On Aug 2, 7:34*pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote
in ...





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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Probably whoever he stole it from told him to take it down...

D.Duck wrote:
"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?




Because the guy I wanted to see it saw it.

D.Duck wrote:
"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?



Wow, now that was fast. I guess he didn't want anyone else to see he
made 25 adjustments in Photoshop CS3. I originally looked at the EXIF
data because I thought he used his in camera flash and that was why it
was so flat, but nope he did not use any flash, I couldn't figure out
why he didn't have her turn slightly one way\ or the other.

wrote:
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...


As far as can be told from what you have posted on your site and
elsewhere, you've never built anything but little skiffs and a couple of
really ugly canoes. The guys in my old man's shop built better and
better-looking wooden boats over the Connecticut winters, and they
weren't bitty little skiffs, Mr. Stitch and Glue.

Let's see some *substantial* boat you have built *not* using stitch and
glue.

hk wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"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?



Because the guy I wanted to see it saw it.


Harry, I noticed you did not disagree with the fact that you
photoshopped the file in CS3.

On Aug 2, 7:44*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
hk wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote in ...
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?

Because the guy I wanted to see it saw it.

Harry, I noticed you did not disagree with the fact that you
photoshopped the file in CS3.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

shhhhh, he's busy deflecting.. The guy is a fraud, every last post..

On Aug 2, 7:44*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
hk wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote in ...
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?

Because the guy I wanted to see it saw it.

Harry, I noticed you did not disagree with the fact that you
photoshopped the file in CS3.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Looks like he's gone for now.. He does have a bunch of tracks to cover
after the bull**** fest he has given us today...

wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:44 pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
hk wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote in ...
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?
Because the guy I wanted to see it saw it.
Harry, I noticed you did not disagree with the fact that you
photoshopped the file in CS3.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

shhhhh, he's busy deflecting.. The guy is a fraud, every last post..

I had to download the photo to run the EXIF data, so I still have it.

The killer though is the photo would have been a really nice portrait if
he did not have her facing directly into the window.

wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:44 pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
hk wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote in ...
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?
Because the guy I wanted to see it saw it.
Harry, I noticed you did not disagree with the fact that you
photoshopped the file in CS3.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

shhhhh, he's busy deflecting.. The guy is a fraud, every last post..



Reggiecrap is wondering why I didn't comment on his remark?
Reggiecrap is in my bozo bin.

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.