Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hey, as long as you don't prefer a worthless shot with two pages of technical info over a priceless one with just a number beneath it, I'm OK with that. Philippe Op 30-sep-07, om 22:07 heeft Mark Rabiner het volgende geschreven: >> On Sep 29, 2007, at 9:24 PM, Jerry Lehrer wrote: >> >>> Keenan, >>> >>> A picture like that is irritating without the story behind it. >> >> >> David, >> >> I agree with Jerry... >> >> what's the point? >> >> Steve >> >> > > > I agree with both you guys. > But its not as if there's not a precedent for posting prefaceless > pixels on > the LUG. > I think for a new years resolution we should not do this. > No more numbered IMG or PAW shots with no clue as to what the deal is. > Followed by > "great shot Mike" with 12 >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > 's > > underneath it. > > We are GEEKS here and proud of it. This is a camera list. We wanna > know the > nuts and bolts behind the shot. None of this "picture stands alone" > baloney > we are not taking a course in advanced esthetics. > > I say SELL THE SHOT and maybe we'll look at it. > > Too much noise on the LUG. That's my opinion. I can speak for > myself only. > I was off list for many months due to internet problems and when I > got back > it was overwhelming. > Lets up the ante. Extend ourselves. > > > Mark William Rabiner > rabinergroup.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >