Lance has a bigger foot than Shaq?

The proof is here

http://www.grahamwatson.com/2001/tdf/tdf1/image7.html

It looks like a farmer tanned Tommy Smothers with clown shoes on.

trafeed.com...
The proof is here

http://www.grahamwatson.com/2001/tdf/tdf1/image7.html

It looks like a farmer tanned Tommy Smothers with clown shoes on.

And taken with a 20mm (very wide angle) lens.

Probably only a 28mm. You could see a lot more of the room with a 20mm.

Jiyang
"Ken Papai" wrote in message
et...

trafeed.com...
The proof is here

http://www.grahamwatson.com/2001/tdf/tdf1/image7.html

It looks like a farmer tanned Tommy Smothers with clown shoes on.

And taken with a 20mm (very wide angle) lens.

"K. J. Papai" wrote in message
om...
Yeah man, but it was still likely shot with a 20mm lens and CROPPED.

Graham Watson must be a crappy photographer if he has to crop that shot.
Lance would have occupied 1/3-1/4 of the picture, and they would not bother
to crop this picture in fear of reduced image quality and sharpness.

Holy Sh!T I can't believe pappy replied to jiyang with something other than
"troll".

Maybe this is a good newsgroup afterall.

slap slap slap

sorry had to beat myself for that last comment.

"K. J. Papai" wrote in message
om...
"Jiyang Chen" wrote in message
...
Probably only a 28mm. You could see a lot more of the room with a 20mm.

Jiyang

Yeah man, but it was still likely shot with a 20mm lens and CROPPED.

"Ken Papai" wrote in message
et...

trafeed.com...
The proof is here

http://www.grahamwatson.com/2001/tdf/tdf1/image7.html

It looks like a farmer tanned Tommy Smothers with clown shoes on.

And taken with a 20mm (very wide angle) lens.

"Jiyang Chen" wrote in message ...
"K. J. Papai" wrote in message
om...
Yeah man, but it was still likely shot with a 20mm lens and CROPPED.

Graham Watson must be a crappy photographer if he has to crop that shot.
Lance would have occupied 1/3-1/4 of the picture, and they would not bother
to crop this picture in fear of reduced image quality and sharpness.

If you think cropping has anythign to do with
"reduced image quality and [loss of] sharpness" then
you know very little about image manipulation.

ALL photographers crop.
ALL good photographers, like the esteemed, and world class
Graham Watson try to fill up their frame as much as possible with
their intended image; however, it's not always possible to do so.
Therefore you crop.

This is all obvious if you're used to shooting thousands of photos
every year. Just think of how obvious things are on your bike when you
ride tens of thousands of km's/year.

-Ken

World class photographers do not crop and they do not digitally sharpen the
resulted image. They take the negative/slide and print whatever's there.
Second-rate photographers use a digital Nikon D1 and use photoshop to make
it look decent, cropping tiny leopards and making them fill the frame
because they're can't get close to the animals and/or produce sharp images.


If you think cropping has anythign to do with
"reduced image quality and [loss of] sharpness" then
you know very little about image manipulation.

Are you saying that cropping a picture and then enlarging it to the size of
the original picture results in the same quality? Do you use photoshop on
all your images? Many of these photographers want pictures that they can
enlarge them, and a cropped image cannot be enlarged for these purposes
(unless the cropped image is a big percentage of the original.

And if Graham Watson has to crop the Lance photo like you said, he is not
"esteemed, and world class". It is an easy shot of a stationary subject,
and would not even use the 20mm in order to crop it for fun. Therefore, he
did not use a 20mm.

Jiyang Chen