On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:35:35 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

GPUAR, Reggie. And why not post a photo that shows nature as she
is, Reggie? Certainly an asshole like you can't improve upon it.

Harry,

I don't believe in the philosophy that a photo should capture exactly
what you saw. I follow the philosophy that a photograph should
capture what you felt.


Perhaps if you were sober...

Your photoshopping stands out more than your photos. Which is why I
think they suck. Some of the compositions would be interesting if the
lighting were realistic.

I have never been delusional that my photography or my post processing
would put me in the category of the Masters of Photography. I do hope
I learn something everyday and continue to improve, which is why I enjoy
critiques. I take a lot of photos that I just delete, I take some that I
really like, and sometimes others like too. I figure if I take 12 great
photos a year, that is a good crop.

Now if all I did was go out and take a snapshot, I would sell my camera.


Most of your photography seems to take place in photoshop. Seriously, I
think your photos would be better if you "processed" them a lot less.
They *look* processed.

Maybe you could get your wife to critique some of Reggie's photos.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"