On 2012-06-09 12:40:38 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012-06-09 15:29 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:33:54 +0200, Bruce wrote:
: On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:17:06 -0700 (PDT), otter
: wrote:
:
: On May 31, 12:54 am, Annika1980 wrote:
: As usual, I was late to the party with the Macro shots. However, I
: did manage to get a few good ones after the deadline. Here are three
: of them I took in the past two days.
:
: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/143679594/original.jpg
:
: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/143679598/original.jpg
:
: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/143679597/original.jpg
:
: -Annika ----- Totally Digital !!!
:
: I don't read this group too often, so just stumbled on this. Damn,
: good work!
: What lens is that?
:
:
: As in, "Damn, good food! Which brand of pan did the chef use?"

Well, it's better than, "Wow, those are great pictures! You have a really good
camera!" We've all heard that a few times, I daresay. ;^)

Tony "Bruce" Polson doesn't understand that "good picture" comes from
"good work".

I believe Tony/"Bruce" was aiming a not too thinly veiled insult at
Otter. Implying that Otter asking about the lens, might believe he
would be able to replicate Bret's work. Much as an idiot diner might
ask a chef the brand of pans used, in the expectation that would be all
he needed to replicated a fine meal.

It is the old, "it's the photographer not the camera/lens" line told in
cooking terms. The reality which Tony/Bruce refuses to acknowledge is,
many of the SI shooters, and non-pros, including you, me, Otter and Bob
are perfectly capable of putting fine photo equipment to good use to
produce quality images. Bret's work is extraordinary and is not just
facilitated by the use of one particular lens, but having that lens
available certainly helped to produce the images discussed in this
thread. Others in this group are quite capable of learning how to make
the best of it.

Tony/Bruce remains a pompous ass.

--
Regards,

Savageduck