p=1777#comment-6919 Agreed, portraits are tough. Candid portraits feel like cheating and posed ones do as well. But you get quite good results, so there, stop complaining or giving away the merit that you deserve ;o) Those pics are yours. Is the guy cute? Maybe. But I think a portrait mainly reflects the relationship between the one in front of and the one behind the camera. I was very surprised when my first portrait turned out well. I thought it took somebody special to take a good pic, and yet I could do it! Amazing. My favourite one is taken with a film camera (badly scanned here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/33234214@N02/3858514069/). And my second favourite is this one, with a digital camera: http://www.flickr.com/photos/33234214@N02/3637378948/ :o) Agreed, portraits are tough. Candid portraits feel like cheating and posed ones do as well. But you get quite good results, so there, stop complaining or giving away the merit that you deserve ;o) Those pics are yours. Is the guy cute? Maybe. But I think a portrait mainly reflects the relationship between the one in front of and the one behind the camera.

I was very surprised when my first portrait turned out well. I thought it took somebody special to take a good pic, and yet I could do it! Amazing. My favourite one is taken with a film camera (badly scanned here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/33234214@N02/3858514069/). And my second favourite is this one, with a digital camera: http://www.flickr.com/photos/33234214@N02/3637378948/

:o )

]]>