Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:08:58 -0500, HK wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;)
I appreciate your suggestions.
Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be
a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency
to over sharpen them.
Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.
Most photoshopped photos look photoshopped. I can see touching up a sky
a bit or getting rid of redeye or other simple stuff in an image, but
most of the rest of it seems to produce clichés, especially in the hands
of amateurs. The less you mess with a decent photo, the more pleasing it
will be.

Hmmmm...

Just for giggles, is this image Photoshopped?

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...Abstract01.jpg


You tell me:

http://tinyurl.com/39jph4

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:28:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:08:25 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.

All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;)

I appreciate your suggestions.

Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a
damn IT professional to take a picture.

That image isn't over sharpened - it's strictly a result of the flash
light wandering all over the place.

One thing to keep in mind, is that professional photographers,
including outdoors/nature/action types, very rarely use an undiffused
flash.

This is a flash difusser.

http://tinyurl.com/2yhj8u

The other piece of gear that will help you "learn" and give almost
instant results is the use of neutral density filters.

http://tinyurl.com/ytrzw2

Why ND filters?

Because a NDF will even out all colors and light equally.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!

What?

No way.


Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom." Now, I see a
lot of doctored photos, and 99% of them bore me because I know the "eye"
and "art" had nothing to do with them.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:47:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Maybe the only ones I've noticed were sharpened excessively using software
in the computer. The edges look absurdly fake, and they're definitely
objectionable.

Couldn't agree with you more.

The camera sharpens and due to not completely understanding what
sharpness does, folks sharpen more.

RAW baby, it's the only way to go. :)


My next camera will do that. I bought an inexpensive Olympus Stylus because
I needed something that could get splashed. The main purpose was to lure the
son back into fishing by showing him some of the leviathans I hauled into
the boat. It didn't work.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:28:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:08:25 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.

All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;)

I appreciate your suggestions.

Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be
a
damn IT professional to take a picture.

That image isn't over sharpened - it's strictly a result of the flash
light wandering all over the place.

One thing to keep in mind, is that professional photographers,
including outdoors/nature/action types, very rarely use an undiffused
flash.

This is a flash difusser.

http://tinyurl.com/2yhj8u

The other piece of gear that will help you "learn" and give almost
instant results is the use of neutral density filters.

http://tinyurl.com/ytrzw2

Why ND filters?

Because a NDF will even out all colors and light equally.


I know, but why would that help with John's situation? Or, to ask the
question a different way (because I don't know based on my camera): Can't
you reduce the sensitivity of the sensor, analogous to switching to slower
film?

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:09:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

It's unlikely that the vast majority of people will buy a flash meter.
But,
since flash is usually the dominant light source for indoor pictures, a
few
test shots will often solve the problem. With digital, you see the results
right away.

Unfortunately, it's not a good guage of what the image is.

Most LCD displays are too small to give you even a remote idea of what
the image is going to look like once it's pulled out of the camera.


That takes us right back to what I said about how you have to learn to get
it 99% right the first time. This is based on practice, not toys.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:21:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:08:25 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.

All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;)

I appreciate your suggestions.

Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a
damn IT professional to take a picture.

That image isn't over sharpened - it's strictly a result of the flash
light wandering all over the place.

One thing to keep in mind, is that professional photographers,
including outdoors/nature/action types, very rarely use an undiffused
flash.

This is a flash difusser.

http://tinyurl.com/2yhj8u

The other piece of gear that will help you "learn" and give almost
instant results is the use of neutral density filters.

http://tinyurl.com/ytrzw2

Good idea. I'll order the diffuser: http://tinyurl.com/2y7myc

Not gonna mess with the neutral density stuff yet. Too much for the brain
to cope with. I'm using a haze filter, but I didn't have it when we went on
the cruise.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:03:58 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:09:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

It's unlikely that the vast majority of people will buy a flash meter. But,
since flash is usually the dominant light source for indoor pictures, a few
test shots will often solve the problem. With digital, you see the results
right away.

Unfortunately, it's not a good guage of what the image is.

Most LCD displays are too small to give you even a remote idea of what
the image is going to look like once it's pulled out of the camera.

The D200 has the ability to select a small area of the shot on the LCD and
blow it up. This is a good way to check focus, but it's not fast!

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:47:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Maybe the only ones I've noticed were sharpened excessively using
software
in the computer. The edges look absurdly fake, and they're definitely
objectionable.

Couldn't agree with you more.

The camera sharpens and due to not completely understanding what
sharpness does, folks sharpen more.

RAW baby, it's the only way to go. :)


My next camera will do that. I bought an inexpensive Olympus Stylus
because I needed something that could get splashed. The main purpose was
to lure the son back into fishing by showing him some of the leviathans I
hauled into the boat. It didn't work.


At some point I plan on upgrading to a mid range semi SLR. I just want
something easy to carry, takes darn good pictures and allows manual shutter
and aperture control. Can't justify a Nikon D50-D200

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Don White wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:28:27 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
You wife must be a real beauty to pass along such good genes.
You saying John's genes aren't so good?
I get 'em at LLBean. They're good, believe me!
You do know you're replying to a moron, right?

Stupid is..as stupid says!



That was exactly my point! Good job, Donnie!

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;)
I appreciate your suggestions.
Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be
a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency
to over sharpen them.
Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.

Not true.


I didn't bother to respond to Joe's comment seriously, because aLL
digital images need to be sharpened. jpg's are sharpened in camera. I
quickly learned that an unsharped RAW photo will look very fuzzy.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:00:07 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;)
I appreciate your suggestions.
Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be
a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency
to over sharpen them.
Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.
You are absolutely correct. Since you told me in such a forceful
manner, I will.

Doug is wrong on this. See my reply to him about it.

I know he wasn't correct. If you don't sharpen a RAW photo it will be
very fuzzy. He is correct that an over sharpened photo is distracting.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!

What?

No way.


Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom." Now, I see a
lot of doctored photos, and 99% of them bore me because I know the "eye"
and "art" had nothing to do with them.

Harry,
You really are way out of your league.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!

What?

No way.

Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."

As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.

Take sharpening for instance. They would develop the negative, then
redevelop a slighty out of focus negative, then combine the two to
sharpen up the image. Or adjust the color eye in particular with
Kodachrome which had a bad feature of non-reproducing true color if
the temp was a little off in the developing solutions. TriX was a
freakin' nightmare unless you had extremely fast lenses and shot wide
open all the time.

Refocusing, double print, masking, using masks as layers to produce
sharper, clearer images and color or introducing new elements into a
composite image - art prints, news prints, etc., etc., etc.

I honestly don't know where you got this idea of "only so much" in the
darkroom. For pete's sake, "Moonride over Hernandez New Mexico" was
altered in several ways.

Allow me to cite from Adam's biography.

"The development of the negative was a painstaking process, being
carried out very slowly to give the maximum control of the image. The
resulting negative was difficult to print and several years after it
was taken the foreground was subjected to a process of chemical
"intensification" that altered it in a way whereby "Printing was a bit
easier thereafter, although it remains a challenge".

The printing of the image was also in itself a highly skilled task
with different areas being "masked" and given more or less exposure
than others until the overall balance of tones was one that resulted
in a satisfactory image. Even differences in batches of what were
supposedly exactly the same type of photographic paper were noticed, a
result of all the variables involved led to the comment, "It is safe
to say that no two prints are precisely the same."

"Now, I see a lot of doctored photos, and 99% of them bore me
because I know the "eye" and "art" had nothing to do with them.

With all due respect, bullfeathers as my Grandfather used to say in
polite company.

You had no clue that I sandbagged you on that image I asked you to
look at - editing images in Photoshop and futzing around with the EXIF
data is child's play.

You had no clue - none, zero, zip, nada.

You are correct in that you usually can tell a "doctored" image
because in most cases, you won't see that in real life - some things
don't mix.

However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.

With respect to the minds eye, I point you to this:

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=34287

Gene saw this image at a pub in Dublin, only it had a different cast
of characters. He saw, in his mind's eye, a brilliant adaptation
using himself as the cast of characters. Nine images were taken to
produce that one photo, altered, adjusted and composited to produce
the final result.

Gene's mind's eye as a brilliant compositional photographer (and
generally a brilliant photographer period) and his skills working at
manipulating, adjusting, compositing the photo came together to
produce that image.

I won't even begin to introduce you to other photographer's I've been
mentored by over forty years and their work because you clearly have
no appreciation for their "art".

I apologise for the sharp tone, but you ****ed me off by making what
was clearly an uninformed and ignorant statement - in particular for a
old timey print guy.

You should know better.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!
What?

No way.
Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."

As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.


I'll be glad to have this discussion with you in email.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:13:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!
What?

No way.
Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."

As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.

I'll be glad to have this discussion with you in email.

Nah - I'd rather have it here - this is where it started.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
..

You should know better.

If you already know everything, it really does make it hard to learn
anything.

I am very lucky, because I KNOW I don't know everything. ;)

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:13:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!
What?

No way.
Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."
As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.
I'll be glad to have this discussion with you in email.

Nah - I'd rather have it here - this is where it started.


Too bad, then. And yes I work with professional photographers all the
time, and yes, I did get to mess around with Tri-X in the darkroom at
the Kansas City Star.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:41:37 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:13:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!
What?

No way.
Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."
As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.
I'll be glad to have this discussion with you in email.

Nah - I'd rather have it here - this is where it started.

Too bad, then. And yes I work with professional photographers all the
time, and yes, I did get to mess around with Tri-X in the darkroom at
the Kansas City Star.

Then you know what you said is patently false.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:41:37 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:13:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!
What?

No way.
Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."
As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.
I'll be glad to have this discussion with you in email.
Nah - I'd rather have it here - this is where it started.
Too bad, then. And yes I work with professional photographers all the
time, and yes, I did get to mess around with Tri-X in the darkroom at
the Kansas City Star.

Then you know what you said is patently false.


Not at all. I sometimes did a little burning, a little dodging, just
like everyone else in the darkroom but the professionals were good
enough to get decent news photos even at night at traffic accidents and
shootings.

If something really drastic was needed, a print was given to the crew of
airbrush artists, but those guys were mainly there to work on
advertising illustrations or the amateur photos advertisers sometimes
submitted with their ads for the paper to make up for them or the
"brides" photos, so they all had that "halo" effect popular back then.

I'm not really interested in participating in a dissertation here.

By the way, that photo you posted yesterday, you did notice I cleaned it
up a bit for you. In the good old days, you could get an effect like you
had that by smearing vaseline on the negative before making a print.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:03:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;)
I appreciate your suggestions.
Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be
a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency
to over sharpen them.
Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.

Not true.


I didn't bother to respond to Joe's comment seriously, because aLL
digital images need to be sharpened. jpg's are sharpened in camera. I
quickly learned that an unsharped RAW photo will look very fuzzy.

I took some RAW +JPG shots yesterday. In viewing them through Adobe
Photoshop Elements, without any processing, the JPG's seem sharper and the
RAW's seem brighter (as thumbnails). Note that when I say RAW, the
extension is actually NEF.

As I zoom in, the JPG's 'pixelize' at less of a zoom than the NEF, which is
to be expected 'cause the JPG file is only about a third of the NEF file
(5MB vs 16MB). When, in Adobe, I attemp to sharpen the NEF file, I see no
change in the picture. Also, when I try to save the file as a JPG, Adobe
lets me save it as a DNG, whatever the hell that is.

Now, I downloaded the latest version of IrfanView which will open the NEF
files. But, when opened, all I get is a 'purplescale' picture. Almost like
'greyscale', but tinted purple.

Have you ever visited our nations capitol in the wintertime? It's a
beautiful place. I know where you could stay pretty cheaply!

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!

What?

No way.

Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."

As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.

Take sharpening for instance. They would develop the negative, then
redevelop a slighty out of focus negative, then combine the two to
sharpen up the image. Or adjust the color eye in particular with
Kodachrome which had a bad feature of non-reproducing true color if
the temp was a little off in the developing solutions. TriX was a
freakin' nightmare unless you had extremely fast lenses and shot wide
open all the time.

Refocusing, double print, masking, using masks as layers to produce
sharper, clearer images and color or introducing new elements into a
composite image - art prints, news prints, etc., etc., etc.

I honestly don't know where you got this idea of "only so much" in the
darkroom. For pete's sake, "Moonride over Hernandez New Mexico" was
altered in several ways.

Allow me to cite from Adam's biography.

"The development of the negative was a painstaking process, being
carried out very slowly to give the maximum control of the image. The
resulting negative was difficult to print and several years after it
was taken the foreground was subjected to a process of chemical
"intensification" that altered it in a way whereby "Printing was a bit
easier thereafter, although it remains a challenge".

The printing of the image was also in itself a highly skilled task
with different areas being "masked" and given more or less exposure
than others until the overall balance of tones was one that resulted
in a satisfactory image. Even differences in batches of what were
supposedly exactly the same type of photographic paper were noticed, a
result of all the variables involved led to the comment, "It is safe
to say that no two prints are precisely the same."

"Now, I see a lot of doctored photos, and 99% of them bore me
because I know the "eye" and "art" had nothing to do with them.

With all due respect, bullfeathers as my Grandfather used to say in
polite company.

You had no clue that I sandbagged you on that image I asked you to
look at - editing images in Photoshop and futzing around with the EXIF
data is child's play.

You had no clue - none, zero, zip, nada.

You are correct in that you usually can tell a "doctored" image
because in most cases, you won't see that in real life - some things
don't mix.

However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.

With respect to the minds eye, I point you to this:

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=34287

Gene saw this image at a pub in Dublin, only it had a different cast
of characters. He saw, in his mind's eye, a brilliant adaptation
using himself as the cast of characters. Nine images were taken to
produce that one photo, altered, adjusted and composited to produce
the final result.

Gene's mind's eye as a brilliant compositional photographer (and
generally a brilliant photographer period) and his skills working at
manipulating, adjusting, compositing the photo came together to
produce that image.

I won't even begin to introduce you to other photographer's I've been
mentored by over forty years and their work because you clearly have
no appreciation for their "art".

I apologise for the sharp tone, but you ****ed me off by making what
was clearly an uninformed and ignorant statement - in particular for a
old timey print guy.

You should know better.

Thanks for the link. Some great shots there.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:13:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!
What?

No way.
Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."

As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.


I'll be glad to have this discussion with you in email.

But then the rest of us wouldn't learn from what Tom has to say, Harry!

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:12:27 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:41:37 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:13:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!
What?

No way.
Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."
As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.
I'll be glad to have this discussion with you in email.
Nah - I'd rather have it here - this is where it started.
Too bad, then. And yes I work with professional photographers all the
time, and yes, I did get to mess around with Tri-X in the darkroom at
the Kansas City Star.

Then you know what you said is patently false.


Not at all. I sometimes did a little burning, a little dodging, just
like everyone else in the darkroom but the professionals were good
enough to get decent news photos even at night at traffic accidents and
shootings.

If something really drastic was needed, a print was given to the crew of
airbrush artists, but those guys were mainly there to work on
advertising illustrations or the amateur photos advertisers sometimes
submitted with their ads for the paper to make up for them or the
"brides" photos, so they all had that "halo" effect popular back then.

I'm not really interested in participating in a dissertation here.

By the way, that photo you posted yesterday, you did notice I cleaned it
up a bit for you. In the good old days, you could get an effect like you
had that by smearing vaseline on the negative before making a print.

Harry, there is a difference between 'cleaning up' and '****ing up'. What
you did to Tom's photo definitely falls into the latter category.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.

Here's an analogous situation for you.

The other day, I was in here pining for a real pipe organ. One of the
ranking a**holes here, guess who, suggested I should just get myself the
new Hammond B3 keyboard imitation with some sort of electronic gimmick
because it could *simulate* a pipe organ. (I am not referring to Eisboch
here, in case some snark wants to start something).

Now, my father had a real B3 with a Leslie speaker and I loved it and
its sound. But it isn't a pipe organ and even with the new "electronic
device," it doesn't sound like a pipe organ to me. And the a**hole who
made the suggestion doesn't know, wouldn't care, and basically is "ne
culturny," as my grandfather would say.

I know what a real pipe organ sounds like, and I know there isn't a way
to synthesize its sound electronically, no matter how you "sample" it. I
can tell the difference between "real" music produced by real
instruments and electronic music produced by computers. In fact, some
months ago I got to meet one of my favorite young singers, I am sure you
have heard of her, and I was really ecstatic over her album and told her
so, "except" for one track. Which one, she asked. "The one with the
electronic drum," I said. She knew exactly what I meant and winked at me.

You may be a fan of CGI and "photoshopping." I am not. I don't like
computer generated "electronic" music, either. To each his own.

By the way, is this live or...???

http://tinyurl.com/2mh74p


:}

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

John H. wrote:

Harry, there is a difference between 'cleaning up' and '****ing up'. What
you did to Tom's photo definitely falls into the latter category.


If I ever want the opinion of a tired-out, useless old f*art of no
accomplishment, I'll contact you.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:19:49 -0500, HK wrote:


On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.

Here's an analogous situation for you.

The other day, I was in here pining for a real pipe organ. One of the
ranking a**holes here, guess who, suggested I should just get myself the
new Hammond B3 keyboard imitation with some sort of electronic gimmick
because it could *simulate* a pipe organ. (I am not referring to Eisboch
here, in case some snark wants to start something).
snipped

If two people suggested a 'gimmick' to you, why is one an asshole and
Eisboch not? Sounds like preferential sucking up to me!

By the way, is this live or...???

http://tinyurl.com/2mh74p

My guess would be 'live'. A bigger question would be, "Who took it, and why
are you using it?"

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:19:49 -0500, HK wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.
Here's an analogous situation for you.

The other day, I was in here pining for a real pipe organ. One of the
ranking a**holes here, guess who, suggested I should just get myself the
new Hammond B3 keyboard imitation with some sort of electronic gimmick
because it could *simulate* a pipe organ. (I am not referring to Eisboch
here, in case some snark wants to start something).
snipped

If two people suggested a 'gimmick' to you, why is one an asshole and
Eisboch not? Sounds like preferential sucking up to me!
By the way, is this live or...???

http://tinyurl.com/2mh74p

My guess would be 'live'. A bigger question would be, "Who took it, and why
are you using it?"


Because eisboch suggested it as something that would be interesting,
which it was and discussed it that way. He didn't suggest it as a
substitute for a real pipe organ. He knows the difference.

As to your second question, why, how are all your relatives, John? Are
they well? If not, why aren't you visiting them all today?

I am impressed with your ability to spell out curse words I don't.

Is that what you learned in your years in the Army when you couldn't get
a real job?

:}

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message . ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;)
I appreciate your suggestions.
Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to
be a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a
tendency to over sharpen them.
Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.

Not true.


I didn't bother to respond to Joe's comment seriously, because aLL digital
images need to be sharpened. jpg's are sharpened in camera. I quickly
learned that an unsharped RAW photo will look very fuzzy.


Yeah, but you knew what I meant, didn't you? I was referring to excessive
sharpening of DEFECTIVE pictures - the ones that are blurry because of
focusing problems caused by the user, or the camera's inability to deal with
a certain situation.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

TriX was a
freakin' nightmare unless you had extremely fast lenses and shot wide
open all the time.



What??? Nightmare how?

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...



http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=34287


I like this one:

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=28996

Eisboch

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:21:22 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:

Harry, there is a difference between 'cleaning up' and '****ing up'. What
you did to Tom's photo definitely falls into the latter category.


If I ever want the opinion of a tired-out, useless old f*art of no
accomplishment, I'll contact you.

By email?

Hell, I'm brave enough to discuss in public!

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:33:35 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:19:49 -0500, HK wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.
Here's an analogous situation for you.

The other day, I was in here pining for a real pipe organ. One of the
ranking a**holes here, guess who, suggested I should just get myself the
new Hammond B3 keyboard imitation with some sort of electronic gimmick
because it could *simulate* a pipe organ. (I am not referring to Eisboch
here, in case some snark wants to start something).
snipped

If two people suggested a 'gimmick' to you, why is one an asshole and
Eisboch not? Sounds like preferential sucking up to me!
By the way, is this live or...???

http://tinyurl.com/2mh74p

My guess would be 'live'. A bigger question would be, "Who took it, and why
are you using it?"


Because eisboch suggested it as something that would be interesting,
which it was and discussed it that way. He didn't suggest it as a
substitute for a real pipe organ. He knows the difference.

As to your second question, why, how are all your relatives, John? Are
they well? If not, why aren't you visiting them all today?

Why yes, there's been no significant changes from the last time you or JimH
asked.


I am impressed with your ability to spell out curse words I don't.

I've always wondered why you use the asterisks. Does it make you feel
'cleaner'?

Is that what you learned in your years in the Army when you couldn't get
a real job?

:}

Having never been in the military, how would you know whether or not there
are 'real jobs' therein.

Be careful, you wouldn't want to **** off any of those you 'respect' so
highly!

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...



http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=34287


I like this one:

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=28996

Eisboch


No software needed for these:

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_ima...y-uelsmann.jpg

http://www.mocp.org/collections/perm...nn1982_224.jpg

http://www.pdngallery.com/20years/ar...l/uelsmann.jpg

Probably took forever, but anyway....

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

TriX was a
freakin' nightmare unless you had extremely fast lenses and shot wide
open all the time.



What??? Nightmare how?




I didn't know what he meant by that, either. If you were making huge
blowups, there was a grain problem, but if you didn't want the grain,
there were other great kodak films to use. Hell, I used to buy it in
100' rolls. It was fabulous film for dim light or for sports. That, a
Nikon F and an f 2.5 180mm lens and you were all set for basketball.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:33:35 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:19:49 -0500, HK wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.
Here's an analogous situation for you.

The other day, I was in here pining for a real pipe organ. One of the
ranking a**holes here, guess who, suggested I should just get myself the
new Hammond B3 keyboard imitation with some sort of electronic gimmick
because it could *simulate* a pipe organ. (I am not referring to Eisboch
here, in case some snark wants to start something).
snipped

If two people suggested a 'gimmick' to you, why is one an asshole and
Eisboch not? Sounds like preferential sucking up to me!
By the way, is this live or...???

http://tinyurl.com/2mh74p
My guess would be 'live'. A bigger question would be, "Who took it, and why
are you using it?"

Because eisboch suggested it as something that would be interesting,
which it was and discussed it that way. He didn't suggest it as a
substitute for a real pipe organ. He knows the difference.

As to your second question, why, how are all your relatives, John? Are
they well? If not, why aren't you visiting them all today?

Why yes, there's been no significant changes from the last time you or JimH
asked.

I am impressed with your ability to spell out curse words I don't.

I've always wondered why you use the asterisks. Does it make you feel
'cleaner'?
Is that what you learned in your years in the Army when you couldn't get
a real job?

:}

Having never been in the military, how would you know whether or not there
are 'real jobs' therein.

Be careful, you wouldn't want to **** off any of those you 'respect' so
highly!


I had to pick up after the military. It wasn't pleasant work.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:58:24 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:33:35 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:19:49 -0500, HK wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.
Here's an analogous situation for you.

The other day, I was in here pining for a real pipe organ. One of the
ranking a**holes here, guess who, suggested I should just get myself the
new Hammond B3 keyboard imitation with some sort of electronic gimmick
because it could *simulate* a pipe organ. (I am not referring to Eisboch
here, in case some snark wants to start something).
snipped

If two people suggested a 'gimmick' to you, why is one an asshole and
Eisboch not? Sounds like preferential sucking up to me!
By the way, is this live or...???

http://tinyurl.com/2mh74p
My guess would be 'live'. A bigger question would be, "Who took it, and why
are you using it?"

Because eisboch suggested it as something that would be interesting,
which it was and discussed it that way. He didn't suggest it as a
substitute for a real pipe organ. He knows the difference.

As to your second question, why, how are all your relatives, John? Are
they well? If not, why aren't you visiting them all today?

Why yes, there's been no significant changes from the last time you or JimH
asked.

I am impressed with your ability to spell out curse words I don't.

I've always wondered why you use the asterisks. Does it make you feel
'cleaner'?
Is that what you learned in your years in the Army when you couldn't get
a real job?

:}

Having never been in the military, how would you know whether or not there
are 'real jobs' therein.

Be careful, you wouldn't want to **** off any of those you 'respect' so
highly!


I had to pick up after the military. It wasn't pleasant work.

Yeah, Harry, all that raping, terrorizing, pillaging and plundering does
leave a mess. Thank God for union flacks who clean it up.

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:40:18 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .



http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=34287


I like this one:

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=28996

Eisboch


gmta

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:58:24 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:33:35 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:19:49 -0500, HK wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.
Here's an analogous situation for you.

The other day, I was in here pining for a real pipe organ. One of the
ranking a**holes here, guess who, suggested I should just get myself the
new Hammond B3 keyboard imitation with some sort of electronic gimmick
because it could *simulate* a pipe organ. (I am not referring to Eisboch
here, in case some snark wants to start something).
snipped

If two people suggested a 'gimmick' to you, why is one an asshole and
Eisboch not? Sounds like preferential sucking up to me!
By the way, is this live or...???

http://tinyurl.com/2mh74p
My guess would be 'live'. A bigger question would be, "Who took it, and why
are you using it?"
Because eisboch suggested it as something that would be interesting,
which it was and discussed it that way. He didn't suggest it as a
substitute for a real pipe organ. He knows the difference.

As to your second question, why, how are all your relatives, John? Are
they well? If not, why aren't you visiting them all today?
Why yes, there's been no significant changes from the last time you or JimH
asked.

I am impressed with your ability to spell out curse words I don't.
I've always wondered why you use the asterisks. Does it make you feel
'cleaner'?
Is that what you learned in your years in the Army when you couldn't get
a real job?

:}
Having never been in the military, how would you know whether or not there
are 'real jobs' therein.

Be careful, you wouldn't want to **** off any of those you 'respect' so
highly!

I had to pick up after the military. It wasn't pleasant work.

Yeah, Harry, all that raping, terrorizing, pillaging and plundering does
leave a mess. Thank God for union flacks who clean it up.



Did you do all that with your slide rule, or were you entrusted with an
HP calc?

Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message . ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;)
I appreciate your suggestions.
Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to
be a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a
tendency to over sharpen them.
Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.
Not true.

I didn't bother to respond to Joe's comment seriously, because aLL digital
images need to be sharpened. jpg's are sharpened in camera. I quickly
learned that an unsharped RAW photo will look very fuzzy.


Yeah, but you knew what I meant, didn't you? I was referring to excessive
sharpening of DEFECTIVE pictures - the ones that are blurry because of
focusing problems caused by the user, or the camera's inability to deal with
a certain situation.



That is definitely a common problem, that I and others have been guilty of.