HK wrote:


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.

I am wondering if anyone has to two links to these different photos. I
would be interested in seeing how Harry improved upon the original.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
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.


When we only had film to work with, how often did you go to a family
gathering where someone handed you a batch of prints from the last
gathering, or a kid's birthday, and you noticed that out of 24 pictures, 22
were worthless? I don't mean the composition was not fabulously artistic. I
mean they were out of focus, ruined by backlight, shaky hands, etc.

A friend of mine has worked for a local photo store chain for the past 15
years. He says that compared to when he started with the company, he still
gets pretty much the same percentage of people coming back to the store to
ask what went wrong with their pictures. They often think the problem is
with their specific camera, but it's not. It's because so many people never
take the time to learn the fundamentals of photography, which are in no way
related to automation. More than anything, it's science. In the same way
some people will never understand their computers, others will never
understand their cameras. If they're not interested enough to learn the
fundamentals, then they get the results we've all seen.

This is relates to my comment about how the picture has to be 99% "right"
when you click the shutter. Just as with film, there's little that software
can do you save a disaster.

Having said this, I cannot apply caulk in a way that makes me happy, and I
probably never will be able to. A friend of mine can't figure out how hard
to tamp down potting soil before compressing it so much that it's impossible
to remove from the 6-packs without traumatizing the seedlings. She'll
probably never learn the right feel for this task. I think we each have a
few things we just weren't meant to do well, so we pay other people.

John H. wrote:
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!


JohnH,
That is a problem with InfraView and not your NEF file (Nikon's version
of RAW).
I just downloaded Nikon CaptureRX, based upon RG's recommendations. He
is absolutely correct, it is a great software to process all of your
photos, including when you need to isolate and adjusting different zones
in your photo.

You can download a free 30 day copy at:
http://www.capturenx.com/

On Dec 16, 8:12 am, 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.

You were lucky to have only the best photographers at your huge
newspaper. You seem to lead a charmed life here. Tell us next how your
Dell was constructed specifically for you by a special team of only
the best assemblers, painstakingly put together by Michael Dell
himself, just for you


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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

HK wrote:
John H. wrote:

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

Harry,
I think you misunderstood what I said. Eisboch was very proud of an
organ that he was thinking about buying. You denigrated his selection,
and thought you selection was far superior. I suggested you actually
buy your pipe organ and then build yourself a separate building to house
the pipe organ. The difference is Eisboch will own and actually be
playing and enjoying his organ, while you are dreaming about yours.

wrote:

You were lucky to have only the best photographers at your huge
newspaper. You seem to lead a charmed life here. Tell us next how your
Dell was constructed specifically for you by a special team of only
the best assemblers, painstakingly put together by Michael Dell
himself, just for you

In those days, and certainly not because of my presence there as a
reporter and copy editor, the KC Star was considered one of the best
newspapers in the country. It had a very large staff of photographers,
darkroom geniuses and airbrush artists. Along with the St. Louis P-D in
those days, many considered it the *best* training school for young
journalists in the country. I was at The Star for about four years, and
then I was recruited by The Associated Press.

For the first 90 years of its life, including my years there, the Star
was an independent newspaper, and for most of that time it was owned by
its editorial employees. Then the employees decided to sell out and of
course shortly thereafter, after the paper was owned by a big media
corporation, it went downhill.

Such is life in America.

I'm my own Michael Dell. I've built all my own desktop computers for at
least the last decade, usually every other year. If only I could build
them faster...I could go in the computer business and lose money.

Have you been having sex with Herring? You're beginning to sound just
like him, naive, ignorant, and out of touch with reality.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

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".


And when we think of Ansel Adams, we need to think of his technical
system of exposure and developing called the Zone System. (Probably
invented by Driffield in the late 1870's) Any serious photographer
should be familiar with this system. The requirement of this system is
that the photographer expose for highlights and develop for the darker
elements of the photograph.

Digital photographers are now using the old "make it sharper" trick by
making two exposures of different exposure and combining them with
software, such as automatic layer alignment in Adobe Photoshop to
achieve a greater range and depth of contrast.

So, for the last 130 odd years, the professional photographer has had
the tools at hand to design each individual shot in the darkroom.


--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

John H. wrote:

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!

ps -
That sounds like a great offer, and an enjoyable trip. Let me see if I
can schedule some time off,
but I know I would really enjoy DC when the cherry blossoms are in bloom.

John H. wrote:
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

actually both of you are wrong

This is his best one:

http://myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=20697

and for a family "snapshot", this one is a killer:

http://myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=40879

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:01:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
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

actually both of you are wrong

This is his best one:

http://myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=20697

and for a family "snapshot", this one is a killer:

http://myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=40879




I didn't get that far. That's a nice picture, but not nearly as exciting
as:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2.../LilMonkey.jpg