Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:32:51 -0400, hk wrote:

D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
D.Duck wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote in message ...

Thanks, my wife has always been creative, but until you and a few
others talked me into buying my wife a D50 for her birthday, I never
had any desire or artistic leaning. My wife does it naturally, I have
to work at it.

Mrs.E. likes portraits. Horses, grandkids .... anything with a face.

With apologies to Harry on the subject matter ..... (another of my
number 3 granddaughter, 3 year old "Sophie"), this copy is actually a
Photoshop captured image of Mrs.E.'s computer desktop wallpaper. I
couldn't find the original file from which this was made.

Anyway, it's not altered or color enhanced or anything. Her eyes are
actually that color. This is one of my favorite pictures of her.

Taken, BTW, by the D70 that Mrs.E. bought from Harry.

http://www.eisboch.com/sophieoncellphone.jpg

Eisboch
No need to Photoshop that one. And the subject doesn't hurt either.
There's no need to "photoshop" most photos, if you spend some time setting
up a digital camera properly and spend even more time in composition and
light evaluation. And by photoshop, I don't mean minor corrections for
exposure, I mean the oh-so-obvious attempts to "improve" on what the eye
sees. Most "art" photos that have been photoshopped that way are so
obvious, they are cliches.

If you want to be a surrealist or impressionist, get some paint and
brushes.
Probably more pro photographers using Photoshop than you care to admit. And
not just for "surreal" effects.


You're being too literal. I didn't say pros didn't use photoshop. I said
they typically used it make minor corrections, just as they would do in
a darkroom with prints made from color negs, or in working with an AD to
correct progressive proofs. I'm also not saying some pros don't use
photoshop and other such programs to produce wild-looking photos. The
difference is, they know how to take very good photos without having to
resort to photoshop to produce "art."

You know - sometimes I have to really wonder about you.

That is so freakin' wrong in this digital age, it's down right scary.

Photoshop is the digital age's dark room. That's a fact.


I suppose it is for photographers not interested in life as it is, or
for photographers whose composition and exposure skills are minimal.

I like life as it is. I like to take photos that look as close to what I
saw as possible.

My father in law called today. He's coming up this way again on his
annual "rail" vacation, so I took a look at some of the photos I took
when he and his wife were last here. The photos reminded me of the fun
we had on that trip. That's why I took them.

I suppose I could have made the water blue, the skies bluer, the trees
greener, et cetera, but...my mind would have told me "that's not the way
it was."

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...aneous/003.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...aneous/005.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...aneous/011.jpg


I never wore love beads and I never went to San Francisco to wear
flowers in my hair. On the other hand, I am a big fan of Salvador Dali.
But, then, he could draw and paint, and his craft was obvious in his
work. It wasn't strained or contrived.

Like this:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...na-fishing.jpg

Dali's Tuna Fishing