|
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| good 1 of 12- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 9:47 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 2 of 12- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 9:48 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 3 of 12- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 9:49 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 4 of 12- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 9:51 PM 1 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 5 of 12- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 9:52 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 6 of 12- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 9:59 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 7 of 12- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 10:04 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 8 of 12- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 10:04 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 9 of 12- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 10:05 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 10 of 12- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 10:06 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 11 of 12- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 10:06 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 12 of 14- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 10:07 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 13 of 14- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 10:07 PM 2 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
|
| good 14 of 14- : When I sorted out the 636 pictures I took last weekend, I split them into "Good," "Bad," and "Ugly." These are not references to the quality of the subject, rather the quality of the photographer (and/or photograph). Please don't be offended if you see your picture in the "bad" section, it just means that I didn't like how it turned out. You won't see your picture in the "Ugly" section, because I already deleted them, they weren't worth looking at. Aren't you glad that for once, I pre-sorted them, so you don't have to sort through 400 junky pictures to get the 200 good ones. bad: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12; good: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 |
|
Sun March 06 2005 at 10:08 PM 0 comments this entry has not been rated yet. please rate this entry |
