Rockin' Photo!

[SmallTownJohn]

Howdy,

 

This photo is my new screensaver...Jeremy Bloom is sooo fucking bad! lol (grrr!)

 

 

http://www.jeremybloom.com/flash/eyecandy/bigImages/pic2.jpg

 

 

Just give me five minutes & I'd put it on him HARD,

 

John

http://www.stj1.com

[Chuck50]

mmmmmmmm hugs chuck

[Zippy]

From the looks of him, he'd put it to YOU real hard.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Howdy,

>

>This photo is my new screensaver...Jeremy Bloom is sooo

>fucking bad! lol (grrr!)

 

Are you sure you don't mean wallpaper? To be a screensaver there has to be something that is constantly moving.

 

Not that I couldn't think of something that could be moved on Mr. Bloom - but I don't think it happens from the pic you posted.

[Rick Munroe]

He's OK if you like 'em waxed and with the new feminized eyebrows. x(

 

Personally, here's my wallpaper (he lives in Beirut):

 

http://picsd.bigmusclebears.com/photosl/708/BM553708.jpg

[+ deej]

Subject aside (and no, I'm not saying I'd shove him aside) that's an insanely well executed photo.

 

Really fast shutter speed and really narrow F-stop can produce some startling effects.

[Guest Mikel]

Rick...if that's your wallpaper...you need to go into interior decorating! Wonder what the rest of your place looks like?????

[+ Cock Eyed Optimist]

Give him a break! The opposite wall is covered with a nude shot of Ethel Merman!!! Don't know how he ever got her to pose!! (Maybe I don't want to }( HaHa!)

[JT Brooklyn]

Gulp! SmallTown-Big John..You have excellent taste! Not that there was ever any doubt! Seeing Jeremy Definitely would make me, Tap on something besides my Keyboard..ALOT! LOL :+

[JamesK840]

I agree, the depth of field is perfect, but how would you know shutter speed--other then stopping motion what affect would it have (I'm assuming the train was parked)?

[+ deej]

It takes a fast shutter speed to *get* depth of field that narrow.

[JamesK840]

>It takes a fast shutter speed to *get* depth of field that

>narrow.

 

Sheesh, I usually thought about greater depth of field so I was thinking small aperture, but you're right... if the lens is wide-open to shorten DOF then shutter speed has to increase to equalize the exposure.

 

I really can't believe how long it took me to get that. I wonder if there's anything I remember from college now... I need to get a new battery for the Pentax. Of course, most of the things I might want to shoot I wouldn't want to run through the photo lab, but can't afford a equivalent digicam at the moment either.

[seaboy4hire]

Rick and John great choices in pics. Wish both of them could be my babies daddies hehehe or even a nice mexisamich.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[Flower]

>To be a screensaver

>there has to be something that is constantly moving.

 

Any still image or series of images may be screen savers. I have a stillimage as a SS and the 'puter program zooms in and out on it, but it's in constant motion--there are variations.

[Flower]

>It takes a fast shutter speed to *get* depth of field that

>narrow.

Well, actually, the shutter speed has nothing to do with depth of field, which in this case really isn't all that much anyway, although very nice image.

 

In the sense however, that the smaller the aperture (lens opening) the greater the depth of field, then images with great depth of field (not this) usually have a SLOWER shutter speed, not faster, since the smaller the aperture, the less light is let in to expose the film and therefore, the shutter speed needs to compensate by letting the lens shutter stay open a longer period of time, not shorter.

 

You can also increase the "appearance" of DOF with a wide angle lens and actually increase DOF by using a telephoto lens if you keep your entire image in the infinity area.

[+ deej]

Yes and no, and that's the really cool thing about photography.

 

I've seen people with horribly expensive cameras that probably ended up with amateurish snapshots.

 

Hand one of those disposable snapshot cameras you can buy in any drug store to Bruce Webber and you'll get great photos.

 

Photography is an art, and not one I pretend to have mastered. But I'll keep studying it and trying it!

[BuckyXTC]

>I've seen people with horribly expensive cameras that probably

>ended up with amateurish snapshots.

 

I totally agree

>

>Hand one of those disposable snapshot cameras you can buy in

>any drug store to Bruce Webber and you'll get great photos.

 

I'll quibble with this one. With the disposable snapshot camera in the hands of a Bruce Weber or Marco Realmonte, you'll probably get the best photo possible within the limitations of that camera. Composition wise, it is dependent upon who is wielding the camera. As for a great photo, I think it depends on photographer and equipment.

[+ deej]

I'll agree with that. It's such a variable thing.

[Swiss Lumber]

Wall or whatever...but I woke up this morning and found this on my bathroom floor.

 

http://www.friskyfans.org/catphotos/jocks/kw1.jpg

[+ friendofsheila]

I'm tired of drooling over straight boys pecs.

 

Is it just me or is anyone else longing for the days when it was only the gay men who had hot bodies, and nearly all the straight men looked like Jack Lemmon or Walter Matthau?