[rollei_list] Re: "Kodak disposable box cameras" (was: Not My Definition of a Thoroughbred (Re: Nikon vs. Leica))
- From: Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:35:11 -0400
Yes (couldn't resist).
Allen Zak
On Apr 13, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Peter K. wrote:
> 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:
