| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Worked all evening on this one...
|
Worked all evening on this one...
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I really like the way it came out. http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg Nice. When I opened it up in my browser, it looked waaay over sharpened. But once I downloaded the file and opened it full-screen in Irfanview, that issue completely went away. It has a nice tone to it. Almost a sepia-like quality to it. |
Worked all evening on this one...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:53:59 -0700, "RG" wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I really like the way it came out. http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg Nice. When I opened it up in my browser, it looked waaay over sharpened. But once I downloaded the file and opened it full-screen in Irfanview, that issue completely went away. It has a nice tone to it. Almost a sepia-like quality to it. Its actually several layers of some very slight halftone changes to various areas of the image. I wanted to give it an antique look while keeping the overall sharp nature of the image. I think it came out really nice. |
Worked all evening on this one...
On Dec 16, 9:26*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: I really like the way it came out. http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg Kool, but I really don't get the black and white thing. Some of the shots don't seem "framed" if that makes any sense, there seems to be no target for the eye... |
Worked all evening on this one...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:53:59 -0700, "RG" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I really like the way it came out. http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg Nice. When I opened it up in my browser, it looked waaay over sharpened. But once I downloaded the file and opened it full-screen in Irfanview, that issue completely went away. It has a nice tone to it. Almost a sepia-like quality to it. Its actually several layers of some very slight halftone changes to various areas of the image. I wanted to give it an antique look while keeping the overall sharp nature of the image. I think it came out really nice. What does the "unPhotoshopped" image look like? |
Worked all evening on this one...
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. --Mike "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I really like the way it came out. http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg |
Worked all evening on this one...
On Dec 16, 10:45*pm, "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. --Mike "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in messagenews:cpogk4h6rt110p9aigo5rs16mcscigli7s@4ax .com... I really like the way it came out. http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I hate to pile on but I guess I don't get b&w for this subject either. It reminds me of dazzle camouflage. Now if there was a nekid woman in it... Steve P. |
Worked all evening on this one...
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I really like the way it came out. http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg I always liked that stripe effect...something like big venetian window blinds filtering the sun in late afternoon. Almost a 1940's thing. |
Worked all evening on this one...
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I really like the way it came out. http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg Camo Spice worm? |
Worked all evening on this one...
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 |
Worked all evening on this one...
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 |
Worked all evening on this one...
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. |
Worked all evening on this one...
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? I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do. |
Worked all evening on this one...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:00:11 -0500, 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. Could you get in trouble for copyright infringement performed by Harry but posted on your site? -- John |
Worked all evening on this one...
John wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:00:11 -0500, 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. Could you get in trouble for copyright infringement performed by Harry but posted on your site? Just claim you are an ISP. |
Worked all evening on this one...
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. |
Worked all evening on this one...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:53:28 -0500, John wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:00:11 -0500, 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. Could you get in trouble for copyright infringement performed by Harry but posted on your site? Nah. Not worried about it. |
Worked all evening on this one...
John wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:00:11 -0500, 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. Could you get in trouble for copyright infringement performed by Harry but posted on your site? Let's see how "Obsessed with Harry" the asshole known as John Herring is. His first post of the day...a slam at aimed at me. |
Worked all evening on this one...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:19:34 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:53:59 -0700, "RG" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I really like the way it came out. http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg Nice. When I opened it up in my browser, it looked waaay over sharpened. But once I downloaded the file and opened it full-screen in Irfanview, that issue completely went away. It has a nice tone to it. Almost a sepia-like quality to it. Its actually several layers of some very slight halftone changes to various areas of the image. I wanted to give it an antique look while keeping the overall sharp nature of the image. I think it came out really nice. I like it. Who's the chick? --Vic |
Worked all evening on this one...
Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:19:34 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:53:59 -0700, "RG" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I really like the way it came out. http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg Nice. When I opened it up in my browser, it looked waaay over sharpened. But once I downloaded the file and opened it full-screen in Irfanview, that issue completely went away. It has a nice tone to it. Almost a sepia-like quality to it. Its actually several layers of some very slight halftone changes to various areas of the image. I wanted to give it an antique look while keeping the overall sharp nature of the image. I think it came out really nice. I like it. Who's the chick? --Vic The women SW photographs look like this after he "fixes" them in Photoshop: http://bjoernssite.com/frameset/bild...g/ef1teck.html It's hard to tell, but she started out looking like this: http://men.style.com/gq :) |
Worked all evening on this one...
John 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? I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do. You know, Harry, I wouldn't be surprised if even your *comments* about the work of others is a cut'n'paste from somewhere. Do you think stealing the work of others makes you an expert? Yes, you and Tom have different philosophies. He takes his own pictures. Try it, take him up on his offer. Post some of your 'good' stuff (actually taken by you). Or, as has been said, STFU. Fourth post of the day from the asshole Herring, and the third insult of his today aimed my way. He's not too obsessed, is he? :? |
Worked all evening on this one...
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? I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do. You know, Harry, I wouldn't be surprised if even your *comments* about the work of others is a cut'n'paste from somewhere. Do you think stealing the work of others makes you an expert? Yes, you and Tom have different philosophies. He takes his own pictures. Try it, take him up on his offer. Post some of your 'good' stuff (actually taken by you). Or, as has been said, STFU. -- John |
Worked all evening on this one...
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 What is high Q? Sounds like an Asian exercise and meditation art form? |
Worked all evening on this one...
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? I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do. Ansel Adams believed mother nature needed to be improved upon and definitely did not believe you should try to capture what you saw. So it looks like Tom is in good company. |
Worked all evening on this one...
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 I like the shopped one better. More or less. --Vic |
Worked all evening on this one...
"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 Eisboch |
Worked all evening on this one...
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 Eisboch Great frame! :) I agree with your point. |
Worked all evening on this one...
Boater wrote:
John 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? I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do. You know, Harry, I wouldn't be surprised if even your *comments* about the work of others is a cut'n'paste from somewhere. Do you think stealing the work of others makes you an expert? Yes, you and Tom have different philosophies. He takes his own pictures. Try it, take him up on his offer. Post some of your 'good' stuff (actually taken by you). Or, as has been said, STFU. Fourth post of the day from the asshole Herring, and the third insult of his today aimed my way. He's not too obsessed, is he? :? Your narcissistic self image and crazy ideas just beg to be toyed with. I wouldn't call it obsession. We're just having a little fun with you. No offense. |
Worked all evening on this one...
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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 Eisboch Great frame! :) I agree with your point. I am going to break my self-imposed rule here by posting these, but here's a couple of "natural" pictures of our barn and house that I think came out pretty good. They are not artistic statements, but I just like them. They were taken late in the daytime, so the afternoon shadows and directional lighting are coming into play. Nikon D70s with "borrowed" Mrs.E. lens. All I have done was to resize them in InfranView to a manageable size for posting on the website. http://www.eisboch.com/largebarn.jpg http://www.eisboch.com/barnandhouse.jpg Eisboch |
Worked all evening on this one...
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. Most photographers call Harry's form of photography unimaginative snapshots Here are some Quotes from a famous photographer who totally disagrees with Harry's concept of photographer and art. A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed. Ansel Adams A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into. Ansel Adams A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words. Ansel Adams Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships. Ansel Adams I tried to keep both arts alive, but the camera won. I found that while the camera does not express the soul, perhaps a photograph can! Ansel Adams In my mind's eye, I visualize how a particular... sight and feeling will appear on a print. If it excites me, there is a good chance it will make a good photograph. It is an intuitive sense, an ability that comes from a lot of practice. Ansel Adams In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration. Ansel Adams It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment. Ansel Adams It is my intention to present - through the medium of photography - intuitive observations of the natural world which may have meaning to the spectators. Ansel Adams Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer - and often the supreme disappointment. Ansel Adams Millions of men have lived to fight, build palaces and boundaries, shape destinies and societies; but the compelling force of all times has been the force of originality and creation profoundly affecting the roots of human spirit. Ansel Adams Myths and creeds are heroic struggles to comprehend the truth in the world. Ansel Adams No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit. Ansel Adams Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs. Ansel Adams Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art. Ansel Adams Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution. Ansel Adams Some photographers take reality... and impose the domination of their own thought and spirit. Others come before reality more tenderly and a photograph to them is an instrument of love and revelation. Ansel Adams Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter. Ansel Adams The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways. Ansel Adams The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance. Ansel Adams The only things in my life that compatibly exists with this grand universe are the creative works of the human spirit. Ansel Adams There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer. Ansel Adams There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. Ansel Adams There are worlds of experience beyond the world of the aggressive man, beyond history, and beyond science. The moods and qualities of nature and the revelations of great art are equally difficult to define; we can grasp them only in the depths of our perceptive spirit. Ansel Adams There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept. Ansel Adams There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. Ansel Adams These people live again in print as intensely as when their images were captured on old dry plates of sixty years ago... I am walking in their alleys, standing in their rooms and sheds and workshops, looking in and out of their windows. Any they in turn seem to be aware of me. Ansel Adams To photograph truthfully and effectively is to see beneath the surfaces and record the qualities of nature and humanity which live or are latent in all things. Ansel Adams Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop. Ansel Adams We must remember that a photograph can hold just as much as we put into it, and no one has ever approached the full possibilities of the medium. Ansel Adams When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without. Ansel Adams When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence. Ansel Adams Yosemite Valley, to me, is always a sunrise, a glitter of green and golden wonder in a vast edifice of stone and space. Ansel Adams You don't take a photograph, you make it. |
Worked all evening on this one...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:03:08 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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 Eisboch Great frame! :) I agree with your point. I am going to break my self-imposed rule here by posting these, but here's a couple of "natural" pictures of our barn and house that I think came out pretty good. They are not artistic statements, but I just like them. They were taken late in the daytime, so the afternoon shadows and directional lighting are coming into play. Nikon D70s with "borrowed" Mrs.E. lens. All I have done was to resize them in InfranView to a manageable size for posting on the website. http://www.eisboch.com/largebarn.jpg http://www.eisboch.com/barnandhouse.jpg Eisboch Lview has some great cropping tools, and a 'custom/fine rotation' tool that allows you to 'level' a picture. Try the 'paint' tool and put some grass over all that driveway! -- John Salmonbait |
Worked all evening on this one...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
I really like the way it came out. http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg I love the mood you captured in this photo. If also like the isolated tuft of dune grass. I would really enjoy seeing a photo that the majority of the photo was of the fence shadows, and you could only see the one tuft of grass, without all the grass in the upper left. |
Worked all evening on this one...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... 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 Eisboch Great frame! :) I agree with your point. I am going to break my self-imposed rule here by posting these, but here's a couple of "natural" pictures of our barn and house that I think came out pretty good. They are not artistic statements, but I just like them. They were taken late in the daytime, so the afternoon shadows and directional lighting are coming into play. Nikon D70s with "borrowed" Mrs.E. lens. All I have done was to resize them in InfranView to a manageable size for posting on the website. http://www.eisboch.com/largebarn.jpg http://www.eisboch.com/barnandhouse.jpg Eisboch It's the Ponderosa! I like your photos...how about some new shots of Sam Adams? |
Worked all evening on this one...
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. |
Worked all evening on this one...
Boater wrote:
John 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? I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do. You know, Harry, I wouldn't be surprised if even your *comments* about the work of others is a cut'n'paste from somewhere. Do you think stealing the work of others makes you an expert? Yes, you and Tom have different philosophies. He takes his own pictures. Try it, take him up on his offer. Post some of your 'good' stuff (actually taken by you). Or, as has been said, STFU. Fourth post of the day from the asshole Herring, and the third insult of his today aimed my way. He's not too obsessed, is he? :? Based upon your definition of obsession, you are obsessed with more people than the rest of rec.boats combined. |
Worked all evening on this one...
"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 |
Worked all evening on this one...
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. You don't take a photograph, you make it. |
Worked all evening on this one...
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 |
Worked all evening on this one...
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:00 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com