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


Why? Comments weren't directed at you. They were directed to the person
who thinks only his
POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone
who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a
narrow thought process.

Eisboch




When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that
I didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like
them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt.

On Nov 26, 8:02*am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:7dcqi41fbvf1tefhv6s1fv96nrg6o1i6fb@4ax .com...
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.

Why? *Comments weren't directed at you. *They were directed to the person
who thinks only his
POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone
who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a
narrow thought process.

Eisboch

When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that
I didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like
them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean like your photo of the painted hoochie with 27 seperate
photoshop modifications? You are what the old folks used to call a
moron.

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

Why? Comments weren't directed at you. They were directed to the person
who thinks only his
POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone
who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a
narrow thought process.

Eisboch


When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that I
didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like
them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt.

You sure have a lot to say about things that you don't give a schitt about.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:
Why? Comments weren't directed at you. They were directed to the person
who thinks only his
POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone
who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a
narrow thought process.

Eisboch

When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that I
didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like
them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt.

You sure have a lot to say about things that you don't give a schitt about.

Eisboch




Whoosh.

Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:
Why? Comments weren't directed at you. They were directed to the
person who thinks only his
POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and
anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has
such a narrow thought process.
Doubt it.
Eisboch

When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was
that I didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free
to like them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt.

You sure have a lot to say about things that you don't give a schitt
about.

Eisboch



Whoosh.