Comments: 23
drunk3np4nd4 [2009-02-15 07:37:37 +0000 UTC]
LOL ok makes more sense now... was wondering how you could have got it with a 105 in your desc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
drunk3np4nd4 [2009-02-15 07:26:18 +0000 UTC]
105mm ? the macro lense?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
funny-ann [2009-02-14 05:33:37 +0000 UTC]
great lighting !
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
xqz-moi [2009-02-12 04:29:19 +0000 UTC]
The lighting is GORGEOUS!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
velvet-plum [2009-02-11 11:44:53 +0000 UTC]
its lovely.. worth for exhibit!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
pixel-def [2009-02-11 09:01:05 +0000 UTC]
picture taken Oct 4, 2008?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
confucius-zero In reply to pixel-def [2009-02-11 14:49:24 +0000 UTC]
yep. I didn't have time to post it until now. ironic isn't it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
pixel-def In reply to confucius-zero [2009-02-15 13:01:28 +0000 UTC]
ah i get it, pentax suck then i get a pentax, lol.
its different!! thats pentax digital! i got an awesome film camera. im starting to enjoy film alot more now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
confucius-zero In reply to pixel-def [2009-02-15 16:51:43 +0000 UTC]
I'm sure you do, film is awesome. More dynamic range and all the shizzle that goes with it. I know digit and film are soooooooo worlds apart today. I'm sure the pentax film is good. Go kick my ass with that one ;D
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
alashotokan [2009-02-11 06:35:20 +0000 UTC]
omg, the lighting
this is wonderful
👍: 0 ⏩: 1