On Nov 25, 3:15*pm, 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.

Realistic lighting? What would non-realistic be? No light? You are so
jealous! Hey, why don't you and Reggie each enter the same photo
contest and see who wins? *I* certainly know who. I've never seen a
picture of yours that wasn't either washed out, grainy, out of focus
or showing movement.

RG 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.

You show us your nature as it really is, ad nauseam. It ain't a pretty
picture. Raw, without a point of focus, unbelievably overexposed, lax
composition, and in general, offering nothing of interest to the audience.
If ever there was a reason to hit the delete button...




Got any more photos of that brown hillside you were touting, Russki?

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:


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

Liar.

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.

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.

He thinks your snapshots suck. Why would he want your critique?

On Nov 25, 1:32*pm, 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...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. *:)

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.

Hehe.. quit trying to punk harry. Stainless steel is stainless mainly
because of its chromium content. When exposed to air (oxygen), it
forms an invisible, but impervious, layer of chromium oxide which
protects the steel underneath.

Coating the stainless with paint will not cause it to rust. It would,
in fact, protect it. When the paint wears away, the layer of chromium
oxide continues to protect it.

That prop is just made of a type of stainless that isn't so
"stainless". It can corrode, or "rust".

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:53:19 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:49:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

why anyone would buy a brushed stainless steel
prop when he has never been successful in finding a paint that will
actually stay on the prop and he knows that the brushed finish will
rust.
The brushed stainless props are usually closer to the 304 end of
hardness, the shiny ones are more like 316 that is not as hard. (there
are really lots of stainless alloys)
If you never hit anything you probably want shiny with thin blades for
performance. Folks who live around shallow water want it to be a tad
bit harder with thicker blades, giving up a little speed for
durability. That shiny, thin blade prop loses a lot of its performance
edge when it gets a few dings in it.

The other reason I have heard of painting props is to trick thieves
into thinking it is aluminum and maybe they won't steal it but I am
not sure that works

Wow, some useful info.
Got a feeling you actually boat some.
Hooray for Florida!

--Vic

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.

Nope, not only did I vote for Obama, but my kids and I convinced my wife
to vote for Obama. She felt that her vote would not effect the outcome
of the Ga vote, so she did not want to stand in line. I was confident
that Obama would win the General Election, but I was also hoping he
might actually win GA, and send a strong message to the Republican party
that they have lost their way and need to get back to the conservative
party of Goldwater and Nixon. The US needs a strong 2 party system, and
should not be controlled by the extremist in either party.

I hope that Obama will become a great president, who is able to help
turn around the economy. I believe he ran a well organized campaign and
his transition team seems to be doing a great job.

This is not the first time I have voted for a Democrat. I consider
myself an independent and vote accordingly.

See as always you are wrong in your evaluation of people and situations.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:53:19 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:49:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

why anyone would buy a brushed stainless steel
prop when he has never been successful in finding a paint that will
actually stay on the prop and he knows that the brushed finish will
rust.
The brushed stainless props are usually closer to the 304 end of
hardness, the shiny ones are more like 316 that is not as hard. (there
are really lots of stainless alloys)
If you never hit anything you probably want shiny with thin blades for
performance. Folks who live around shallow water want it to be a tad
bit harder with thicker blades, giving up a little speed for
durability. That shiny, thin blade prop loses a lot of its performance
edge when it gets a few dings in it.

The other reason I have heard of painting props is to trick thieves
into thinking it is aluminum and maybe they won't steal it but I am
not sure that works

Wow, some useful info.
Got a feeling you actually boat some.
Hooray for Florida!

--Vic


The prop I got is the one Parker said performed best on my model boat
with the engine I had. All the performance spec sheets I have seen
indicate Parker was correct. Therefore, there seems to be no incentive
to blow $400 on some fancy SS prop.

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
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.

Nope, not only did I vote for Obama,

Liar.