On topic photos...
 

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.

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




It's not the photoshopping per se, it's the obviousness of overdoing it
I find distasteful except when it is done for a transparently bizarre
effect, like turning a sky green or suchlike. A little cleanup here, a
little touchup there, no problemo. You want to remove shadows under the
eyes or blemishes on the cheeks, hey, go for it. You want to slightly
lighten a dark hillside so some details show, great. I like subtle
touches. I prefer Mozart to Wagner.

I've seen lots of fabulous photos that have been photoshopped. But they
don't look photoshopped. That's the point, I think. Unless he/she is
going for the bizarre, a photographer skilled in photoshop produces
final images that don't look photoshopped.

On topic photos...
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
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.


Some of us prefer the subtle and the refined, and others of us are
circus clowns, and prefer the art and culture of circus clowns. You like
older Corvettes, I prefer lighter, smaller older European sports cars.

On topic photos...
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:31:10 -0500, Boater wrote:

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




It's not the photoshopping per se, it's the obviousness of overdoing it
I find distasteful except when it is done for a transparently bizarre
effect, like turning a sky green or suchlike. A little cleanup here, a
little touchup there, no problemo. You want to remove shadows under the
eyes or blemishes on the cheeks, hey, go for it. You want to slightly
lighten a dark hillside so some details show, great. I like subtle
touches. I prefer Mozart to Wagner.

I've seen lots of fabulous photos that have been photoshopped. But they
don't look photoshopped. That's the point, I think. Unless he/she is
going for the bizarre, a photographer skilled in photoshop produces
final images that don't look photoshopped.


Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:28:36 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:


"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.


Oh, Donnie, glad you stepped in.

Did *you* find anything negative or derogatory I've said about Harry's
wife? Or your mother, for that matter?

My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you
three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:08:42 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

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.

I can't imagine Harry calling *anyone* a liar.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

JohnH wrote:

Oh, Donnie, glad you stepped in.

Did *you* find anything negative or derogatory I've said about Harry's
wife? Or your mother, for that matter?

My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you
three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself.

Perhaps you should stop talking about the relatives of others, else they
start talking about your relatives.

On topic photos...
 

Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
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.


Some of us prefer the subtle and the refined, and others of us are
circus clowns, and prefer the art and culture of circus clowns. You like
older Corvettes, I prefer lighter, smaller older European sports cars.


Harry, except for the Owl photo you stole from a web site, and presented
as your own, all of the photos you have posted a

1. Out of focus, with excessive movement blur.
2. Poorly exposed resulting in large areas of the photograph being
completely blow out.
3. Poorly composed making it difficult to determine the subject of the
photo.
4. Would not even qualify as an average snapshot.

It is hard to imagine that someone with your complete lack of
photographic skills and desire to improve would buy a D700. You do much
better with the Canon Point and Shot. Yet, you like to present yourself
as someone who is subtle and refined. Somehow you and those two words
don't go together.

On topic photos...
 

JohnH wrote:

Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke.

Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't.

On topic photos...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

Harry, except for the Owl photo you stole from a web site, and presented
as your own, all of the photos you have posted a


I'll be sure to give this post of yours the same consideration I've
given the rest of your posts...which is to say, none at all.