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!"

JohnH wrote:
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!


What are you raving about now, schitt-for-brains?

On Nov 26, 8:03*am, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
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!

What are you raving about now, schitt-for-brains?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry, that wasn't "raving", it was asking a question.

JohnH wrote:
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!

He can afford it, John. He doesn't have a mortgage payment.

"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

Eisboch wrote:
"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




You mean I'm not that successful in emulating the right-wing pigs who
live here?

I'll try harder. :)

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:


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

Eisboch




You mean I'm not that successful in emulating the right-wing pigs who live
here?

I'll try harder. :)


An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, eh? Sounds more like a Bush
philosophy, rather than one of Obama's.

Eisboch