i dont understand... does ny mean new york...?
Posted by faraari at July 14, 2005 04:11 AMBeautiful colours and depth with the trees. Nice shot!
Posted by andrew at July 14, 2005 04:16 AMPeople are lucky to have so much greenery around where they live. Fantastic view to have out of the apartment's window with the towers as some sort of urban mountain range on the horizon.
Posted by Susie at July 14, 2005 04:25 AMGreat green against the red brown house make the picture more live and perfect light. The picture looks like double photos merged together. Beautiful and thank you
Thomas Tra
Wow... Toronto is really a green city.
Posted by Dmytro at July 14, 2005 09:39 AMny can mean north york or new york. can mean new york because its styled after the empire state building. north york, cuz its in north york.
nice shot.
very cute!
Posted by shamide at July 14, 2005 10:22 AMvery nice colours. interesting how you chose to use iso 400, probably to capture all the details in the foreground.
all in all, good shot.
Very interesting shot. To see the small houses in the foreground almost came like a little surprise, so I really like the perspective here...
Posted by flygirl at July 14, 2005 11:36 AMNice suburban/urban contrast with the house in the foreground. Interesting too because you don't see the house until you scroll down the page. I wasn't expecting to see it. Cropping the house out would have made it look like you were doing some Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon top-of-the-tree action to get the photo. Definitely a favourite (I'm a first time commentor, long time viewer -- it's my homepage!).
Posted by Chris at July 14, 2005 11:44 AMI visit your site regularly because I love your work and I get a nostalgic feeling having grown up in Toronto and recognizing many of the subjects of your pictures. But could you please stop taking pictures of the New York Towers? My family still lives at Bayview and Sheppard and I think the NY Towers are the ugliest new development I've seen in the city. I liken them to a Puzz 3D http://www.wrebbit.com/puzz3d/index.htm a smaller, less artful copy of an existing structure. Am I the only one who feels this way?
Posted by Alnoor at July 14, 2005 12:50 PMIt's amazing you can get such DOF with only F/4.5 !
It's nice to have a lens which can produce and follow your vision ;-)
Great shot.
hey, man: what a gorgeous scene, man. hey, man i may be mistaken or somewhat high but isn't that a humungous marijuana plant growing behind the house in the foreground?? man, i really should cut down on this stuff, eh man? thanks sam.
Posted by martin at July 14, 2005 04:16 PMI agree. I live around that area, and I think those towers are incredibly ugly, squat and tacky. Tacky knock-offs like this belong in Las Vegas or something. Hopefully now that the sheppard subway line is there more highrise development will follow in that area so these ugly towers do not stick out like a sore thumb.
Nice photo BTW sam.
Posted by mark at July 14, 2005 05:01 PMmy friend lives by those towers! theyre so gorgeous in real life
Posted by Melissa at July 14, 2005 09:05 PMWeird, man. My dad used to live in Danbury Connecticut, and we would see towers that looked exactly like this when we drove into the city. We called the place where they were the Gold County. It's weird they are also this far north.
Posted by Houser at July 14, 2005 09:11 PMyeah i enjoy your photos usually no matter what the subject matter. but those NY Towers are such a blight on the landscape. There was a article in the Toronto Star last weekend about putting together the bits on the roof of specifically the Chrysler one, god it was tacky looking.
Next they'll build an 'The Eiffel Towers' with weird teeny units built in the legs or something.
In general tho: condo in TO have crappy names, and your photos rock.
Posted by jill at July 14, 2005 11:57 PMAnother great photo, Sam.
Personally, I like those "NY" towers.
It's the ugly tower on the horizon that annoy's me.
It's a Bell telephone tower on Pharmacy Ave. in Scarborough.
It's been there for years and certainly clutters the landscape since it obviously can be seen for miles around.
Hey Sam,
Unlike many of your photos, this one surprises me. I'm not sure why you even chose to include this in your blog.
The horizon is not horizontal.
The sky is dull as dull can be.
The wires on the bottom border are distracting.
The greens don't look lush at all.
BUT, I'm looking forward to your next posting though!
H
Posted by haighton at July 15, 2005 01:20 AMthanks paolo!
Posted by faraari at July 15, 2005 02:31 AMHi,
Nice phot, I have a question though. I see that
f = 4.5 but your photo has a good depth of field.
I am a little bit confused!
Meft
Posted by mefti at July 15, 2005 09:17 AMI like the forest feel and the huge length of this shot. Very interesting composition. :-)
Posted by Abe at July 15, 2005 01:51 PMOminous shot. The way those buildings are advancing on the forest is menacing. It won't be long until asphalt and concrete rule and the living things are obliterated.
F4.5 will give decent DOF in this situation because all subjects are at quite a distance.
Posted by klikz at July 17, 2005 01:47 AMWDF.. you guys are gay... the new york towers are the best building made in toronto.. and its not tacky looking, have you been to new york? to see the buildings look exactly like that ..you dont have taste man. You dont live in no beverly hills so dont talk shyt about my building .. your just jelly cause its better THAN YOURS. mmKAY?..damn straight.
Posted by Kisz at April 10, 2007 08:12 PMHay
take prefer to conceive of with BBcode :( for me does not veer out to manufacture references to the attractive pictures and video on the topic. Or heave up b abandon down affiliation on this topic