On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:36:45 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

John wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:16:50 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

Here are some Quotes from a famous photographer who totally disagrees
with Harry's concept of photographer and art.

Ahhh, Reggie...another of the OBsessed with Harry Assholes.

Who is Harry Asshole?
--

John Salmonbait

His name is not Harry Asshole, according to Boater's post, his name is
Harry Assholes. I really don't know who he is, we used to have a
regular who posted under the name Harry Krause, but I don't know who
Harry Assholes is.

This boater guy does seem very obsessed with most of the people in
rec.boats. He makes more negative posts about other people than
everyone else combined. I think he suffers from low self esteem and
shows classic symptoms of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. He also uses
the name hk and HK.

And...like a good joke (or a pile of dog poop), he gets lots of attention.
--

John Salmonbait

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Boater" wrote in message
...

It's the Ponderosa! I like your photos...how about some new shots of Sam
Adams?

He's a bit self conscious right now. Put on a few pounds since the end of
the summer.
Mrs.E. has him on a strict diet and he's a bit moody.

Eisboch


Here's who will greet you somewhere in the house if you show up "uninvited".

http://www.eisboch.com/cropfudge.jpg

Eisboch

John wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:36:45 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

John wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:16:50 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

Here are some Quotes from a famous photographer who totally disagrees
with Harry's concept of photographer and art.
Ahhh, Reggie...another of the OBsessed with Harry Assholes.
Who is Harry Asshole?
--

John Salmonbait
His name is not Harry Asshole, according to Boater's post, his name is
Harry Assholes. I really don't know who he is, we used to have a
regular who posted under the name Harry Krause, but I don't know who
Harry Assholes is.

This boater guy does seem very obsessed with most of the people in
rec.boats. He makes more negative posts about other people than
everyone else combined. I think he suffers from low self esteem and
shows classic symptoms of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. He also uses
the name hk and HK.

And...like a good joke (or a pile of dog poop), he gets lots of attention.
--

John Salmonbait


Is that the fifth or sixth snark attack today from the poster known as
HErring the Asshole?

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Boater" wrote in message
...
It's the Ponderosa! I like your photos...how about some new shots of Sam
Adams?
He's a bit self conscious right now. Put on a few pounds since the end of
the summer.
Mrs.E. has him on a strict diet and he's a bit moody.

Eisboch


Here's who will greet you somewhere in the house if you show up "uninvited".

http://www.eisboch.com/cropfudge.jpg

Eisboch



Damn, those "Devil Eyes" would scare the hell out of anyone".

On Dec 17, 7:58*am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:16:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:





Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:47:26 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:45:51 -0800, "Mike" wrote:

Sorry, but it does nothing for me. It looks like prison bars on the beach.
I'm certainly no expert though, and I'm willing to learn. No offense I hope.
Neanderthal. *:)

Here's the original converted from RAW (ORF) into .jpeg at high Q and
without editing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197org.jpg

Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm

Tell you what Harry - you seem to be an expert on these things - I'll
give you password access to a directory on my web site just for you
and you can post your stuff there. *All yours - you can post all your
best work for everybody to see and look at, comment on, etc.

Open offer - no strings.

Calm down, Tom. All I said was that I thought your original photo was
more, well, photogenic, than your Photoshopped versions. You seem to be
taking that as an insult, but it isn't. Think about it.

Did you bother to look at the photos of the Mies Farnsworth House? If
you did, you would have seen plain, simple, elegant design, unadorned,
and virtually impossible to improve upon. "Less is more." Do you think
that house needs to be Rococo-ized? Do you think Leonardo could have
improved on Mona Lisa by Photoshopping a different background?

It's not the point - contempory modernism is a Scandinavian artistic
construct which came about as a sort of '40s era industrial simplicity
where form didn't always meet function from an esthetic sense. *It was
totally sterile and uninteresting which is why it died a quick death
in the early '50s which ushered in the era of post-modern art and
architecture - form met function while being esthetically pleasing.

However, photography is an art form and as such, modernism produced
Pablo Picasso who over his career veered from Symbolist imagery to
Surrealism - all and any of which were never boring, sterile or
monotone in concept or execution and still called "modernist".

I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe
nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do.

I'm dead serious about this Harry. I really want to see your creative
side - see how you interpret your world visually.

Let's see your stuff - put it out there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not that I like the original better but looking at the b&w
version I just felt a real disconnect from what I envisioned of the
actual scene. Maybe that's what you were shooting for. If so it
worked.

I shot a bunch of pictures during the recent ice storm here. Here are
a few unedited images that I like and might try to tweak. Anyone think
they are worth it or should they go in the recycle bin?

Steve P.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Boater" wrote in message
...

It's the Ponderosa! I like your photos...how about some new shots of
Sam Adams?

He's a bit self conscious right now. Put on a few pounds since the end
of the summer.
Mrs.E. has him on a strict diet and he's a bit moody.

Eisboch


Here's who will greet you somewhere in the house if you show up
"uninvited".

http://www.eisboch.com/cropfudge.jpg

Eisboch


Those eyes are enough to convince me!

On Dec 17, 10:22*am, stp wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:58*am, Tom Francis - SWSports





wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:16:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:47:26 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:45:51 -0800, "Mike" wrote:

Sorry, but it does nothing for me. It looks like prison bars on the beach.
I'm certainly no expert though, and I'm willing to learn. No offense I hope.
Neanderthal. *:)

Here's the original converted from RAW (ORF) into .jpeg at high Q and
without editing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197org.jpg

Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm

Tell you what Harry - you seem to be an expert on these things - I'll
give you password access to a directory on my web site just for you
and you can post your stuff there. *All yours - you can post all your
best work for everybody to see and look at, comment on, etc.

Open offer - no strings.

Calm down, Tom. All I said was that I thought your original photo was
more, well, photogenic, than your Photoshopped versions. You seem to be
taking that as an insult, but it isn't. Think about it.

Did you bother to look at the photos of the Mies Farnsworth House? If
you did, you would have seen plain, simple, elegant design, unadorned,
and virtually impossible to improve upon. "Less is more." Do you think
that house needs to be Rococo-ized? Do you think Leonardo could have
improved on Mona Lisa by Photoshopping a different background?

It's not the point - contempory modernism is a Scandinavian artistic
construct which came about as a sort of '40s era industrial simplicity
where form didn't always meet function from an esthetic sense. *It was
totally sterile and uninteresting which is why it died a quick death
in the early '50s which ushered in the era of post-modern art and
architecture - form met function while being esthetically pleasing.

However, photography is an art form and as such, modernism produced
Pablo Picasso who over his career veered from Symbolist imagery to
Surrealism - all and any of which were never boring, sterile or
monotone in concept or execution and still called "modernist".

I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe
nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do.

I'm dead serious about this Harry. I really want to see your creative
side - see how you interpret your world visually.

Let's see your stuff - put it out there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not that I like the original better but looking at the b&w
version I just felt a real disconnect from what I envisioned of the
actual scene. Maybe that's what you were shooting for. If so it
worked.

I shot a bunch of pictures during the recent ice storm here. Here are
a few unedited images that I like and might try to tweak. Anyone think
they are worth it or should they go in the recycle bin?

Steve P.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And here are the links:

http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2283.JPG
http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2286.JPG
http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2312.JPG
http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2317.JPG
http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_6251.JPG

stp wrote:
On Dec 17, 10:22 am, stp wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:58 am, Tom Francis - SWSports





wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:16:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:47:26 -0500, Boater
wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:45:51 -0800, "Mike" wrote:
Sorry, but it does nothing for me. It looks like prison bars on the beach.
I'm certainly no expert though, and I'm willing to learn. No offense I hope.
Neanderthal. :)
Here's the original converted from RAW (ORF) into .jpeg at high Q and
without editing.
http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197org.jpg
Much more interesting photo in original form.
Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.
http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm
Tell you what Harry - you seem to be an expert on these things - I'll
give you password access to a directory on my web site just for you
and you can post your stuff there. All yours - you can post all your
best work for everybody to see and look at, comment on, etc.
Open offer - no strings.
Calm down, Tom. All I said was that I thought your original photo was
more, well, photogenic, than your Photoshopped versions. You seem to be
taking that as an insult, but it isn't. Think about it.
Did you bother to look at the photos of the Mies Farnsworth House? If
you did, you would have seen plain, simple, elegant design, unadorned,
and virtually impossible to improve upon. "Less is more." Do you think
that house needs to be Rococo-ized? Do you think Leonardo could have
improved on Mona Lisa by Photoshopping a different background?
It's not the point - contempory modernism is a Scandinavian artistic
construct which came about as a sort of '40s era industrial simplicity
where form didn't always meet function from an esthetic sense. It was
totally sterile and uninteresting which is why it died a quick death
in the early '50s which ushered in the era of post-modern art and
architecture - form met function while being esthetically pleasing.
However, photography is an art form and as such, modernism produced
Pablo Picasso who over his career veered from Symbolist imagery to
Surrealism - all and any of which were never boring, sterile or
monotone in concept or execution and still called "modernist".
I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe
nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do.
I'm dead serious about this Harry. I really want to see your creative
side - see how you interpret your world visually.
Let's see your stuff - put it out there.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's not that I like the original better but looking at the b&w
version I just felt a real disconnect from what I envisioned of the
actual scene. Maybe that's what you were shooting for. If so it
worked.

I shot a bunch of pictures during the recent ice storm here. Here are
a few unedited images that I like and might try to tweak. Anyone think
they are worth it or should they go in the recycle bin?

Steve P.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And here are the links:

http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2283.JPG
http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2286.JPG
http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2312.JPG
http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2317.JPG
http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_6251.JPG


I like the 2283 and 6251...and don't think you should mess with them at
all.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:35:44 -0800 (PST), stp
wrote:



http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2283.JPG

Wow! Better than a quilt.

http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2286.JPG
http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2312.JPG
http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_2317.JPG
http://www.monkeybutler.com/tmp/COPYDSC_6251.JPG

Wow!

Nice shots. The close-ups sent a chill down my spine.
I could feel the ice.
The last one reminds me of an alien hand too.

--Vic

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:37:09 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


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

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:16:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:


Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm

However, photography is an art form and as such, modernism produced
Pablo Picasso who over his career veered from Symbolist imagery to
Surrealism - all and any of which were never boring, sterile or
monotone in concept or execution and still called "modernist".

Let's see your stuff - put it out there.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Some pictures look very nice
natural. Some look very nice photoshopped. Personally, I have a lot of fun
with PaintShop Pro. Here's a modified picture taken of
a horse paddock that I modified in PSP to look like an oil painting. Both
the original photo and the "painting" look fine to me.

http://www.eisboch.com/paintshoppainting2.jpg

It not a "fuss" per se.

More like put up or shut up.

It's all well and good to talk about not improving nature and
non-photoshopping, but the simple fact is that almost all photographs
are manipulated in some way and for a person who in theory takes a lot
of photographs for publications and such and relys on his ability to
take a "natural" photograph, I'd like to see the results of this
technique.

That's all - no fuss. If he wants to take me up on my offer, fine. If
not, well not my problem.
Eisboch