uulrich Posted August 19, 2006 Share #21 Posted August 19, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) to me this is more a portrait of his camera.... I get no information of the photographer. Stefan; You missed the point of the entire exercise! :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 19, 2006 Posted August 19, 2006 Hi uulrich, Take a look here prominent photographer. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
uulrich Posted August 19, 2006 Share #22 Posted August 19, 2006 Eggleston? No, I think that's Henri. The guy sure has some nice equipment. Can I say that here? I've been told the Americans don't have a sense of humor and irony. You just proofed otherwise. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_stefan_r Posted August 19, 2006 Share #23 Posted August 19, 2006 Stefan, you don´t know this guy. His eye and his ring and his Leica, Leica, Leica - no more words to say. even if I would know him, I can see a portrait of a photographer, the camera is dominating the picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest agnoo Posted August 19, 2006 Share #24 Posted August 19, 2006 even if I would know him, I can see a portrait of a photographer, the camera is dominating the picture. To some even dominating their life (not in his case). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smep Posted August 19, 2006 Share #25 Posted August 19, 2006 Would a picture of a formula 1 ferrari with Michael Schumacher hiding behind it be a portrait of Michael Schumacher? If you think so the picture above is a portrait of a photographer and not a picture of a camera. The technical quality is fine of curse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted August 20, 2006 Share #26 Posted August 20, 2006 Surely with a 28mm the depth of focus is enormous. Why the question Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest agnoo Posted August 20, 2006 Share #27 Posted August 20, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Even without a camera it would be a portrait of a photographer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uulrich Posted August 20, 2006 Share #28 Posted August 20, 2006 Even without a camera it would be a portrait of a photographer LOL! That's a nice one. Dead on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.