On topic photos...
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
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.


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.

On topic photos...
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:22:43 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:19:23 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:46:03 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

Idiot.
Are you talking about me or Mercury Marine? If you want the link to
their quote let me know.
You have to guess?

Idiot.
Harry, Reggie was trying very hard to be nice to you. I think he's seeing
the primer used to hold that black paint to your stainless (?) prop. It
does resemble rust, but the picture is not in focus enough to be sure.

Let's see some more photos of your wife, Herring. Better use that
ultra-wide lens, eh?

Taking lessons from JimmyH, huh? Doing a little wife attacking now? Cheap,
Harry, even for you.

Bad day at the mirror?


I suggest you leave my wife out of your posts, and I will do the same
regarding yours.

Harry, *you* are the one who brought up the photo your wife took. I didn't.
Is complimenting your wife's abilities the same as the snide comments you
and JimH make about my wife?

I'm really surprised Gene hasn't stepped in to correct your bad manners.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
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.


Maybe you could get your wife to go on a diet.

Maybe you could eat **** and die. Incredible

On topic photos...
 

Jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
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.


Maybe you could get your wife to go on a diet.

Maybe you could eat **** and die. Incredible


Pot, kettle, black to both of you turds.

On topic photos...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:22:43 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:19:23 -0500, Boater
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:46:03 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

Idiot.
Are you talking about me or Mercury Marine? If you want the link to
their quote let me know.
You have to guess?

Idiot.
Harry, Reggie was trying very hard to be nice to you. I think he's
seeing
the primer used to hold that black paint to your stainless (?) prop.
It
does resemble rust, but the picture is not in focus enough to be sure.

Let's see some more photos of your wife, Herring. Better use that
ultra-wide lens, eh?

Taking lessons from JimmyH, huh? Doing a little wife attacking now?
Cheap,
Harry, even for you.

Bad day at the mirror?


I suggest you leave my wife out of your posts, and I will do the same
regarding yours.

Harry, *you* are the one who brought up the photo your wife took. I
didn't.
Is complimenting your wife's abilities the same as the snide comments you
and JimH make about my wife?

I'm really surprised Gene hasn't stepped in to correct your bad manners.
--

Maybe because Gene is a whole lot smarter than your average Dope Army
irregular.
He can see through your little games.

On topic photos...
 

"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.

Eisboch

On topic photos...
 

On Nov 26, 12:00*am, "Eisboch" wrote:

* 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.


yep. national Geographic photogs have done that for years.

On topic photos...
 

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.


Speaking of Photoshop, I think it goes back farther than Joe's pewter.

What about Da Vinci and his pin hole camera (Camera Obscura) using
horse pee and egg yolk on canvas?

(Shroud of Torin?)

On topic photos...
 

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:29:50 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:50:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:17:47 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
...little place for them here, eh?

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...s/ce0a1de9.jpg


Anyway, here's a snap of Yo Ho's business end. I'm waiting for the
shrinkwrap guy to show up this week. Wrapping the exhaust after the motor
drains is part of the winterizing process. I've got to spend a few
minutes removing the rust from the prop and repainting it. One of these
days I'll find a prop paint that actually stays on the blade tips. :)
What surprised me was the rust on the aluminum prop. My props (much older
than yours) have lost half of the black paint, I have had some dings
removed, and it has touched the bottom a time or two, but has never shown
a hint of rust. Is rust on aluminum props common in salt water?

As far as painting the props, my props started to lose their paint in the
first year, and I asked the mechanic if I should touch them up. His
comment was that the new paint would "spin off" as soon as i put the boat
back in the water. Don't know if that is true, but it sure has save me
the trouble of repainting the prop. Based upon your experience repainting
props, he was correct. When I have had the prop dings smoothed out and
balanced, the prop shop never bothers to repaint the props for the same
reason.
That's not rust. It's probably a primer paint for aluminum.
I've had stainless props for a long time - never quite understood the
need to paint them.

Unless it's a less expensive type of stainless - then I could
understand it, but why go cheap on the prop?
It is the less expensive SS prop. It is called "Brushed SS". I had
never heard of them, but they do have a tendency to rust, as Harry has
highlighted from his photo. I for one would only buy the non rusting
version of SS prop.
If you had a brushed, rusted, stainless steel prop, a lot more people would
talk to you.
I thought it was my personality that kept everyone away, either that or
my politics. It couldn't be because I am an antisocial SOB.

I have aluminum props, no rust, and very easy to repair any nick or ding
I might get on a floating log. I am such a newbie, I had no idea that SS
props rusted. I learn something new everyday.

This place is a godsend for the uneducated masses....like us.

It is funny that Harry can't imagine someone who voted for Obama, would
actually find him to an obnoxious dullard.

On topic photos...
 

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.

Eisboch


Anyone who says you can not improve upon nature, disagrees with the vast
majority of those who are considered Masters of Photography. I think it
was Ansel Adams who said I use Dodging and burning to correct mistakes
God made in establishing tonal relationships.