On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:16:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:47:26 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:45:51 -0800, "Mike" wrote:

Sorry, but it does nothing for me. It looks like prison bars on the beach.
I'm certainly no expert though, and I'm willing to learn. No offense I hope.
Neanderthal. :)

Here's the original converted from RAW (ORF) into .jpeg at high Q and
without editing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197org.jpg

Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm

Tell you what Harry - you seem to be an expert on these things - I'll
give you password access to a directory on my web site just for you
and you can post your stuff there. All yours - you can post all your
best work for everybody to see and look at, comment on, etc.

Open offer - no strings.

Calm down, Tom. All I said was that I thought your original photo was
more, well, photogenic, than your Photoshopped versions. You seem to be
taking that as an insult, but it isn't. Think about it.

Did you bother to look at the photos of the Mies Farnsworth House? If
you did, you would have seen plain, simple, elegant design, unadorned,
and virtually impossible to improve upon. "Less is more." Do you think
that house needs to be Rococo-ized? Do you think Leonardo could have
improved on Mona Lisa by Photoshopping a different background?

It's not the point - contempory modernism is a Scandinavian artistic
construct which came about as a sort of '40s era industrial simplicity
where form didn't always meet function from an esthetic sense. It was
totally sterile and uninteresting which is why it died a quick death
in the early '50s which ushered in the era of post-modern art and
architecture - form met function while being esthetically pleasing.

However, photography is an art form and as such, modernism produced
Pablo Picasso who over his career veered from Symbolist imagery to
Surrealism - all and any of which were never boring, sterile or
monotone in concept or execution and still called "modernist".

I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe
nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do.

I'm dead serious about this Harry. I really want to see your creative
side - see how you interpret your world visually.

Let's see your stuff - put it out there.