On Nov 26, 8:02*am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:7dcqi41fbvf1tefhv6s1fv96nrg6o1i6fb@4ax .com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest
photos
of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead
giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop
to
see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in
daylight.
You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? *Apparently only you.
Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture.
You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in
nature.

Fine. *Works for you.

As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see
photography
as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it
would appear in nature. * In other words, I can appreciate a modified
image
that has been enhanced for effect and mood. *It doesn't always have to be
accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as
influenced by the originator in photoshop.

So, what's the big deal? * Different strokes for different folks, that's
all.
Your right. *I forgot I was dealing with an idiot.

My apologies.

Why? *Comments weren't directed at you. *They were directed to the person
who thinks only his
POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone
who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a
narrow thought process.

Eisboch

When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that
I didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like
them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean like your photo of the painted hoochie with 27 seperate
photoshop modifications? You are what the old folks used to call a
moron.