The proof is here

http://www.grahamwatson.com/2001/tdf/tdf1/image7.html

It looks like a farmer tanned Tommy Smothers with clown shoes on.

>From: "rope --Huh?" <cfbill@charterSPAM.net

>It looks like a farmer tanned Tommy Smothers with clown shoes on.

Tommy who?? You do realise that's what your gonna get from an awful lot of people here, but your
right. I don't think Tommy ever had that much muscle, he was always even thinner than Lance unless
my memory is going. Bill C

news:09e2d85df8b6190054e5c243e8ab3e8....ultrafeed.com...
> The proof is here
>
> http://www.grahamwatson.com/2001/tdf/tdf1/image7.html
>
> It looks like a farmer tanned Tommy Smothers with clown shoes on.

And taken with a 20mm (very wide angle) lens.

Probably only a 28mm. You could see a lot more of the room with a 20mm.

Jiyang "Ken Papai" <ken@kenpapai.com> wrote in message
news:CnVZa.86430$Vt6.28655@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> news:09e2d85df8b6190054e5c243e8ab3e8....ultrafeed.com...
> > The proof is here
> >
> > http://www.grahamwatson.com/2001/tdf/tdf1/image7.html
> >
> > It looks like a farmer tanned Tommy Smothers with clown shoes on.
>
> And taken with a 20mm (very wide angle) lens.

"Jiyang Chen" <Jiyangc@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bhbb86$bj7@dispatch.concentric.net>...
> Probably only a 28mm. You could see a lot more of the room with a 20mm.
>
> Jiyang

Yeah man, but it was still likely shot with a 20mm lens and CROPPED.

> "Ken Papai" <ken@kenpapai.com> wrote in message
> news:CnVZa.86430$Vt6.28655@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > news:09e2d85df8b6190054e5c243e8ab3e8....ultrafeed.com...
> > > The proof is here
> > >
> > > http://www.grahamwatson.com/2001/tdf/tdf1/image7.html
> > >
> > > It looks like a farmer tanned Tommy Smothers with clown shoes on.
> >
> > And taken with a 20mm (very wide angle) lens.

"K. J. Papai" <ken@kenpapai.com> wrote in message
news:6100cab2.0308121350.2d2c7e93@posting.google.com...
> Yeah man, but it was still likely shot with a 20mm lens >and CROPPED.

Graham Watson must be a crappy photographer if he has to crop that shot. Lance would have occupied
1/3-1/4 of the picture, and they would not bother to crop this picture in fear of reduced image
quality and sharpness.

Holy Sh!T I can't believe pappy replied to jiyang with something other than "troll".

Maybe this is a good newsgroup afterall.

slap slap slap

sorry had to beat myself for that last comment.

"K. J. Papai" <ken@kenpapai.com> wrote in message
news:6100cab2.0308121350.2d2c7e93@posting.google.com...
> "Jiyang Chen" <Jiyangc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<bhbb86$bj7@dispatch.concentric.net>...
> > Probably only a 28mm. You could see a lot more of the room with a 20mm.
> >
> > Jiyang
>
> Yeah man, but it was still likely shot with a 20mm lens and CROPPED.
>
> > "Ken Papai" <ken@kenpapai.com> wrote in message
> > news:CnVZa.86430$Vt6.28655@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
> > > news:09e2d85df8b6190054e5c243e8ab3e8....ultrafeed.com...
> > > > The proof is here
> > > >
> > > > http://www.grahamwatson.com/2001/tdf/tdf1/image7.html
> > > >
> > > > It looks like a farmer tanned Tommy Smothers with clown shoes on.
> > >
> > > And taken with a 20mm (very wide angle) lens.

"Jiyang Chen" <Jiyangc@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bhcgb4$bj5@dispatch.concentric.net>...
> "K. J. Papai" <ken@kai.com> wrote in message
> news:6100cab2.0308121350.2d2c7e93@posting.google.com...
> > Yeah man, but it was still likely shot with a 20mm lens >and CROPPED.
>
> Graham Watson must be a crappy photographer if he has to crop that shot. Lance would have occupied
> 1/3-1/4 of the picture, and they would not bother to crop this picture in fear of reduced image
> quality and sharpness.

If you think cropping has anythign to do with "reduced image quality and [loss of] sharpness" then
you know very little about image manipulation.

ALL photographers crop. ALL good photographers, like the esteemed, and world class Graham Watson try
to fill up their frame as much as possible with their intended image; however, it's not always
possible to do so. Therefore you crop.

This is all obvious if you're used to shooting thousands of photos every year. Just think of how
obvious things are on your bike when you ride tens of thousands of km's/year.

-Ken

World class photographers do not crop and they do not digitally sharpen the resulted image. They
take the negative/slide and print whatever's there. Second-rate photographers use a digital Nikon D1
and use photoshop to make it look decent, cropping tiny leopards and making them fill the frame
because they're can't get close to the animals and/or produce sharp images.

> If you think cropping has anythign to do with "reduced image quality and [loss of] sharpness" then
> you know very little about image manipulation.

Are you saying that cropping a picture and then enlarging it to the size of the original picture
results in the same quality? Do you use photoshop on all your images? Many of these photographers
want pictures that they can enlarge them, and a cropped image cannot be enlarged for these purposes
(unless the cropped image is a big percentage of the original.

And if Graham Watson has to crop the Lance photo like you said, he is not "esteemed, and world
class". It is an easy shot of a stationary subject, and would not even use the 20mm in order to crop
it for fun. Therefore, he did not use a 20mm.

Jiyang Chen