[Uranus]

yup, and…not that I’m aware of. kind of petered out in 2012.

I still have a digital copy of the final draft on one of my old PC’s or a backup drive.
regrettably they’re all boxed up and in storage.

Maybe try kestrana?

[Uranus]

nice work this week, folks…

[Uranus]

Anybody knows if this thing is pre-1992? It had no badges and I barely had time to take its picture as I walked past by it rather quickly:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/emiliogt/7631541982/

It has that 80’s look and feel but I could be wrong.

I expect the classics to be more than covered this week, so maybe I’ll show some love for the mundane, knowing the voters won’t. =)

early 90’s Toyota Hiace van…most popular taxi in South Africa. You could get away with it. They kept roughly the same model until the mid- 2000’s

[Uranus]

are we counting bugs and fish as animals for this one?

[Uranus]

Ultimately i wasn’t sure if I’d used it for “He’s a fun guy”, so I ditched it.

You know your entire posting history is on your stats page, right? “Fun Guy” is on the Grouped by Contest tab, page 3, and it doesn’t look like you used that particular one.

true, but I’m lazy… 😆

[Uranus]

thanks, Els !

[Uranus]

Mods, could you please zap evulc‘s comment?

[Uranus]

That one ending in 8462 is most-excellent.

Uranus, I’m with Rav, “..8462” is a great shot.

Thanks guys. means a lot. Ultimately i wasn’t sure if I’d used it for “He’s a fun guy”, so I ditched it.

[Uranus]

Bees:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/discover_uranus/7503153584/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/discover_uranus/7503152896/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/discover_uranus/7503152372/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/discover_uranus/7503150304/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/discover_uranus/7503150006/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/discover_uranus/7503149600/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/discover_uranus/7503148462/

[Uranus]

this one seems a bit borderline. A ruling/opinion/outrage, please…

[Uranus]

Next olympics, this :

[Uranus]

Ima still a little bit confused. When I think of a “landscape” I envision a relatively subject-less photo. I mean, other than the landscape. The description has that bit about ‘the primary subject’ and ‘detail and intimacy’. The example of the statue in foliage (which I really like) looks more like a subject in a setting than a landscape.

Do you get what I mean? Am I making this too hard?

Yes. Yes I do. And no, you’re not…

I have the same problem : where does it stop or start being a landscape?
I have plenty with a ‘primary subject’, but then I look at them and see a shroom, or flowers, or webs, and discard because they don’t say “landscape” enough that a stranger would use it as a description if they viewed the pic …pfff.

Looking at yours, U-Man, (all of which I like, BTW) I go “Cat, cat, dewy web, dragonfly, minimal”

Am I, too, overthinking this?

[Uranus]

They look unfinished.

Very much agreed.

and again.

I checked out his web portfolio,
http://www.czechphotogallery.cz/en/klamar2011.html
and Klamar isn’t a portrait photographer. He shoots documentary/photojournalism. There is a world of difference between the two.

I have to disagree. The late Anton Hammerl was primarily a photojournalist, but precisely these photoreportage skills made him a peerless portrait photographer. See http://www.shootinglondon.herobo.com/

[Uranus]

ha! shows how much I know… all my shots were taken with a slow, clunky Sigma 300mm. Cost all of 190 bucks out of the box. I’m OK with the results. I’m also pretty sure I’ll never get the value back from spending more than a grand on a lens – I am not, nor am I ever likely to be, that good.

[Uranus]

Definitely not feeling any love for my shots this week. Did I really suck that bad with all three?( you can be honest it won’t hurt my feelings anymore than having my pictures completely being ignored.)

I’m prone to feel the same in some contests…

I think it to be less measure of your shots than a measure of the competition.

[Author]

Posts