On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:33:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message . ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote
in message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at
'soft'. I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh".
I appreciate your suggestions.
Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have
to be a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a
tendency to over sharpen them.
Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.
Not true.

I didn't bother to respond to Joe's comment seriously, because aLL
digital images need to be sharpened. jpg's are sharpened in camera. I
quickly learned that an unsharped RAW photo will look very fuzzy.


Yeah, but you knew what I meant, didn't you? I was referring to
excessive sharpening of DEFECTIVE pictures - the ones that are blurry
because of focusing problems caused by the user, or the camera's
inability to deal with a certain situation.

That is definitely a common problem, that I and others have been guilty
of.


When we only had film to work with, how often did you go to a family
gathering where someone handed you a batch of prints from the last
gathering, or a kid's birthday, and you noticed that out of 24 pictures, 22
were worthless? I don't mean the composition was not fabulously artistic. I
mean they were out of focus, ruined by backlight, shaky hands, etc.

A friend of mine has worked for a local photo store chain for the past 15
years. He says that compared to when he started with the company, he still
gets pretty much the same percentage of people coming back to the store to
ask what went wrong with their pictures. They often think the problem is
with their specific camera, but it's not. It's because so many people never
take the time to learn the fundamentals of photography, which are in no way
related to automation. More than anything, it's science. In the same way
some people will never understand their computers, others will never
understand their cameras. If they're not interested enough to learn the
fundamentals, then they get the results we've all seen.

This is relates to my comment about how the picture has to be 99% "right"
when you click the shutter. Just as with film, there's little that software
can do you save a disaster.

Having said this, I cannot apply caulk in a way that makes me happy, and I
probably never will be able to. A friend of mine can't figure out how hard
to tamp down potting soil before compressing it so much that it's impossible
to remove from the 6-packs without traumatizing the seedlings. She'll
probably never learn the right feel for this task. I think we each have a
few things we just weren't meant to do well, so we pay other people.


Make the hole in the spout about half the size you think you'll need. That
is the secret, along with very wet fingers of course.