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.

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

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.

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 get your "wife" to let you on the deed to her house?
What would happen if she died in a car wreck?