On topic photos...
 

On Nov 25, 2:04*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:36:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...

It's just not that big a deal, guys. Really. Go boating, or, in the case
of FloridaJim, pretend you have a boat.

No, no. *We are all concerned with your prop. *You have a steel prop? *What
kind of steel? * Stainless steel?
What grade of Stainless steel?

This is serious. *If that steel prop is rusting already, you might get
stranded 50 yards offshore in the Bay.
What else is rusting?

Do you carry a spare prop in case of an emergency?

It's a Yamaha.

Probably carries a spare engine for those circumstances. *:)


DANG, Tom!!!!! That about sent soup to the monitor!


Which brings up an interesting point - I carry a spare prop, but last
summer it occurred to me that I've never tried to change it in the
middle of the lake.

Guess what - I can't. *It's too far back for me to reach in the fully
tilted up position.

I've changed out several props in the water. changed out a few in the
river. Wearing a good vest, and tied close with rope. Mercury and
Johnson outboard. I'm happy to say that I only lost one part that that
was a star washer on a mercury once. Still made it though the day.

On topic photos...
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:55:45 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:29:25 -0500, Boater
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:31:32 -0500, 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. :)

Why paint a stainless prop? Surface rust on 304 SS is normal
... if
you don't boat a lot. It really isn't hurting anything. If I am
out of
town for a few weeks and not boating I see a little on mine. It
buffs
right off after an hour or so of running
Yeah, it does come right off while running. I never gave it much
thought. But I'll still clean it off and coat the prop before
the shrinkwrapper arrives.

Actually, coating stainless promotes rust. Stainless loses it's rust
resistant properties when deprived of oxygen.



Hmmm. Okay...I'll clean it off and not coat it!


I guess that is why I have never seen people paint their SS props.
Most people are smart enough not to paint them. I am glad you
learned something in this post. You get to do your normal trolling
(the real reason you come here) and you inadvertently actually
learned something.


GPUAR, Reggie.

Shouldn't you be outside taking blurry, blown out photos and then
painting your SS prop?



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.

After looking at your photographs that capture what you saw, I strongly
recommend you quickly find an optometrist.


That *was* funny, Harry, and you know it!
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

On Nov 25, 3:00*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:12:32 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:04:08 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:36:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...

It's just not that big a deal, guys. Really. Go boating, or, in the case
of FloridaJim, pretend you have a boat.

No, no. *We are all concerned with your prop. *You have a steel prop? *What
kind of steel? * Stainless steel?
What grade of Stainless steel?

This is serious. *If that steel prop is rusting already, you might get
stranded 50 yards offshore in the Bay.
What else is rusting?

Do you carry a spare prop in case of an emergency?

It's a Yamaha.

Probably carries a spare engine for those circumstances. *:)

Which brings up an interesting point - I carry a spare prop, but last
summer it occurred to me that I've never tried to change it in the
middle of the lake.

Guess what - I can't. *It's too far back for me to reach in the fully
tilted up position.

You can't swim?

Tell you what - you go swimming in 50 degree water in the Spring to
change a prop - I'll watch. *:)

I've done that too. Only in a full wet suit... and a good vest.

man my feet got cold!

On topic photos...
 

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.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:04:08 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:36:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...

It's just not that big a deal, guys. Really. Go boating, or, in the case
of FloridaJim, pretend you have a boat.


No, no. We are all concerned with your prop. You have a steel prop? What
kind of steel? Stainless steel?
What grade of Stainless steel?

This is serious. If that steel prop is rusting already, you might get
stranded 50 yards offshore in the Bay.
What else is rusting?

Do you carry a spare prop in case of an emergency?

It's a Yamaha.

Probably carries a spare engine for those circumstances. :)

Which brings up an interesting point - I carry a spare prop, but last
summer it occurred to me that I've never tried to change it in the
middle of the lake.

Guess what - I can't. It's too far back for me to reach in the fully
tilted up position.

I always figured that was a job to be done in the water, with a life vest
on, of course.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:19:21 -0500, Boater wrote:


On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:20:40 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:


A requirement to graduate from Columbia University is to swim the width
of the East River (at it's widest point). Many years ago, they actually
had to swim the East River, for some reason, they now allow you to swim
the distance in the pool.


Since schitt floats, that would have been easy for you.

Such rancor, Harry! Get yourself under control. Stress can cause big time
health problems, along with fingernail biting and pustules.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

On Nov 25, 3:37*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:06:07 -0500, Boater
wrote:



Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:12:32 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:04:08 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:36:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
It's just not that big a deal, guys. Really. Go boating, or, in the case
of FloridaJim, pretend you have a boat.

No, no. *We are all concerned with your prop. *You have a steel prop? *What
kind of steel? * Stainless steel?
What grade of Stainless steel?

This is serious. *If that steel prop is rusting already, you might get
stranded 50 yards offshore in the Bay.
What else is rusting?

Do you carry a spare prop in case of an emergency?
It's a Yamaha.

Probably carries a spare engine for those circumstances. *:)

Which brings up an interesting point - I carry a spare prop, but last
summer it occurred to me that I've never tried to change it in the
middle of the lake.

Guess what - I can't. *It's too far back for me to reach in the fully
tilted up position.
You can't swim?

Tell you what - you go swimming in 50 degree water in the Spring to
change a prop - I'll watch. *:)

Ever swim at Revere Beach or Nantasket? I did when I was a kid. I doubt
I could tolerate it in August these days.

Devreaux Beach which might as well be the same - it's about six miles
apart. *:)

All I know is that I hate being cold - I'm cold when the wood stove is
cranking and it's 75 in the house. *Mrs. Wave thinks I'm a freak of
nature - which I am.

God's honest truth - at night, I've got two down comforters, one
thermal blanket, a flannel blanket and I wear socks to keep my feet
warm and have been known to wear jersey gloves when my hands get cold.
Mrs. Wave has maybe a sheet and the flannel blanket covering her -
maybe. Plus the temp is set for 62 overnight and goes up to 75 at 0445
for a 0500 wake up because if I get a chill from a cold room, the rest
of my day, and everybody else's, will be ruined. *:)

Even when I was a kid, I would wear a thin wet suit over a heavier wet
suit when diving. *Later on, I wore dry suits even during the summer.

I have no internal temperature regulation at all - I'm always cold.
About the only time I'm not cold is when the temp is in the mid-80s -
then I'm fairly comfortable.

If you can take niacin (vitamin B3)that may help.

Of course Tom , you probably knew that.

On topic photos...
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:33:59 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:


I don't think you can call me a right-wing piece of ****. I voted for
Obama

Liar.

Hell, Harry, I voted for Obama.

I suppose you're going to call me a liar too?
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:16:54 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:31:32 -0500, 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. :)

Your wife is getting pretty good. I see the mud and sand in the shallow
areas of BP marina have done their work on your propeller. Maybe some day
they'll dredge that place again.

Anyway, as usual that Canon is doing a fine job. The propeller cover is
almost in perfect focus.


Let's see. You've never seen me launch or retrieve my boat, so you
obviously are not away that I do not power the boat onto the trailer.
You've never seen or met my wife, yet you comment about her. You think
the photo I posted today was taken with a Canon camera. You're wrong
about that, too.

No wonder we got our asses kicked in Vietnam. Officers like you were too
stupid to lead.

Who said anything about powering a boat onto the trailer? I said Breezy
Point Marina was shallow.

You posted pictures allegedly taken by your wife. I've commented about the
quality of her photography as compared to yours. She seems to have a feel
for it, which you seem to lack.

If I were you, I'd blame the photo you posted today on a cheap Canon.

I never said I was as smart as Kerry!
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

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?
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:30:32 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:


Learn something new daily. Was it a whole lot cheaper than a shiny
stainless prop? Was this the only prop in that size or something?


I have no idea what it sells for. It was included with the boat, and was
one of four or five different props Parker recommended. Whichever prop I
picked would have been "included."

The prop has performed very well for me. I have no plans to replace it.

Oh...got my invoice for the winterizing...no two cycle oil used in the
oil and filter change, and no WD-40 for "fogging oil."

Do you even know what parts and supplies should be replaced on your
outboard for a proper winterizing? Are you planning to hook the engine
up to your Yamaha computer program to determine if everything is up to
snuff?

Or are you going to do your usual...ignore maintenance until it breaks.



I would be happy to discuss this with you, if you were capable of
discussion. Your idea of a discussion is the typical liberal name-calling,
insult-hurling, stupid stuff.

There, now you've had it dumped in your lap.

Bad day at the mirror, Harry?
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

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.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:17:37 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:12:45 -0500, Jim wrote:

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. :)
Actually the prop looks great. If you hadn't done a little clam digging
with it, there would probably be no signs of paint wear at all. That is
a lightly used prop. Probably never run over 3500 rpm either. You take
very good care of your equipment.

The wear is due to the place he keeps his boat having very shallow water.
Once out of the main channel, which is pretty shallow anyway, the water
gets shallow very quickly.


You are absolutely completely full of schitt...as usual.

Depending on the Metamucil activity, I may or may not be.

That doesn't change the fact that the BP marina is shallow and silt filled.
I've been in and out of their many times.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

On topic photos...
 

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.

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.

What makes your ridiculous claim even more ridiculous is that you
claim to have been a news reporter who worked with photographers. It's
pretty apparent you've never been in a dark room or have a vague
concept of the process.

Stick to what you know - namely left wing partisian politics.

Otherwise you make an ass of yourself.

On topic photos...
 

On Nov 25, 8:29*pm, JohnH wrote:


You are absolutely completely full of schitt...as usual.

Depending on the Metamucil activity, I may or may not be.



Did you ever see coca-cola spray on a monitor?

I did!

LOL!

On topic photos...
 

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.

On topic photos...
 

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:33:59 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

I don't think you can call me a right-wing piece of ****. I voted for
Obama
Liar.

Hell, Harry, I voted for Obama.

I suppose you're going to call me a liar too?


I already have, more than once.
If you are claiming you voted for Obama, you are also a liar.

On topic photos...
 

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.

On topic photos...
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:09:20 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:20:40 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:10:25 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

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

Which brings up an interesting point - I carry a spare prop, but last
summer it occurred to me that I've never tried to change it in the
middle of the lake.

Guess what - I can't. It's too far back for me to reach in the fully
tilted up position.
Didn't the Marine Corps teach you how to swim?
Actually, no. I learned at the Milwaukee YMCA swim club when I was
four.

All the Marine Corps taught me was how not to sink with a field pack -
which, by the way, was something that I already knew how to do. That
was the one thing I never had any trouble with - swimming that is.
A requirement to graduate from Columbia University is to swim the width
of the East River (at it's widest point). Many years ago, they actually
had to swim the East River, for some reason, they now allow you to swim
the distance in the pool.
I thought that was some kind of urban legend.
Nope, and you have 4 yrs to fulfill the requirement. Take a guess when
most students take the test?

First year?

Guess again

April and May of their senior year is always a popular time. Who would
have guessed. ;)

On topic photos...
 

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:21:47 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:33:59 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

I don't think you can call me a right-wing piece of ****. I voted for
Obama
Liar.

Hell, Harry, I voted for Obama.

I suppose you're going to call me a liar too?


I already have, more than once.
If you are claiming you voted for Obama, you are also a liar.

You are so quick with name-calling.

I told you I voted for Obama - in the primaries. Now, don't go apologizing
and feeling like an ass. It's no big thing to make a boo-boo.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

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

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.

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.