[rollei_list] Re: "Kodak disposable box cameras" (was: Not My Definition of a Thoroughbred (Re: Nikon vs. Leica))
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:51:30 -0700
You meant awful and not awesome?
On 4/13/05, Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>=20
> On Apr 13, 2005, at 12:22 AM, Douglas Shea wrote:
>=20
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ardeshir Mehta
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:01 PM
> > To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [rollei_list] Re: "Kodak disposable box cameras" (was: Not My
> > Definition of a Thoroughbred (Re: Nikon vs. Leica))
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 07:46 PM, Douglas Shea wrote:
> >
> >> That's one of the funny things about all of the emphasis we place upon
> >> camera and lens quality (and I'm as guilty as anyone); while I'm not
> >> suggesting that publishing should be our criteria for assessing value
> >> it amuses me to know that a couple of my published underwater shots of
> >> sea turtles were taken with Kodak disposable box cameras.
> >>
> >> Doug
> >
> > Way to go, Doug.
> >
> > "f/8 and BE THERE!"
> >
> > THAT's the way to take pictures.
> >
> > Cheers.
>=20
> Reminds me of the time a bunch of amateur photographers were out on a
> field trip, everybody but one toting the latest in high tech gear.
> That guy was photographing with an ancient box camera held together
> with duct tape. Everyone ribbed the fellow, who smiled in reply and
> said nothing.
>=20
> At the next club meeting the resulting prints were displayed and, to
> make a long story short, while photographs from the high quality
> equipment were excellent, those from the funky box camera were awful.
>=20
> Allen Zak
>=20
>=20
--=20
Peter K
=D3=BF=D5=AC
Other related posts:
