On topic photos...
 

Boater wrote:
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.

Puts your right up their with Bush and Cheney, huh?

On topic photos...
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:16:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

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.


Well, it's for sure I'll never compliment your wife again!

But the fact remains, she takes much better pictures with her little Canon
than you do with yours (if you're not using the Canon)!
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
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

On topic photos...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
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.


LOL. Sure. You demonstrate your "subtle and refined" preferences here on
a daily basis.

Eisboch

On topic photos...
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:18:57 -0500, Boater wrote:

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.

A D700! Wow, Harry. And, why, Harry.

Do you really think you've got the abilities to warrant the purchase of a
D700? Was the D200 holding you back because of its limitations?

What a joke!
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
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.



Well, good.

I am trying to find some images one of my daughter-in-law's sent me. They
were demonstrations of using Photoshop or similar to produce photographic
artforms. They are unusual, to say the least, but some are very
interesting and quite beautiful to view. They may be on my other computer
which I don't have current access to, but when I find them, I'll load a few
on my website for you and interested others to view.

Eisboch

On topic photos...
 

On Nov 26, 6:08*am, "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
news:2o6dnSNLMoqLibHUnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@gigane ws.com...
Boater wrote:
...little place for them here, eh?

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0Boats/ce0a1de...

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did. And I do!

On topic photos...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


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.
--


Uncomplimentary comments about wives, kids, dogs, etc. should be
out-of-bounds in discussions here.

There are only three or four people that engage in doing this and their
reputation precedes them.

Eisboch

On topic photos...
 

On Nov 26, 6:31*am, 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry, go steal one from another site, claim it's yours and post it.
That's FAR classier than photoshopping one that you actually DID
take.........

On topic photos...
 

On Nov 26, 6:35*am, 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, you were so subtle and refined when you stole the owl pic and
claimed it was yours, liar.