On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:33:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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.


Make the hole in the spout about half the size you think you'll need. That
is the secret, along with very wet fingers of course.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:18:29 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

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.


If you can't pull up the messages, let me know and I'll dig them up.

John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:18:29 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

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.


If you can't pull up the messages, let me know and I'll dig them up.


The joy bouys of the newsgroup can't figure out irony when they see it.

Ah, well.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:58 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

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/


****. After all you guys have put me through, making me feel like a dog
turd and all, I went to Barnes and Noble and bought a book, 'Advanced
Photoshop Elements 5.0' by Philip Andrews.

Now you want me to pay bucks for Capture NX. OK, I'll try it. You realize
I'll have to buy a bigger, better computer with Vista, right? We won't go
there.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:51:14 -0500, HK wrote:

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.

You going the Don and Jim route now, Krause? Thought you had a bit more
class.

On Dec 16, 12:17 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:18:29 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"

[email protected] wrote:
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.

If you can't pull up the messages, let me know and I'll dig them up.

Yeah, the link I saw the photo has been taken down...

John H. wrote:
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

is it possible that you are biased?

wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:17 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:18:29 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"

[email protected] wrote:
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.
If you can't pull up the messages, let me know and I'll dig them up.

Yeah, the link I saw the photo has been taken down...


Yawn. All I did was clean off SW's "scratches." He got the photo,
mumbled something about it, and I dumped it. I'm sure reggie the a**hole
save it for posterity, though, because to him it had *meaning*

On Dec 16, 12:37 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:17 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:18:29 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"

[email protected] wrote:
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.
If you can't pull up the messages, let me know and I'll dig them up.

Yeah, the link I saw the photo has been taken down...

Yawn. All I did was clean off SW's "scratches." He got the photo,
mumbled something about it, and I dumped it. I'm sure reggie the a**hole
save it for posterity, though, because to him it had *meaning*

Nonsense Harry, we are only trying to learn from yous guys.. I mean,
you must have access to the best in the business

wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:37 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:17 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:18:29 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:
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.
If you can't pull up the messages, let me know and I'll dig them up.
Yeah, the link I saw the photo has been taken down...
Yawn. All I did was clean off SW's "scratches." He got the photo,
mumbled something about it, and I dumped it. I'm sure reggie the a**hole
save it for posterity, though, because to him it had *meaning*

Nonsense Harry, we are only trying to learn from yous guys.. I mean,
you must have access to the best in the business

I actually am learning from Tom. The difference is Tom actually knows
what he is talking about.