On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:32:31 -0700 (PDT), JimH wrote:

On Aug 2, 10:27*pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:54:49 -0700 (PDT), JimH wrote:



Much better? *To make here look like she does not really look like?

JimH, it was Photoshopped. Changed. Not *really* what she looks like.
Sshhh, don't tell.

Get it?

Eh?

I thought you were ignoring me John.

Eh?

Sometimes you need extra help to keep from making a bigger ass of yourself.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 20:48:23 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:36:59 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Aug 2, 8:23 pm, "Jim" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...http://www.eisboch.com/ec.jpg

Eisboch

Was listening to a Jazz station a couple of days ago and they were
doing
an
all time great guitar countdown. Carlos Santana was 15th and Eric
Clapton
ranked 4th. Who else would be high on the list?

Well, I am not a critic, but I like Jeff Beck, and of course a great
guitarist list would not be complete without Roy Clark..

Jazz guitarists moron. :)

Come to think of it, Santana and Clapton hardly qualify as "jazz"
guitarists.

Clapton maybe - bluesy kind of thing as "maybe" jazz.

Was the rating limited to Jazz? I took it as all time great guitarists.

Jim did say jazz radio station - assumed jazz guiratists.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

Which, oddly, is something that has happened before. :)

I'll write the radio station and ask why they played Santana. Is there
really a classification for Santana's music?

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 05:22:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote
in message . ..

What I liked most about this photo is it seemed to capture her
personality, a little girl who is very expressive, animated and loves to
show off.


You picked up on what I think Mrs.E's. photo taking talent is, considering
she has no training. The mechanics may be off ... meaning lighting,
composition, etc., but she has a natural gift for taking pictures that
captures the essence of the subject. Very few of her portrait pictures seem
posed.

My youngest has a friend who picked up a Canon something or other DSLR
- she's in med school and eventually wants to get into psychiatry -
figured she could do candids and interviews - take pictures.

From day one she took unbelievable candid portraits.

Never been able to figure it out. Some folks have the eye, some don't
I guess.

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:03:24 -0400, "Jim" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 20:48:23 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:36:59 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Aug 2, 8:23 pm, "Jim" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...http://www.eisboch.com/ec.jpg

Eisboch

Was listening to a Jazz station a couple of days ago and they were
doing
an
all time great guitar countdown. Carlos Santana was 15th and Eric
Clapton
ranked 4th. Who else would be high on the list?

Well, I am not a critic, but I like Jeff Beck, and of course a great
guitarist list would not be complete without Roy Clark..

Jazz guitarists moron. :)

Come to think of it, Santana and Clapton hardly qualify as "jazz"
guitarists.

Clapton maybe - bluesy kind of thing as "maybe" jazz.

Was the rating limited to Jazz? I took it as all time great guitarists.

Jim did say jazz radio station - assumed jazz guiratists.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

Which, oddly, is something that has happened before. :)

I'll write the radio station and ask why they played Santana. Is there
really a classification for Santana's music?

Tejano. :)

Or not.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:32:31 -0700 (PDT), JimH wrote:

On Aug 2, 10:27 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:54:49 -0700 (PDT), JimH wrote:



Much better? To make here look like she does not really look like?

JimH, it was Photoshopped. Changed. Not *really* what she looks like.
Sshhh, don't tell.

Get it?

Eh?

I thought you were ignoring me John.

Eh?

Sometimes you need extra help to keep from making a bigger ass of
yourself.

John. Leave him alone.
It's interesting to watch Hurtdick transition from ass to big ass to asshole
all in the same thread

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 20:45:11 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
.. .

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
http://www.eisboch.com/ec.jpg

Eisboch

Was listening to a Jazz station a couple of days ago and they were
doing
an all time great guitar countdown. Carlos Santana was 15th and Eric
Clapton ranked 4th. Who else would be high on the list?

I'll betcha Jimi Henrix was number one ... or close.

No way.


Well, if the ratings Jim mentioned were Jazz artists only ..... I'd agree.
But if it was for the greatest guitarists overall, then Hendrix
consistently rates number one or two.

http://guitarplayerzen.com/2008/03/0...s-of-all-time/

Eisboch

That must have been the list they were working from (mumble).

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 07:19:51 -0400, "Jim" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:32:31 -0700 (PDT), JimH wrote:

On Aug 2, 10:27 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:54:49 -0700 (PDT), JimH wrote:



Much better? To make here look like she does not really look like?

JimH, it was Photoshopped. Changed. Not *really* what she looks like.
Sshhh, don't tell.

Get it?

Eh?

I thought you were ignoring me John.

Eh?

Sometimes you need extra help to keep from making a bigger ass of
yourself.

John. Leave him alone.
It's interesting to watch Hurtdick transition from ass to big ass to asshole
all in the same thread

I was simply trying to help the guy out after he got totally set up by
Harry. I don't think poor JimH is fast enough to have kept up with the
action during that thread.

Harry, now, is fast. He had that picture pulled almost before Reggie could
type 'Photoshop'. But, the key word is 'almost'.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:30:09 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:09:20 -0400, hk wrote:

I suppose I could have made the water blue, the skies bluer, the trees
greener, et cetera, but...my mind would have told me "that's not the
way
it was."

In fact, what you saw and what the camera "saw" are two different
things. For instance when you frame an image, your minds "eye" is
translating what you are seeing while the camera is taking a replicant
image of what actually is.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...aneous/003.jpg

This is pretty good actually - it's flawed, but not as a composition -
the subject is clearly defined and while overly horizontal (it would
have looked better if instead of being shot straight on, at an angle
to the dock), it works.

The flaws are there is too much of nothing of interest. If you had
cropped about 25% off the bottom and to the edge of the kayaks on the
left, it would have been a much better composition overall even with
the straight on angle.

At that point, it wouldn't be difficult to blue up the sky enhancing
the white haze.

That's probably what your minds eye "saw", but the camera looks at the
scene in a much more harsh fashion.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...aneous/005.jpg

This one has potential, but needs a good working over with a histogram
to reduce the harsh white balance. The greens are way too washed out
against that hazy sky. Part of the problem is shooting into areas
where the greens transition into black and back again - probably
giving the meter fits in particular with the harsh white over all
tone. This image should be greenish more than whiteish if you get my
drift. Which can be problematic if only because greens are one of the
worst colors to adjust.

On the plus side, as an image, it's another straight on shot, but
accidentally, you received the benefit on depth with the walkway
projecting out towards the center of the image with a nice round
curve. If you took the haze out, blued up the image, reduce the
overall white washout (without sharpening - I might use the unmask
control to reduce the sharpening), that would be a nicer image than it
is.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...aneous/011.jpg

Believe it or not, this is a gem in the rough. Very crisp, the greens
are properly balanced and the composition is really interesting. If
you cloned out the walker/biker in the distance on the right, it would
help a lot.

Again, some problems with overall white washout that could use some
help - in particular with the sky - you must have had white balance on
auto because that is almost always an artifact when you find hazy
conditions. Unmask control is your friend on this one, adjust the
blue scale just a touch to take the white wash out, don't touch the
contract/brightness controls and it's a great image.


Thanks for your comments, and no offense, but...these are my snapshot
photos, that's all. There's no chance I'm going to "work them over"
beyond what they are now. Not interested.

Ah - what works for you.

Personally, I like to at least try to improve eveything I do.

He's got them worked over to his satisfaction. And that's all that matters.
Of course, one has to wonder why he posted the picture in the first place,
if he wasn't inviting comment on his tecnique.

On Aug 2, 9:06*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:5n0a94pcrb8fuekujf7389o3irarj4hkhs@4ax .com...

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 20:48:23 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Was the rating limited to Jazz? * I took it as all time great guitarists.

Jim did say jazz radio station - assumed jazz guiratists.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

Which, oddly, is something that has happened before. *:)

Jim mumbles a lot. *You have to interpret.

I am surprised that two of my favorite guitarists are seldom mentioned in
these ratings, *Joe Walsh and Don Felder of the Eagles.
Walsh is certainly up there in my book as a rocker. * *Don Felder is
classically trained and it shows, particularly in the "Hell Freezes Over"
CD/DVD. * I enjoy his playing a lot.

Eisboch

Walsh is an amazing guitar player.

On Aug 2, 7:17*pm, hk wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 18:58:53 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

*Remembering some advice that a pro told me once, I suggested
that she stop trying to get the *perfect* shot, and just take a gazillion of
them, as fast as the camera would process the previous.
I think you get much more interesting and natural pictures that way,
particularly portraits, and they don't have that "posed" look.

Digital makes that more practical now. *It was much more expensive
with film. *I know (-:
But I took the middle ground, maybe shooting 3 more times than the
average amateur, and those 2nd or 3rd shots were usually the keepers.

--Vic

I take a lot of portraits to help illustrate some of the interviews I
write. Fortunately, the subjects are mostly working men and women who
happen to be working outdoors, so usually it is not too hard to find
some decent lighting. I shoot them on 35 mm slide film.

Show us some, liar.