Amazing
What I personally love about this thread is the fact that through photography I can look through the eyes of some different photographers! Amazing! To all be in the same place with a narrow focus -- an old prison, the rock, and to see such different things!
I think this thread is truly an example of "learning to see."
Then, there's learning to process what one sees!
The use of IR versus color versus Black and White...
Now this would make a great Blurb book!!!!! :-)
My very favorites are "Just beyond the window" and Liquid Air's spiral staircase. (But I liked a bunch of other ones too!)
What would be even more interesting would be a side by side of the "straight out of the camera" and the processed shot! And, explanation (if possible) of what that processing was chosen.
Amazing photos everyone. I toured the Canon City prison in Colorado several times when I was young, it leaves a real impression. You can almost hear the echoes in those pics, well done.
And The composition of the zig-zag shot -- I wished I took it. I looked at it, thought about, and didn't press the shutter :cry
I looked at that stair through the viewfinder too, albeit from a slightly different angle. I first zoomed in on it tight like Dan did, but then decided to back off a bit and shot this:
We can't have taken those shots more than a minute or two apart; you can see the same gull in both. Thinking about it after the fact, Dan must have stepped around the corner a bit to shoot it straight on; I couldn't make the tighter crop work from where I was standing. Sadly it didn't occur to me to move at the time. Oh, well.
I have to second the comment about the dirty window shot. That is simply amazing. And the one of the GGB - I think your's is better than the first one in this thread! So there!
I totally agree
What would be even more interesting would be a side by side of the "straight out of the camera" and the processed shot! And, explanation (if possible) of what that processing was chosen.
You want us to divulge our secrets??? I never....
I have to agree, it would be a cool thing to see since our setups and compositions are vastly different, our post processing must be just as different.
I have to agree, it would be a cool thing to see since our setups and compositions are vastly different, our post processing must be just as different.
I asked a photographer to let me see an original of one of her photos and she nicely did. I saw she was getting her wonderful textures and colors from photoshop (or some other post processing) and that it wasn't anything like she photographed originally. I was beginning to think we were inhabiting different worlds because my textures didn't look anything like hers. :-)
Once I realized it was her post processing that was making her textures so fantastic, I relaxed.
I can still admire her post processing techniques without wanting to copy them for my photos.
When lucky enough to come across something in that perfect light, I discover that post processing isn't needed, but of course that is so rare!
I wasn't asking to copy anyone's technique, but rather to understand what the camera captured and what they created and why... which way to process the image -- there are all sorts of different ways to process a photo. In the case of a nice grungy place like Alcatraz, I'd go for the high contrast, slightly out of this world grunge effect myself. I think that all the photos in this thread show a similar choice -- to emphasize the grunge, the dirt, and the despair... but some have chosen to highlight certain colors and shadows and to play with light and shadow.
That's why I thought it would be neat -- not to copy anyone's secrets
The thing I struggle with personally is reality versus artistic vision and these photos certainly attest to artistic vision in a good way.
This is turning into a really interesting discussion about photography as an art. Explorers all over always bicker about photography of these types of places as art or as documentary records of a short-lived place.
I can only speak for myself, but my RAW files are just that: raw. It's great to get your composition and the best light available when you shoot, but I'm not going to just convert that file into jpg and upload it. When I shoot I have a picture in my mind and I try to never hit the shutter until I can envision exactly what the end product will look like. I want my images to look real, but just... better. I tend to believe that doing zero PP is a waste of a valuable tool.
Also, you can argue 'til the cows come home about where the line is between photography and digital art of course, and especially after a I trip such as this with so many other great photographers, I'd gladly do just that after we're done shooting and go out for a beer.
I think this thread is truly an example of "learning to see."
One thing I find interesting is how what I was looking for affected what I saw. Lately I have been conciously trying to shoot wider; not necessarily wider angle though often so; to capture context and a sense of the environment. Looking through this thread I have become more aware of how that affected what I did and didn't see. In particular after looking at Dan and Schmoo's shots, I realize now that I was not seeing details and came home with essentially no detail shots. Of course in a short period of time you can't shoot everything, but it is fascinating how much the story I decided to tell affected both what I saw and what I shot.
What would be even more interesting would be a side by side of the "straight out of the camera" and the processed shot! And, explanation (if possible) of what that processing was chosen.
Almost all of my processing was done in Lightroom so I can look at the history to see what I did. The one exception was one of the fisheye shots which was 3 exposure HDR processed in Dynamic Photo HDR and then tweaked in Photoshop (if you look closely you can see the trial version watermark). Anyhow, I happily take requests if you like a walk through of the reasoning and process behind any of my shots.
I can only speak for myself, but my RAW files are just that: raw. It's great to get your composition and the best light available when you shoot, but I'm not going to just convert that file into jpg and upload it. When I shoot I have a picture in my mind and I try to never hit the shutter until I can envision exactly what the end product will look like. I want my images to look real, but just... better. I tend to believe that doing zero PP is a waste of a valuable tool.
When I am working on planned shots (like my LPS entries) I am, like you, usually very clear on what I want the end product to look like. However which I am shooting more off the cuff like I was on Alcatraz I usually work a bit looser. Instead of visualizing a final product, I restrict my planning to capturing a good quality RAW file. For me that means identifying the critical elements of the composition: framing, dynamic range, focus/DoF and tonal separation to be certain that I have caught everthing I will need to tell my story. The details of the final rendering (color, contrast, etc) I sort out later after I have the photos loaded into the computer.
When I am working on planned shots (like my LPS entries) I am, like you, usually very clear on what I want the end product to look like. However which I am shooting more off the cuff like I was on Alcatraz I usually work a bit looser. Instead of visualizing a final product, I restrict my planning to capturing a good quality RAW file. For me that means identifying the critical elements of the composition: framing, dynamic range, focus/DoF and tonal separation to be certain that I have caught everthing I will need to tell my story. The details of the final rendering (color, contrast, etc) I sort out later after I have the photos loaded into the computer.
Both you and Schmoo hit most of my points on how a photographer takes a picture. We look at the end product way before actually hitting that little shutter button.
A human eye is able to instantly adjust(better for some than others) for WB, Exposure, Contrast and color. A cameras eye is unable to do this. It doesn't adjust for all those components in different areas of a scene one is trying to capture. We just do our best to average all of those components to have a good base to adjust individual areas during post processing.
SOC RAW picture from a digital camera is unprocessed. A SOC JPEG picture is processed inside the camera to what ever the camera is programed to.
So film must be the ultimate SOC no processing real picture, right??? No
Film is processed way before it ends up on paper depending on the chemicals used to process the negs, the film emulsion itself, the time you allow the negs to sit in the chemicals. Then, when the negative is transformed onto paper, there are tons of adjustments or
"post processing" that occurs during this step from contrast, exposure, color saturation etc...
SOC digital pictures have zero value as a "real" picture as much as a negative from film has value as a picture. SOC digital files are just positive images ready for post processing before viewed on paper, web or digital electronics.
So please never call a photograph unreal because it has gone through PP because in my mind, SOC is the true "un-real" picture.
Both you and Schmoo hit most of my points on how a photographer takes a picture. We look at the end product way before actually hitting that little shutter button.
A human eye is able to instantly adjust(better for some than others) for WB, Exposure, Contrast and color. A cameras eye is unable to do this. It doesn't adjust for all those components in different areas of a scene one is trying to capture. We just do our best to average all of those components to have a good base to adjust individual areas during post processing.
SOC RAW picture from a digital camera is unprocessed. A SOC JPEG picture is processed inside the camera to what ever the camera is programed to.
So film must be the ultimate SOC no processing real picture, right??? No
Film is processed way before it ends up on paper depending on the chemicals used to process the negs, the film emulsion itself, the time you allow the negs to sit in the chemicals. Then, when the negative is transformed onto paper, there are tons of adjustments or
"post processing" that occurs during this step from contrast, exposure, color saturation etc...
SOC digital pictures have zero value as a "real" picture as much as a negative from film has value as a picture. SOC digital files are just positive images ready for post processing before viewed on paper, web or digital electronics.
So please never call a photograph unreal because it has gone through PP because in my mind, SOC is the true "un-real" picture.
Ok, time to get off the soapbox now:soapbox
Hmmm, a totally different way of looking at things... at least for me!:D
I can totally translate what you are saying, because of course I shot film. And when I hold a black and white negative, or a color negative in my hand, it's "nothing"! And it's all in the processing as to how it will look. I do remember choosing paper that would add to the image, and I actually did some dodging and burning when making prints. At the end of my hand developing career (Laughing a lot here!) I had to make prints suitable to be reproduced in a newspaper. Read, low contrast, nice even tones -- almost the opposite of what is popular now with digital!
But if I think of my out of camera file as a negative, it does then, indeed, change certain perceptions I have.
Thank you so much for posting your thinking about this!
But if I think of my out of camera file as a negative, it does then, indeed, change certain perceptions I have.
That is the right way to think about it. I find that proper processing for the 800px file on the web and proper processing for a 16x20 print are often quite different. Both because of the different levels of detail and because of the different color spaces. sRGB has a wider dyanmic range (deeper blacks) than any print paper I have used and also allows brighter colors than most printers do (additive devices like CRTs and LCDs typically hit peak saturation at a brighter color than subtractive devices like ink jet printers). However, a 16x20 print shows a level of detail in an image which is just not possible online.
Here's my digital workflow with analogies to film processing:
RAW file = undeveloped film
16 bit ProPhoto RGB .psd file = developed film
sRGB JPEG or Print = Print
My digital workflow is a bit different from my film workflow because more of my processing is taken care at the "developing" stage rather than the "printing" stage. When developing film, I could only really control contrast, brightness and grain. One of the wonderful advantages of shooting RAW digital over film is that when shooting film I had to choose my white balance, saturation and color rendition when I loaded my film stock into the camera. Now with digital I can make those decisions after the fact during RAW conversion. More than anything, the reason I love digital color is that I no longer have to worry about having the "right" film in my camera.
Once I have created my developed digital negative, I print it to an output format. Print to 800px JPEG, print to full rez JPEG, print to 4x6 and print to 16x24 are, in my workflow, all done differently starting from the same digital negative. Now, in the fast and loose world of the web, I will let other people (like smugmug) scale for me but when I want the best result possible I do the color space conversions, scaling and output sharpening myself staring from my digital negative.
Sorry I'm so late to the show here, but I just finished uploading my pics.
I'm still learning to see my end product BEFORE I hit the shutter. But I'm getting a lot better about being able to see it before I get to the computer. I am better able to decide at the camera if I want to keep or re-shoot. I find that because I lack the eye that a lot of the really great photographers have, I have to take the shot and then compare that to what I see outside of the camera and make the decision about re-shooting or ditching the concept or being happy with what luck gave me .
So, with that being said, you can see the haphazard story I end up telling:
More than anything, the reason I love digital color is that I no longer have to worry about having the "right" film in my camera.
Once I have created my developed digital negative, I print it to an output format. Print to 800px JPEG, print to full rez JPEG, print to 4x6 and print to 16x24 are, in my workflow, all done differently starting from the same digital negative.
That's so true that one needs to process for the intended output. I up the contrast and sharpening for the web, but for a print, I'd use a lot less contrast because most times I'd print for 8 x 10.
And yes, it's nice not having to worry about what film is in the camera!
Special for you, this picture is purely just a way to capture the text in a pseudo-meaningful way.
And I have some people working on translating.
clapYahooooo!!!!, great series Travis. I knew you had it in you. Anyone that actually chooses to buy that hoody sweetshirt you were wearing that night can't be all that bad
My fav of yours has to be the " For me to see you, not for you to see me" and "Not so safe" - simply awesome
clapYahooooo!!!!, great series Travis. I knew you had it in you. Anyone that actually chooses to buy that hoody sweetshirt you were wearing that night can't be all that bad
My fav of yours has to be the " For me to see you, not for you to see me" and "Not so safe" - simply awesome
So, I've gotten some info back about this. Only two of the symbols are actually masonic. The person I showed it to says it looks like someone who knew a little, but not much was trying to make it look like there was something masonic about where this was (I didn't say where I took it, not for any particular reason, but because, well I didn't). I don't think he would lie about the details to me, if it were "secret" he'd just say, "not gonna tell you." So, that's what I got. How about you?
So, I've gotten some info back about this. Only two of the symbols are actually masonic. The person I showed it to says it looks like someone who knew a little, but not much was trying to make it look like there was something masonic about where this was (I didn't say where I took it, not for any particular reason, but because, well I didn't). I don't think he would lie about the details to me, if it were "secret" he'd just say, "not gonna tell you." So, that's what I got. How about you?
So let me see if I got this straight. You showed us a picture of symbols that may or may not be masonic yet you will not or did not tell us the location of these symbols. Some unknown person tells you that only two are actual masonic symbols yet you did not divulge which symbols nor what they mean. You also mention that if the symbols were "secret" he would not tell you. So by stating that these are not masonic symbols except two obvious ones could be a lie since if they were a "secret" he would not tell ya anyway. Did I understand correctly?? In other words, you have told us nothing we didn't already know, right???
I have a theory on that: from left to right, then top to bottom:
The first is clearly a pronoun, probably "I" possibly even "I am". The next symbol expresses severe tedium, as in "bored". Next is a simple reference of relative location: "out of", then an expression of possesion, in this context probably "my". The next symbol usually refers to "skull" and last one is another indication of position, appearing as "here".
Either that or it's "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood."
So let me see if I got this straight. You showed us a picture of symbols that may or may not be masonic yet you will not or did not tell us the location of these symbols. Some unknown person tells you that only two are actual masonic symbols yet you did not divulge which symbols nor what they mean. You also mention that if the symbols were "secret" he would not tell you. So by stating that these are not masonic symbols except two obvious ones could be a lie since if they were a "secret" he would not tell ya anyway. Did I understand correctly?? In other words, you have told us nothing we didn't already know, right???
No, I didn't tell HIM where I took the picture... You know where I took the picture. The reason I didn't tell him where I took the photo has more to do with the way that I know him than anything else. So, what I'm telling you is that a guy that I trust enough to not outright lie to me says it's bunk. Take that for what it's worth.
I have a theory on that: from left to right, then top to bottom:
The first is clearly a pronoun, probably "I" possibly even "I am". The next symbol expresses severe tedium, as in "bored". Next is a simple reference of relative location: "out of", then an expression of possesion, in this context probably "my". The next symbol usually refers to "skull" and last one is another indication of position, appearing as "here".
Either that or it's "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood."
I have a theory on that: from left to right, then top to bottom:
The first is clearly a pronoun, probably "I" possibly even "I am". The next symbol expresses severe tedium, as in "bored". Next is a simple reference of relative location: "out of", then an expression of possesion, in this context probably "my". The next symbol usually refers to "skull" and last one is another indication of position, appearing as "here".
Either that or it's "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood."
that is too funny:D
No, I didn't tell HIM where I took the picture... You know where I took the picture. The reason I didn't tell him where I took the photo has more to do with the way that I know him than anything else. So, what I'm telling you is that a guy that I trust enough to not outright lie to me says it's bunk. Take that for what it's worth.
Dang it, i was so hoping it was going to lead both of us to mass fortunes:(:
Comments
but at least i now feel like ive been!
thanks again.
What I personally love about this thread is the fact that through photography I can look through the eyes of some different photographers! Amazing! To all be in the same place with a narrow focus -- an old prison, the rock, and to see such different things!
I think this thread is truly an example of "learning to see."
Then, there's learning to process what one sees!
The use of IR versus color versus Black and White...
Now this would make a great Blurb book!!!!! :-)
My very favorites are "Just beyond the window" and Liquid Air's spiral staircase. (But I liked a bunch of other ones too!)
What would be even more interesting would be a side by side of the "straight out of the camera" and the processed shot! And, explanation (if possible) of what that processing was chosen.
Anyway, some fantastic photos here!!!
http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
I looked at that stair through the viewfinder too, albeit from a slightly different angle. I first zoomed in on it tight like Dan did, but then decided to back off a bit and shot this:
We can't have taken those shots more than a minute or two apart; you can see the same gull in both. Thinking about it after the fact, Dan must have stepped around the corner a bit to shoot it straight on; I couldn't make the tighter crop work from where I was standing. Sadly it didn't occur to me to move at the time. Oh, well.
I totally agree
You want us to divulge our secrets???
I have to agree, it would be a cool thing to see since our setups and compositions are vastly different, our post processing must be just as different.
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
i thinks thats your que to start a workshop:D
I asked a photographer to let me see an original of one of her photos and she nicely did. I saw she was getting her wonderful textures and colors from photoshop (or some other post processing) and that it wasn't anything like she photographed originally. I was beginning to think we were inhabiting different worlds because my textures didn't look anything like hers. :-)
Once I realized it was her post processing that was making her textures so fantastic, I relaxed.
I can still admire her post processing techniques without wanting to copy them for my photos.
When lucky enough to come across something in that perfect light, I discover that post processing isn't needed, but of course that is so rare!
I wasn't asking to copy anyone's technique, but rather to understand what the camera captured and what they created and why... which way to process the image -- there are all sorts of different ways to process a photo. In the case of a nice grungy place like Alcatraz, I'd go for the high contrast, slightly out of this world grunge effect myself. I think that all the photos in this thread show a similar choice -- to emphasize the grunge, the dirt, and the despair... but some have chosen to highlight certain colors and shadows and to play with light and shadow.
That's why I thought it would be neat -- not to copy anyone's secrets
The thing I struggle with personally is reality versus artistic vision and these photos certainly attest to artistic vision in a good way.
http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
I can only speak for myself, but my RAW files are just that: raw. It's great to get your composition and the best light available when you shoot, but I'm not going to just convert that file into jpg and upload it. When I shoot I have a picture in my mind and I try to never hit the shutter until I can envision exactly what the end product will look like. I want my images to look real, but just... better. I tend to believe that doing zero PP is a waste of a valuable tool.
Also, you can argue 'til the cows come home about where the line is between photography and digital art of course, and especially after a I trip such as this with so many other great photographers, I'd gladly do just that after we're done shooting and go out for a beer.
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
One thing I find interesting is how what I was looking for affected what I saw. Lately I have been conciously trying to shoot wider; not necessarily wider angle though often so; to capture context and a sense of the environment. Looking through this thread I have become more aware of how that affected what I did and didn't see. In particular after looking at Dan and Schmoo's shots, I realize now that I was not seeing details and came home with essentially no detail shots. Of course in a short period of time you can't shoot everything, but it is fascinating how much the story I decided to tell affected both what I saw and what I shot.
Almost all of my processing was done in Lightroom so I can look at the history to see what I did. The one exception was one of the fisheye shots which was 3 exposure HDR processed in Dynamic Photo HDR and then tweaked in Photoshop (if you look closely you can see the trial version watermark). Anyhow, I happily take requests if you like a walk through of the reasoning and process behind any of my shots.
They were actually resonably nice about it. That said, I was aware of every second of my long exposures.
When I am working on planned shots (like my LPS entries) I am, like you, usually very clear on what I want the end product to look like. However which I am shooting more off the cuff like I was on Alcatraz I usually work a bit looser. Instead of visualizing a final product, I restrict my planning to capturing a good quality RAW file. For me that means identifying the critical elements of the composition: framing, dynamic range, focus/DoF and tonal separation to be certain that I have caught everthing I will need to tell my story. The details of the final rendering (color, contrast, etc) I sort out later after I have the photos loaded into the computer.
Both you and Schmoo hit most of my points on how a photographer takes a picture. We look at the end product way before actually hitting that little shutter button.
A human eye is able to instantly adjust(better for some than others) for WB, Exposure, Contrast and color. A cameras eye is unable to do this. It doesn't adjust for all those components in different areas of a scene one is trying to capture. We just do our best to average all of those components to have a good base to adjust individual areas during post processing.
SOC RAW picture from a digital camera is unprocessed. A SOC JPEG picture is processed inside the camera to what ever the camera is programed to.
So film must be the ultimate SOC no processing real picture, right??? No
Film is processed way before it ends up on paper depending on the chemicals used to process the negs, the film emulsion itself, the time you allow the negs to sit in the chemicals. Then, when the negative is transformed onto paper, there are tons of adjustments or
"post processing" that occurs during this step from contrast, exposure, color saturation etc...
SOC digital pictures have zero value as a "real" picture as much as a negative from film has value as a picture. SOC digital files are just positive images ready for post processing before viewed on paper, web or digital electronics.
So please never call a photograph unreal because it has gone through PP because in my mind, SOC is the true "un-real" picture.
Ok, time to get off the soapbox now:soapbox
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
Hmmm, a totally different way of looking at things... at least for me!:D
I can totally translate what you are saying, because of course I shot film. And when I hold a black and white negative, or a color negative in my hand, it's "nothing"! And it's all in the processing as to how it will look. I do remember choosing paper that would add to the image, and I actually did some dodging and burning when making prints. At the end of my hand developing career (Laughing a lot here!) I had to make prints suitable to be reproduced in a newspaper. Read, low contrast, nice even tones -- almost the opposite of what is popular now with digital!
But if I think of my out of camera file as a negative, it does then, indeed, change certain perceptions I have.
Thank you so much for posting your thinking about this!
http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
That is the right way to think about it. I find that proper processing for the 800px file on the web and proper processing for a 16x20 print are often quite different. Both because of the different levels of detail and because of the different color spaces. sRGB has a wider dyanmic range (deeper blacks) than any print paper I have used and also allows brighter colors than most printers do (additive devices like CRTs and LCDs typically hit peak saturation at a brighter color than subtractive devices like ink jet printers). However, a 16x20 print shows a level of detail in an image which is just not possible online.
Here's my digital workflow with analogies to film processing:
RAW file = undeveloped film
16 bit ProPhoto RGB .psd file = developed film
sRGB JPEG or Print = Print
My digital workflow is a bit different from my film workflow because more of my processing is taken care at the "developing" stage rather than the "printing" stage. When developing film, I could only really control contrast, brightness and grain. One of the wonderful advantages of shooting RAW digital over film is that when shooting film I had to choose my white balance, saturation and color rendition when I loaded my film stock into the camera. Now with digital I can make those decisions after the fact during RAW conversion. More than anything, the reason I love digital color is that I no longer have to worry about having the "right" film in my camera.
Once I have created my developed digital negative, I print it to an output format. Print to 800px JPEG, print to full rez JPEG, print to 4x6 and print to 16x24 are, in my workflow, all done differently starting from the same digital negative. Now, in the fast and loose world of the web, I will let other people (like smugmug) scale for me but when I want the best result possible I do the color space conversions, scaling and output sharpening myself staring from my digital negative.
I'm still learning to see my end product BEFORE I hit the shutter. But I'm getting a lot better about being able to see it before I get to the computer. I am better able to decide at the camera if I want to keep or re-shoot. I find that because I lack the eye that a lot of the really great photographers have, I have to take the shot and then compare that to what I see outside of the camera and make the decision about re-shooting or ditching the concept or being happy with what luck gave me
So, with that being said, you can see the haphazard story I end up telling:
Guard/Light House (take your pick)
Indians welcome, everyone else, kindly shove off
Peek-a-Boo
For me to see you, not for you to see me
To clean the sick
For the sick to relieve
Bed Rest
Empty Hosptial
Not so safe
17 days alone
Penitent Spiral
Night Watch
Special for you, this picture is purely just a way to capture the text in a pseudo-meaningful way.
And I have some people working on translating.
That's so true that one needs to process for the intended output. I up the contrast and sharpening for the web, but for a print, I'd use a lot less contrast because most times I'd print for 8 x 10.
And yes, it's nice not having to worry about what film is in the camera!
http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
My fav of yours has to be the " For me to see you, not for you to see me" and "Not so safe" - simply awesome
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
So, I've gotten some info back about this. Only two of the symbols are actually masonic. The person I showed it to says it looks like someone who knew a little, but not much was trying to make it look like there was something masonic about where this was (I didn't say where I took it, not for any particular reason, but because, well I didn't). I don't think he would lie about the details to me, if it were "secret" he'd just say, "not gonna tell you." So, that's what I got. How about you?
So let me see if I got this straight. You showed us a picture of symbols that may or may not be masonic yet you will not or did not tell us the location of these symbols. Some unknown person tells you that only two are actual masonic symbols yet you did not divulge which symbols nor what they mean. You also mention that if the symbols were "secret" he would not tell you. So by stating that these are not masonic symbols except two obvious ones could be a lie since if they were a "secret" he would not tell ya anyway. Did I understand correctly?? In other words, you have told us nothing we didn't already know, right???
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
The first is clearly a pronoun, probably "I" possibly even "I am". The next symbol expresses severe tedium, as in "bored". Next is a simple reference of relative location: "out of", then an expression of possesion, in this context probably "my". The next symbol usually refers to "skull" and last one is another indication of position, appearing as "here".
Either that or it's "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood."
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
No, I didn't tell HIM where I took the picture... You know where I took the picture. The reason I didn't tell him where I took the photo has more to do with the way that I know him than anything else. So, what I'm telling you is that a guy that I trust enough to not outright lie to me says it's bunk. Take that for what it's worth.
I vote the second!
Dang it, i was so hoping it was going to lead both of us to mass fortunes:(:
My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/