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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.