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. I actually think your family photos are
really nice. The kids smile, they look happy, composition is nice, and
they look like the photos one gets when you buy a new wallet. What more
could you want.

You wife must be a real beauty to pass along such good genes.

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:10:12 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg
Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.
Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of
modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed.
Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while
dinner is being served would be a breeze!


Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it?

I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls.

JohnH, I hate to break the news to you, but the owl pictures was not
really Harry's. It done by a professional natural photographer in
Florida. Harry just downloaded it from his web site. Based upon the
photos Harry has actually taken, you are doing GREAT. One needs to walk
before one can run.

Trust me, as someone who is crawling and hasn't even learned how to walk
yet, I know these things

"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.

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.

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.

"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?

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:22:39 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

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. I actually think your family photos are
really nice. The kids smile, they look happy, composition is nice, and
they look like the photos one gets when you buy a new wallet. What more
could you want.

The wallet.

You wife must be a real beauty to pass along such good genes.

That's where two of the boys got their red hair. No one knows (except me)
where it came from. I just happen to know that my first wife was a natural
red head. But, she always bleached her hair.

I didn't even think of that until you mentioned genes.
--
John H

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.

Were the owls touched up?

I do very little touch up with Photoshop. I haven't learned how to do much
yet, and I try to get a semi-decent picture to begin with. I wish RG would
take me along to the Grand Tetons next time he goes. I'd love to hold his
camera bag or something and maybe get in a few shots myself.
--
John H

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!
--
John H

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:25:54 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:10:12 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg
Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.
Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of
modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed.
Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while
dinner is being served would be a breeze!


Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it?

I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls.

JohnH, I hate to break the news to you, but the owl pictures was not
really Harry's. It done by a professional natural photographer in
Florida. Harry just downloaded it from his web site. Based upon the
photos Harry has actually taken, you are doing GREAT. One needs to walk
before one can run.

Trust me, as someone who is crawling and hasn't even learned how to walk
yet, I know these things

****. Now I feel badly.
--
John H