Jeff
http://www.animalu.com/pics/photos.htm
M-M wrote:
> I shot these in the woods and it looked very surreal. If you click on the
> link you will only see 3 photos, about 75K each (25% of original,
> untouched)- no ads, not even text.
>
> Maybe some of you with an artful eye will see something here. Then again,
> maybe not :)
>
> <http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/990/woods.html>
>
> -Michael
sorry.
Try going back there just before Dawn.
... and keep posting!
Best wishes,
In article <nospam-ya02408000...@news.netaxs.com>, M-M
<nos...@nym.ore> writes
>I shot these in the woods and it looked very surreal. If you click on the
>link you will only see 3 photos, about 75K each (25% of original,
>untouched)- no ads, not even text.
>
>Maybe some of you with an artful eye will see something here. Then again,
>maybe not :)
>
><http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/990/woods.html>
>
>
>-Michael
--
John
1) What R U smokin', dude?
2) Where can I get some?
All kidding aside: Yes, I would agree... somewhat. They have slightly
surrealistic qualities.
--
http://digital.photography.home.att.net/
M-M <nos...@nym.ore> wrote in message
news:nospam-ya02408000...@news.netaxs.com...
>I guess I could not capture the moment. Here I was, walking in the woods
>and through the thicket this statue popped out of nowhere, all overgrown
>with weeds and vines. Something you would not expect.
>
>Turns out there was an elegant estate there in the 20's. The rest of the
>grounds have since been developed but this area was forgotten.
>
>A damaged statue of 3 people wrapped around each other being overgrown with
>vines- I thought it had potential. When I stepped back to frame more of the
>thicket, you could not really make out the statue.
You're right about pic one. It has potential but I don't think you
"captured" the moment.
>
>I actually used the onboard flash for the lower 2 photos as fill-in. In
>over 10,000 shots, that's the first time it was almost useful.
That's part of the problem with pics 2 and 3. It looks like you used a
flash. Either natural light or a much weaker fill flash would have
changed the whole look.
>
>btw, the camera was a CP990.
>
><http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/990/woods.html>
>
>-Michael
>
>
>
>In article <M3AU2DAQ...@objectech.demon.co.uk>, John Marshall