|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
- : 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
|
|