Pugwash

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5104778.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_common_nouns_in_English

Borat Sings

Cheapo Fuji A204

He must like you. Not only do you keep spelling his name wrong, but he let you off far too easy. Maybe he's turned into a big ol' TTK Teddy Bear now he's got his own photo expert forum ...

You're mistaking politics with humour again ... "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." - Al Gore http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

I'm a UK Citizen and even I know this one to be [censored]. "No one — whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien — is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican)." - Snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp Honestly, politics aside, does no-one fact check any more?

This was done with cheap lighting. Surely this is good enough for a watch forum. Honestly, I'd like to see you try to do some watch pics: it'd be good to see some semi-pro photographers turn their hand at it and see if you can help everyone get better. I'd love to learn. It's what this section was created for.

There's a reason Neil has his own Photography section. He is that good. So, when can we expect to see your watch photos?

Yes. ...and it's back

You mean like a 7753? Yes. Here's a comparison I did earlier: My rep on the left, a gen 3510.50.00 on the right

True, but digital now allows you to take the 20x amount of photos to get that 5% every time.

First, duplicate the layer in case of any errors, then if you only want to turn certain colours into greyscale, you can use the Select menu item "Color Range". Once you have your selection, invert it and either delete it with the original underneath greyscaled, or use the hue/saturation pallet to desaturate the selected area.

Best cancel my Bentley order then ...

I didn't take offence and I'm sorry if it sounded like I did. However, I usually end up with the results I want and for that I do tend to get a little defensive when someone points out flaws, especially flaws I can't see myself or flaws that are 'features'. Much like when someone laughed at TTK for having a reflection in the crystal of his Link Chrono, and I thought that the reflection was deliberate to show the curvature of the crystal. Someone was picking on a feature as an error, because he was looking at the minutiae instead of the picture. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel like I need advice on how to take better pictures as much as I need advice on what equipment will allow me more freedom to express myself and learn more. Oh, and Neil and Reg, you may like f8-f22 for watches, but that's because you're using the photos to sell them. Those of us just showing off have the luxury of f2.8. Roy, you know I like your pics. It's these very pictures that show me I am now limited by my camera.

That quote in itself speaks volumes. As for wearing a watch outside sleeves, I'd say I'm against it, but I've not tried it. I may try the 111h on a stroll through the Tuilleries to see if it feels stupid. Oh, you appear to have overlooked one big problem: Sleeves? In this weather? Are you out of your vulcan mind?

If you can have a simple rule for obscenity, I know a few high-court judges that would like to talk to you. "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . ut I know it when I see it . . . " - Justice Potter Stewart on Obscenity, 1964.

Open it up. If the movement looks anything like an ETA, walk away. The Rolex movement looks unique. More pics

I used a polariser. They're not as useful on curved bezels, though as the wave direction of the reflections isn't uniform.

Here's the kicker: No-one knows the truth. This debate has been raging for years and no-one has won it. People smarter than me have all the figures at their fingertips and both sides interpret their data differently. If smart people can't agree, we're screwed. Apathy: It's our only choice.

It should be in this position anyway as you just set the hands to 12:00

Wasn't his photobucket recently posted to a gen forum?

I don't think that this is a good idea: I'd be surprised if certain people are not reading this forum. I'd rather not give them any more info than they need.

Really? If you're talking about the over-bright reflections on the moon pic, that's totally 100% deliberate. Look at any photo of an astronaut's visor and that's the look I was aiming for, to the point of bringing the lights inside the tent to add harshness. I'll never get 100% perfect results with the setup I have, obviously, but it's perfectly adequate for forum pics. I saw what you did. It doesn't print well if you do that though. Are you on a CRT? I'll be honest, I'm very happy with the results I get with my setup, but I realise if I want to really move on, I need an SLR. I can see ways to improve my lighting and stuff, but the improvement doing that wouldn't be as drastic as if I had changeable lenses.

Check he's actually got it confirmed. Is it really 20% on a Rolex Submariner?

I disagree, but hey.