Earl's Photo Challenge Pics Here

[marcpsych]

Much, that is a pretty pond, not the cesspool Earl used in his foreground. Also your buildings are more unique to NY than Earls.

Earl sux at life

Great job, Rube.

Looks like 2 Edens, depending on what's important to the viewer.

Earl may be the least efficacious person ever when it comes to working on projects and fulfilling requests.

[Yuppie_Scum]

Ummm ... I think having the Lilly pic on your computer could get you in trouble with the law for kiddie porn.

The second and third pictures are out of focus.

A really really bad job.

[Serpico1103]

Ummm ... I think having the Lilly pic on your computer could get you in trouble with the law for kiddie porn.

The second and third pictures are out of focus.

A really really bad job.

The Lilly picture won't get you into trouble.
But the 30 gigs of kid pix on your computer will

[Brother Man TShirt]

Holy shit, Earl calls himself a photographer? My wife takes better pictures of herself for me using the timer on her $150 Kodak.:devil2: PEEES HOOOWD!

[Serpico1103]

Holy shit, Earl calls himself a photographer? My wife takes better pictures of herself for me using the timer on her $150 Kodak.:devil2: PEEES HOOOWD!

Post the pictures, we'll judge if she is a good photographer.

[xxxposure]

States Evidence-photo#1
Victim few hours before event. One of many found on suspects cell phone
States Evidence-photo#2
Surveillance photo of suspect viewing cell phone pictures
States Evidence-photo#3
Location of body


I think these pictures speak for themselves.
Earl is guilt of having no talent or ability to express himself, artistically, verbally or in written form.

I hope he is given a life sentence of sitting and listening to our viperous rage.

[Brother Man TShirt]

Post the pictures, we'll judge if she is a good photographer.

Here's my MILF!

http://www.conwayco.com/r&f/exhibit-1.jpg
:thumbup:
http://www.conwayco.com/r&f/exhibit-2.jpg

And that's after 2 kids! Don't worry Dave! They can still be sexy after kids if they want to be!

(and sorry about the smiley Face...she's still Little shy)

[lennyb6]

I am totally convinced the entire earl thing is the greatest bit ever. No one could continually do this poorly at everything they do and keep their job. Well done buddys.

This could be the perfect quote to sum it all up. Earl truly is Mr. Perfect at being useless.

[IamFogHat]

This thread has spawned more new posters I think in board history. WHY?

[sleepyeyed_Jynx]

booooo

only earl can make rediculously hot lilly look like a 12year old boy with long hair

The picture is bad, but Earl isn't responsible for her lack of a figure. Wasn't she supposed to gain weight for a contest?

[Bay Ridge Tim]

I'd just like to say that I liked the Lily picture.

I think a lot of people are bandwagon riding. If the picture came out independently of the show, without a bit, you people would be drooling like animals.

[earlsgmaclit]

Earl you are a talentless asexual loser, only you could fuck up taken pictures of a hot chick rendering them no sexual. You big black homo! Maybe you should show us the pictures of your Grandma's clit

[DizzyPeach]

Not sure if it has already been posted. Too lazy to read thru 11 pages so....

Earl is not totally to blame for Lilly's pic. Yes, a photographer should be directing the model but, its up to the model to work it. Earl worked with what he had.

Also, some people are just not photogenic. Or sexy. And from the looks of that video, Lilly doesn't look comfortable at all. Uncomfortability like that is always evident in pictures.

[DizzyPeach]

Maybe you should show us the pictures of your Grandma's clit

You first

[MrDivian]

oh boy.. so.. hight school photographs... and a model that doesn't look comfortable having the shot taken.. oh well..


hi dizz.. you grandmas clit can't be all bad.. it lead to spawning you right..

i'll expect to be hit the next time we see each other

[MobCounty]

Fixed

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f87/MobCounty/lily_syndicateparish_01.jpg

[DizzyPeach]

oh boy.. so.. hight school photographs... and a model that doesn't look comfortable having the shot taken.. oh well..


hi dizz.. you grandmas clit can't be all bad.. it lead to spawning you right..

i'll expect to be hit the next time we see each other

But you won't know with whaaaat!

[dragonass0211]

That pic of Lilly was the worst sexy pici have ever seen ( earl must be a fagggggggg!)

[SexyNP75]

:nono: These SUCK!!! Come on... what the fuck is that papparazi shot. You live in NYC for cryin' out loud. Try a little harder. And, are you sure that the NYC shot is really NYC? I can't tell b/c it's soooo bad. There are so many classic shots you could have taken. Where is your creativity man? Now I truly see why Ron gives you so much crap. You are not nearly living up to your potential. And I won't even go to the shot of Lilly. The video is awesome. The pic you picked SUCKS!!! Get a life, boy.

[mikepop]

I would like to know the cameras settings used in the Lily photo,most digital cameras store EXIF information that lists the settings in the .jpeg's properties,I wonder if Earl used the camera's "Auto mode".
Who ever uploaded the photo would have the Exif data in the images properties.

[Jughead]

http://www.ronfez.net/gallery//watermark.php?file=4175&size=1

[ralphbxny]

What bothers me most about Earls pic is the fact it looks like Lily is wearing a wig!

[mikeyboy]

I would like to know the cameras settings used in the Lily photo,most digital cameras store EXIF information that lists the settings in the .jpeg's properties,I wonder if Earl used the camera's "Auto mode".
Who ever uploaded the photo would have the Exif data in the images properties.

I am intrigued. Here is a screen cap of the original pic's properties:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/mikeyboy/ronfez2/properties.jpg

[mikepop]

I am intrigued. Here is a screen cap of the original pic's properties:

://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/mikeyboy/ronfez2/properties.jpg

You may have to scroll down.
Heres an example.Hmm I should have picked one with auto settings used.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/mikepop/blog/exifexample.jpg

[mikeyboy]

You may have to scroll down.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/mikepop/blog/exifexample.jpg
Heres an example.Hmm I should have picked one with auto settings used.

That's all the info listed. Below that are merely blank fields for title, subject, keywords, etc.

[Big_D]

wow i just saw the video of Lilly she's magically babelicous.

[mikepop]

That's all the info listed. Below that are merely blank fields for title, subject, keywords, etc.

Yep,it looks like he wasn't using the Auto setting.
Thanks mikeyboy.

[san]

go back to were you took the pic of n.y and throw the camera and yourself in the river !!!!! WTF is that must be the camera LMFBO!!! nope its earl that nucklehead. you should be working at burger king flipping burgers. HEY RON N FEZ KICK HIM IN THE FART BOX FOR ME!!!!!

[Arblade]

Earl,

Photography is allot more than pointing and shooting a camera. I'm working on my Media Art and Animation BS degree right now which include elements of photography and traditional arts elements. The basic principles of design are completely disregarded. If this picture was supposed to be similar to the Jennifer Aniston picture you missed it. It was taken using a principle of thirds and focus was tinkered with to create emphasis. The photo may not seem that far off from the professional but the little differences are what the difference in birdcage liner and a museum piece.

I'm going to critique your photo just based on basic design principles. The balance of the photo is off. The primary reason for this is position of the model (the only thing going right in the photo) and the lack of attention to space. The positive space (objects model, bed etc) and the negative space were not balanced by any typical rules 50/50, 60/40 or any normal system of balance. The legs distract from the focus of the picture and destroy any semblance of balance. They should have been posed differently. Often novices don't pay attention to this, the subject is important but so is the space around the subject. The movement (direction given to the eye by placement of objects) is off. The original photo Jennifer's head is parallel to the side of the image , with the hand placement done in such a way to bring the eye up to the face. With Lilly's placement the focus is off and not solid because of the head tilt also with the hair moving in the direction of this distraction it appears to make the models head look larger than it really is (sorry Lilly it the photo not you). The other arm doesn't add anything to the composition. You could have easily turned it toward the camera or brought it up to the face to change the dynamic. There is no real contrast with Lilly and her background. I believe you were trying to get a strong contrast but it not there. White is really a bad color to use when taking a photo of an individual, it reflects to much light and makes it hard to balance because it reflects to much light. I think you figured this out but in turn the colors became muddy without the flash (flash diffuser may have worked better). The emphasis could have been improved with a few quick Photoshop edits, but you have to have something worth the effort to start with. The Jennifer picture has a blur added beyond the face area (the focus) to create emphasis. The last two principles I would normally critique are unity and harmony, but the other principles are what creates the other two.

How I would have done it at a less angle (or have her face the camera) so her face is the dominate feature. Bring both her hands to her face or with one arm crossing her body bend the wrist so not to create unwanted movement (direction for the eye). This could be done and still keep the teaser pose. If the feet were to appear the heals should point toward the head to aid in focus by creating movement. This should create a great framed shot. I would put her on a green, black or red (rose) maybe (may add to much red to Lilly completion) bedspread. The backdrop should be harmonious with the bedspread. If i had the ability to choose the outfit for the model a lot could be done with color and lighting.

Earl if you really want to be a good photographer, look into elements and principles of design. Photography is a art form. Principles have to be considered for pencil, pen, photography and any other form.

Fez is my Master!
Now we all know why we hate it. :thumbdown:

[Sam Adams]

Can we please get the rest of the pics?

[PhotoJoe]

Here are My Offerings in Photoshop Toouchups on these

<img src="http://i31.tinypic.com/ejsuol.jpg" alt="" border="0">

<img src="http://i30.tinypic.com/2i0utch.jpg" alt="" border="0">

I'll Take better pics of lilly, better shot of NY, and find a fuckin celeb.
Winner gets a Foot Job from Lilly

[dagul669]

Howdy...

New to XM but love listening to the show...

Here's a twisted way to look at things... If u look at Lilly and have her shave her head she looks like little Jim Norton...

[PhotoJoe]

Howdy...

New to XM but love listening to the show...

Here's a twisted way to look at things... If u look at Lilly and have her shave her head she looks like little Jim Norton...

Hey Now...Theres no reason to insult lilly. ...Jim Norton??? you need to date more.

[Radioguy]

Since everyone is trying to tweak it, for the hell of it, I gave it a warhol.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6684/lilysmallwarholbd3.jpg

[kaisersosay50]

I LOVE THE SHOW, BUT I WILL NOT PUT UP WITH CHILD PORN!!!! HOW DARE EARL TAKE PHOTOS OF A 9 YEAR OLD BOY!!! I THOUGHT HE WAS TO TAKE SHOTS OF LILLY???

[Tears]

I LOVE THE SHOW, BUT I WILL NOT PUT UP WITH CHILD PORN!!!! HOW DARE EARL TAKE PHOTOS OF A 9 YEAR OLD BOY!!! I THOUGHT HE WAS TO TAKE SHOTS OF LILLY???




almost a whole week to come up with that gem eh?

[AKA]

Arretst Earl = Real Tar Rest ?

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u134/rgray1981/tarbaby.jpg

Hmmmm?

[A.J.]

Arretst Earl = Real Tar Rest ??

Ron Artest?

http://thenastyboys.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/artest.jpg

[Pax Vortron]

I am intrigued. Here is a screen cap of the original pic's properties:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/mikeyboy/ronfez2/properties.jpg

Earl did use manual settings but it probably would've turned out slightly better if he set it on automatic. There's no reason for him to have shot it at ISO 200. He had leeway in adjusting the fstop and/or the exposure time to be able to set it to a lower ISO. The only reason to shoot at anything other than the lowest ISO setting (probably ISO 50 in this case, but it depends on the camera) is if you don't have enough light to adjust those other settings. Shooting it at a higher ISO adds noise into the picture, that is, randomly colored pixels in the darker areas. Noise compromises color quality and image detail. If he had set the camera to automatic, with the flash off, the camera would have defaulted to a lower ISO setting.

If you're reading this and aren't getting the technical details, the point is that while art is in the eye of the beholder, the numbers here prove objectively that Earl is an idiot.

[ibanez23]

:huh:I would like to know the cameras settings used in the Lily photo,most digital cameras store EXIF information that lists the settings in the .jpeg's properties,I wonder if Earl used the camera's "Auto mode".
Who ever uploaded the photo would have the Exif data in the images properties.

[damnheathen]

She is so hot!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dont care who takes the photo. No ONE can make her look bad.

[vegeta]

The words awful and terrible have been used up too many times, so I'm going to go with a) hack and b) mediocre.

Lily is thin and leggy, so maybe she should have been sprawled on furniture with her breasts strategically covered. The second shot was hilarious. Who the fuck is that, Big A? The "New York" shot just exemplifies how bad a photographer Earl is.

Earl's fucking 60 years old and he doesn't know what a beautiful photograph looks like? I think most of us do, but we don't aspire to be photographers and then hand in shit like it's supposed to impress.

Earl, like always, is an utter disappointment. However, if I have to give him one thing, he finally went through with a bit. Let's see if he can either have sex with a woman or Fez come summer.

[thejives]

I love the touchups everyone!
Nice work.. way to make Lemonade.

[silas]

Since everyone is trying to tweak it, for the hell of it, I gave it a warhol.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6684/lilysmallwarholbd3.jpg



Dandy.

kudos

[Mike Teacher]

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/k2.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/k1.jpg

So two pics above of my hideous terrible mean wife volunteering to be a subject for you to crap on for this Photo 101 experiment. Anyway one of those pics looks like it was taken with a piece of crap digital camera with a teensy lens and one looks like a pro level camera and advanced optics.

But which looks likes which and why? It's a bit subjective but one image looks like how your eye sees things, and one doesn't.

[Mike Teacher]

Dude your wife is hideous.

They both suck.

[JPMNICK]

Dude your wife is hideous.

They both suck.

trying to be proactive?

[Mike Teacher]

yeah i know its weak.

[JPMNICK]

is the top 1 the expensive camera because the foreground is clear and the background is fuzzy?/

[mgz]

hmm it looks like earls new york shot is a bit out of focus on the buildings i think his shot wouldnt have been quite so bad if he had at least put a bit more focus towards the building instead of the pond and the reflection of the buildings in the pond.

His big A photo sucked dick - out of focus and shit and wasnt a paparazzi style of shot its him sitting on the o and a bleachers, instead of trying to catch them outside of their character.

and the lily pic is self explanatory


PS mike your wife seems to be in quite the good mood

[Mike Teacher]

is the top 1 the expensive camera because the foreground is clear and the background is fuzzy?/

In short; thats it exactly. Not in terms of which photo is 'better' but in terms of how we see things.

With a lens with narrow depth of field, like your eyes, when you look at something close the background is out of focus, and vice versa, our eyes do it, and lenses cando it; the only real difference between the photos is the aperture; one was shot with the lens down to f/22, since all the light has to fit through that tiny iris you get a huge depth of field; everything near and far is in focus. Thats not how our eyes see. Pictures like that look 2 dimensional; flat, the brain doesnt see any depth; the eye is drawn to everything; the background distracts from the subject.

Other shot the lens is open, so the background has a defocus; and some/many/most photogs who do people photography like this; the photo looks more like how the eye sees it. The person is the subject, the trees and background stuff are background, as they should be.

The Jennifer Aniston shot has defocus; her ass and feet are blurred, so the focus is on her face. With the Lilly shot everything is in focus, so everything gets equal attention, and that can confuse/overload the eye.

Or not; Im amateur at best.

Get good glass; lenses trump everything else. A $4000 cam with a shitty lens sucks, period.

[Biblebuster]

Revenge is a dish best served cold...and cut up into tiny pieces. Earl made Lilly look like a ten year old boy, I'm totally with him there. Where's the cheek-spreading pic?

[Pax Vortron]

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/k2.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/k1.jpg

So two pics above of my hideous terrible mean wife volunteering to be a subject for you to crap on for this Photo 101 experiment. Anyway one of those pics looks like it was taken with a piece of crap digital camera with a teensy lens and one looks like a pro level camera and advanced optics.

But which looks likes which and why? It's a bit subjective but one image looks like how your eye sees things, and one doesn't.

In short; thats it exactly.

Get good glass; lenses trump everything else. A $4000 cam with a shitty lens sucks, period.

This is a bizarre lesson. The relevant difference here is that the top photo is taken with a telephoto lens (or a telephoto setting on a zoom lens) and the bottom photo is taken with a wider angle lens or lens setting. It has nothing to do with the price of the camera or the price of the lens. You can get a cheap zoom lens that will take both those pictures.

[Furtherman]

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/k2.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/k1.jpg

Mike, I love your wife.

[Mike Teacher]

This is a bizarre lesson. The relevant difference here is that the top photo is taken with a telephoto lens (or a telephoto setting on a zoom lens) and the bottom photo is taken with a wider angle lens or lens setting. It has nothing to do with the price of the camera or the price of the lens. You can get a cheap zoom lens that will take both those pictures.

Same lens and settings for both pics; the difference in focal length [103mm and 130mm] negligible, IMHO compared to the difference in aperture [f/22 vs f/4.5].

[Radioguy]

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/k1.jpg

Pouting always works. :)

[docgoblin]

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/k2.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/k1.jpg

So two pics above of my hideous terrible mean wife volunteering to be a subject for you to crap on for this Photo 101 experiment. Anyway one of those pics looks like it was taken with a piece of crap digital camera with a teensy lens and one looks like a pro level camera and advanced optics.

But which looks likes which and why? It's a bit subjective but one image looks like how your eye sees things, and one doesn't.

I'm more drawn to the bottom pic as the background adds to the image as opposed to the top one where the background is blurry. Even though the top one highlights your wife more I like the overall effect of the bottom picture. More importantly Mike, your wife is very pretty and talented... She doesn't need to work blue.

[SlappyFitch]

I'm no Earl fan. He is disappointingly unimaginative and lazy as hell. The Park shot and the Big AAAAAAAA shot support that, if being the worst radio show producer ever didn't already. But the Lilly shot is good. Would've liked to see the other ones to compare, but really, you'd have to work overtime to get a bad shot of Lilly. And Earl dosen't work.

[mikeyboy]

bumped for anyone who wants to check it out.

[Mike Teacher]

but really, you'd have to work overtime to get a bad shot of Lilly. And Earl dosen't work.

That is funny as hell. Welcome aboard. :clap:

[cb3]

EARL,

Achieve sex with a woman sometime and you might figure out how to make a hot vulnerable naked chick feel comfortable and sexy in front of a camera.

Here's a contact sheet from a shoot I did a couple months ago in my house using only the light from a couple of lamps. Look at the movement between shots. You cant take a chick and stiffen her up and pose her when you dont know what youre doing. Thats how you end up giving a beautiful girl like Lilly flipper hands, you fat fuckin milk dud.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/cbordeaux/posh/poshflyercolorflatweb.jpg

[TheJustin]

Maybe these are what Earl were shooting for...

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/thejustin/untitled1.jpg">

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/thejustin/untitled2.jpg">

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/thejustin/untitled.jpg">

WTG Faildozer.

[cb3]

Im guessing we see a lot more passion out of Earl if he was shooting 2 fegs playing tummy sticks lol

[MassapequaMoron]

Not perfect but I would have posed her differently.

Original <br>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bjcal/2417235020/" title="LILY_Small_crap by bjcal, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3251/2417235020_ba89c75f08.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="LILY_Small_crap" /></a>

My Version<br>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bjcal/2416438929/" title="LILLLLLLLY by bjcal, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2053/2416438929_6d02fbd243.jpg" width="500" height="393" alt="LILLLLLLLY" /></a>

[scottinnj]

Here they are:


Sexy Lilly Shot
http://www.ronfez.net/gallery//watermark.php?file=4177&size=1

I have to say this is a creepy shot by Earl. Lilly is a beautiful girl, but this makes her look too young. I don't know what the look was he was trying to get, but he failed at it.

I also have to ask Lilly, what were your intentions going into the shoot?

Was it for a professional portfolio, to shop around to modeling agencies? Just for fun? For your boyfriend?
Also, did you have any ideas of what you wanted to accomplish during the shoot? I heard you today say that you were frustrated that Earl was not really telling you what to do. On the video, he looks like he is having fun, and just copying what he has seen on TV and in movies what a "photographer" is supposed to do during a shoot.
Was there a specific look you wanted? Sexy? Romantic? "Faaabulous!?"
I'm not really trying to criticize Earl, but photo shoots fascinate me. I take photos as a hobby, and have never gone past the standard family portrait snapshot pose. I've always wanted to do something like Earl did with Lilly, because taking pictures of people in an artistic way looks really cool, and sounds like a blast. Right now I am taking outdoor shots, and using the philosophy of "the picture will come to me"-and lately it is working.
Even though the final product didn't quite turn out the way you wanted it Lilly, I hope you had fun on the shoot. Hopefully more pics will turn up, and one of them will be a show-stopper.

[Mike Teacher]

I also have to ask Lilly, what were your intentions going into the shoot?



My guess: Getting out alive and unmolested.

[scottinnj]

Here they are:
Classic NY Shot

http://www.ronfez.net/gallery//watermark.php?file=4175&size=1

Also, that's not a picture of NY. That's a picture of a small lake with NYC in the background.

A picture of the NY skyline in the water would have been interesting, if that is as far away from the city as he was.

[scottinnj]

Does this do anything for you? :wink:

http://www.comedycentral.com/press/images/reno911/Dangle_Season_1.jpg

Lt. Dangle in his Tactical Shorts...

I'm like steel right now.

Then come on over, big boy.....

[jbonner3]

The picture of the city was the wrong shot.

Big a is not a celebrity and oviously lilly is not as hot as she thinks.

[TooLowBrow]

http://www.ronfez.net/gallery//watermark.php?file=4177&size=1
lilly admitted
her nose is an issue
everyone....
stare at her nose

[Radioguy]

A deviated septum don't make you a bad person.

[evil6]

http://www.ronfez.net/gallery//watermark.php?file=4177&size=1
lilly admitted
her nose is an issue
everyone....
stare at her nose

super sexy feet though. right earl?

[Hosstetler]

So when are we going to see this video?

[mikeyboy]

So when are we going to see this video?

It's here. (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=68604)

[wishful_thinkin]

Earl Earl Earl..... take your camera OFF AUTOMATIC ... get a book or 2 on photography. Here is one I recommend.... Understanding Exposure, Revised Edition (Peterson) the author talks on a rookies level and its simple to follow and to test what he is telling you.

Here is a photo I took using some of the shutterspeed and f stop techniques from the book A factory in Lewistown ID at about 2am
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh175/kevinsmoot/lewistown_ID.jpg

[Mike Teacher]

Finally dove into the hard drive, mostly last winter:

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/07_Nov_07096b.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/07_Nov_07136a.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/07_Nov_07148a.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/07_Nov_07118a.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/es.jpg

[mikeyboy]

Finally dove into the hard drive, mostly last winter:

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/07_Nov_07096b.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/07_Nov_07136a.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/07_Nov_07148a.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/07_Nov_07118a.jpg

=

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/es.jpg

Each about 100X better than Earl's NY shot. Nice job, Mike.

[badorties]

Finally dove into the hard drive, mostly last winter:


http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m110/MizzleT/07_Nov_07118a.jpg


great shot ... looks this thee start to most 80s movies

[JustJon]

I like how Mike's shot of the water actually has identifiable NYC buildings in it

[underdog]

I like how Mike's shot of the water actually has identifiable NYC buildings in it

Do other cities even have pointy buildings? It seems like NYC has a lot of them, and whenever I see one, I automatically assume its NYC.

[Hosstetler]

It's here. (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=68604)

:clap: Thank you Mikey.

[avjake]

Earl,

Lilly looked much sexier when just hanging out - not posing.
You should have been blasting candids all the time she was on stage instead of trying to get shots that were set up. You missed a lot of cute expressions.
This shot in particular de-emphasises her female form. The black panties make her butt disappear, not your fault but you should have noticed when choosing this one.
This would have been great if the "carpet" was black, her panties red, and you used a light above and behind her to accentuate her form. The posing of the hands needs work also.

City shot:
Of all the things that make you think NYC, this pond is not included. It might be a special place to you for whatever reason, but It makes NYC look like wide open spaces, which it is anything but.
When trying to capture the essence of the anything, the key is to get closer and fill the frame.

[thejives]

Now we can wonder: Is Earl a worse poser or photographer?

I think his photography is vindicated.

[thejives]

Hey... remember this thread?