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

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.

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.

"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.

"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?

"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.

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.

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!

"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

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!