Sitting at Cafe Chloe this morning, waiting for breakfast, I thumbed through the May edition of Conde Nast Traveler and was struck dumb (figuratively) by a Louis Vuitton ad featuring Keith Richards, sitting on a hotel bed holding a guitar. I don't know how to describe it, but the contrast of Richards' craggy features with the high end furnishings, draped with skull kerchiefs and the incredible lighting used make the best commercial photograph I've seen in years. Though not credited in the ad, it was made by Annie Leibovitz. Continuing through the magazine I found only one other photograph worth noting. This was a Ruven Afanador ad for the Breast Cancer Research Center (I can't find a link) featuring a beautifully done draped nude back. I'm pretty sure the model is a celebrity, but can't see enough of the face, and don't know enough celebrities, to be sure. I'm impressed that such an overworked theme still has the potential to be done so well.
Breakfast was excellent - eggs piperade with procuitto and potatoes - and the coffee good and large. I've been out pushing the little Husqvarna a bit and am heading to the book store next. No particular reason, just to enjoy what will be a hot and beautiful day.
That's BonBon above. One of the very few attempts I've made with the digital camera. No PS or cropping or anything, originally shot small for use in a web ad. Those are her puppy slippers in the background. I haven't shown this one before because it didn't work very well.
posted by D. Brian Nelson at 7:09 AM
5 Comments:
I saw that Keith Richards shot in Vanity Fair this month. Memorable. I loved it, although it wouldn't make me rush out an buy a Louis Vuitton bag any time soon, I'm afraid. But it's definitely a great photograph.
Incredibly sharp detail on the face, despite a third of it in shadow. I wonder what camera and lighting she used?
Regarding your new .22 rifle, you might want to try Wolf Match ammunition. Being target ammunition, it is a 40 grain solid at standard velocity, but it I think it is the best value in accurate .22 ammunition out there. It will shoot
1/2" groups at 50 yards in my stock Ruger bolt-action 77-22. Outstanding accuracy for a non-target rifle. I get it at Gander Mountain for about $4.00 a box of fifty. Not plinking ammo, but not nearly as dear at the other top end match suff.
Ian
Little disconnect here. I don't have a .22 LR rifle. Have a .223 and a .22 WMR is being built.
That Ruger is a pretty little rifle. If I ever do get another .22 LR, that might be the one.
-Don
Don,
My fault, I thought it was a .22 LR. Let us know how your WMR is accuracy wise. I have never been able to get one to fire worth a damn. I could never quite figure out if it was the rifles, the ammunition, or whether it is merely an inherently inaccurate round. It really ought to be a far more accurate round than it is, being a jacketed bullet without the base deformation inherent in a lead-bullet cartridge. I have heard of a few .22 WMR rifles that are very accurate, but only become so after a custom cut chamber is re-cut in the barrel. Most of the benchrest guys seem to think that is the solution. Having yours custom made, you might get a winner.
Ian
Ian, That's what's being done. The .22 WMR is being built from a Martini 12/15 target rifle using the original barrel shortened to 23" and rechambered by MT Guns. It will be as inherently accurate as a .22 rifle can be. There's been a lot of work done on the rounds lately as well, so I figure it's a matter of finding the best for the rifle. Because it's going to be iron sights - peep and globe - the ammo is probably going to be more accurate than I am anyway.
The .223 is another story. That one is scoped and the rifle and loads will evolve over time, and it will be, at some point, a quarter MOA rifle. There's a long way to go with that one though.
-don
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home