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.

"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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"

"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