On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:15:40 -0500, 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.

You wouldn't know a photoshopped image from an unphotoshopped image.

Don't even try to pretend you can - you've proven that you have no
freakin' clue it more than once here and elsewhere.

I don't give a crap about your problem with Reggie, but don't pretend
to be an expert on this when when you clearly aren't. The object of
critiquing is (1) knowing something about the subject and (2) keeping
your personality conflicts out of it - neither of which you are
capable of.

And for the record, photoshopping, pre/post processing and adjusting
photos in a dark room has been done since Joseph Niepce took his first
photograph in 1826 using a pewter sheet and abestos to produce an
image.

What makes your ridiculous claim even more ridiculous is that you
claim to have been a news reporter who worked with photographers. It's
pretty apparent you've never been in a dark room or have a vague
concept of the process.

Stick to what you know - namely left wing partisian politics.

Otherwise you make an ass of yourself.