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

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.

On Aug 2, 7:13*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Aug 2, 7:03 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:





"hk" wrote in message

...

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
news:uvudnYE2JviVfwnVnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast. com...

So, was it?

Eisboch
Nope. No need to improve on nature.

Sometimes nature screws up. Reflecting on the high school glamour
shot, here's what I really look like now, in my mind's eye.

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

Eisboch
Do you sound like that, too, in your mind's ear?

Of course. Just ask me. Or Sam. He's the extent of my groupie
following.

Eisboch

You're doing better than I am. When I play the guitar, the cats leave..

Sam has no choice. I chain him to the amp. Tried that with Mrs.E. once,
but she broke free and ran from the room, hands over her ears.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So what about the new guitar? Did I miss it?

Nope. *Still working on something. *Patience, my man, patience.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ok then tease me..

Is it a stock production guitar, modified production guitar, or a
boutique guitar (limited or solitary release)?

Is it new, or new to you?

On Aug 2, 7:14*pm, 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 do get a kick out of you guys talking to wafa about something post
after post he proves he knows nothing about.. But do go on, it's funny
to watch him change feet..

wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:14 pm, 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 do get a kick out of you guys talking to wafa about something post
after post he proves he knows nothing about.. But do go on, it's funny
to watch him change feet..


Well, let's start a discussion about something you know nothing
about...the construction of quality wood boats.

hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...

I suppose it is for photographers not interested in life as it is, or
for photographers whose composition and exposure skills are minimal.

I like life as it is. I like to take photos that look as close to
what I saw as possible.



We recently came across an old, forgotten box of family photos. One
was my high school graduation "glamour" shot ..... you know, the ones
that were airbrushed back at the studio to remove a few pimples, add a
tinge of ruddy red to the cheeks and enhance the color of the eyes.

In my case, I am kinda glad the photographer didn't simply reproduce
what he saw. It wasn't pretty.

Eisboch



Did you have a flattop?

Here's a photo of someone's 14-year-old granddaughter.
Do you think it has been photoshopped?


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...eous/diana.jpg

Actually it was photoshoped, using CS3. If you look at the exif data
you actually made 25 adjustments in photoshop.

I think she is a beautiful young woman, but the lighting is not
complementary to her or her skin tone. The photo looks flat like you
had the light directly behind you when you took the photo.

On Aug 2, 7:25*pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:14 pm, 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 do get a kick out of you guys talking to wafa about something post
after post he proves he knows nothing about.. But do go on, it's funny
to watch him change feet..

Well, let's start a discussion about something you know nothing
about...the construction of quality wood boats.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, I will put my skills against yours any day:
http://trip-reports.com/coppermine/t...ls.php?album=9
have at it...

wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:25 pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:14 pm, 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 do get a kick out of you guys talking to wafa about something post
after post he proves he knows nothing about.. But do go on, it's funny
to watch him change feet..
Well, let's start a discussion about something you know nothing
about...the construction of quality wood boats.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, I will put my skills against yours any day:
http://trip-reports.com/coppermine/t...ls.php?album=9
have at it...


Please...I have no interest in little stitch and glue plywood skiffs.

On Aug 2, 7:30*pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:25 pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:14 pm, 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 do get a kick out of you guys talking to wafa about something post
after post he proves he knows nothing about.. But do go on, it's funny
to watch him change feet..
Well, let's start a discussion about something you know nothing
about...the construction of quality wood boats.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, I will put my skills against yours any day:
http://trip-reports.com/coppermine/t...ls.php?album=9
have at it...

Please...I have no interest in little stitch and glue plywood skiffs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, if I were you I wouldn't want to come up against me in the
wooden boat field either... No problem, go back to trying to fool
those who don't know the difference...

"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote
in message ...
hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...

I suppose it is for photographers not interested in life as it is, or
for photographers whose composition and exposure skills are minimal.

I like life as it is. I like to take photos that look as close to what
I saw as possible.



We recently came across an old, forgotten box of family photos. One was
my high school graduation "glamour" shot ..... you know, the ones that
were airbrushed back at the studio to remove a few pimples, add a tinge
of ruddy red to the cheeks and enhance the color of the eyes.

In my case, I am kinda glad the photographer didn't simply reproduce
what he saw. It wasn't pretty.

Eisboch



Did you have a flattop?

Here's a photo of someone's 14-year-old granddaughter.
Do you think it has been photoshopped?


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...eous/diana.jpg

Actually it was photoshoped, using CS3. If you look at the exif data you
actually made 25 adjustments in photoshop.

I think she is a beautiful young woman, but the lighting is not
complementary to her or her skin tone. The photo looks flat like you had
the light directly behind you when you took the photo.

How come the picture disappeared?