|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Nov 22, 2006, 11:18 AM
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 30
|
I took these from my front yard a few days ago. I used my Kodak dx7590 at 1.8mp.
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006, 11:20 AM
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 30
|
Another
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006, 11:20 AM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 30
|
And again
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006, 11:21 AM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 30
|
Last one
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006, 1:46 PM
|
#5 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 451
|
great shots there!
 |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006, 3:38 PM
|
#6 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 122
|
Awesome photos! I like #1 and #3 the best..especially in #3 where the house at the bottom is like a silohuette.
Dani |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006, 6:19 PM
|
#7 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,896
|
Nice shots, Mike....just curious- why the 1.8mp setting?
Dan |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006, 9:20 PM
|
#8 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,936
|
I am curious about the 1.8mp too!
Sounds like driving a race car with the brakes on. BiLL :? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006, 11:01 PM
|
#9 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 30
|
1.8mp? I'd last used the camera to take some shots for a website that severly restricts size. I forgot to change the settings.
Since this site limits us to 250K does it really matter? Not a smart ass ?, but since I wasn't going to make any prints out of these does it make a big difference? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2006, 7:32 PM
|
#10 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
|
Not to me. I usually post as much info on the photo as possible, At 1.8 some of that is left out or at least diminished. No. 1 is a great shot no matter what mp you had it on!
Dawg |
|
|
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 AM.
