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?