What is the third photo, foot? (Post #25) I keep staring at it but my brain can't interpret it.

If you really can't help yourself, I remembered this site where a few more of my images are uploaded. http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-...user_id=514069

It is an abstract. I shan't tell you; I used to tell people and it ruined it for them.

To me, it is the cosmos.

You fell down the stairs at the Corning Museum of Glass.

damn good work... please keep it coming.

Those photos are fine , but they are incredibly boring because one sees photos like that all over the place . People are blasé . My father who grew up in a tiny Welsh village is a passionate advocate of National Geographic . He took out a subscription long ago for his grandchildren . I think we have been receiving National Geographic for nigh on eighteen years . The children have never marvelled at the photographs .

Again, love the flowers, foot3. What delicate texture.

How was the NYC job?

Does berating on someone's obvious talent give you a hard-on or something?

We're still waiting for you to make good on your word.

Of course, you'd know from boring. As for originality your trolling is anything but.

Buddug doesn't sound like a chic, does it?

It sounds more like buttplug to me.

The Job went well, thanks. I forgot my gaffer's tape and just as I was finishing up the masking tape holding the duvetyne to the window gave out.

Perfect timing. Although I still haven't gotten the film back yet...
Not a problem with digital.

Right now I'm jonesing for this P2 in Taipei. I'm seriously thinking about misappropriating fundage...

Too bad I can't find an address from their ebay storefront ... I'd track them down and try to work a little bargain action for you. (I like to call it the "fellow yellow hookup.")

But more than likely it's a shop on Bo Ai Lu ... that area is three square blocks of nothing but camera stores.

On a sorta related note, Canon/Nikon equipment is WAY expensive here (but Sigma/Tamron/Tokina is dirt cheap). I've been deciding between a Canon 70-200L f4 USM or a 70-300 IS USM ... both were almost $800. Redonkulous.

Hey cool!Thanks for the thought, I'd be honored to be a fellow yellow. I noticed that ebay store had a bunch of canon lenses that seemed just as much as b&h, I couldn't figure how a cherry looking p2 could be so cheap. Well, cheap is a relative word. That's a half a year's mortgage payments...

I'd take either of those lenses. How fast is the 70-300? And avoid the aftermarket glass. Friends don't let friends, etc.

The 70-300 is 4-5.6. I've been reading that the IS works amazingly well, and the lens itself is moderately heavy (for a compact zoom - 1.4 lbs), so should be pretty stable. At this point I'd rather have the extra 100mm and IS than a piece of L glass ... but then again, I really have no idea what I am doing. Me spending money on photo gear is like letting a blind person drive a car.

And I confess, I own third-party glass. I bought a Sigma 17-70 2.8 - it actually is a great lens. Fast, quiet, crisp focus. Only complaint is using AF for macro is a little inconsistent, but only when I am close to min focus distance.