On Aug 2, 7:56*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's the point, he doesn't know anything more than I do about
photography. After the two stumpy pics, and the work he has shown us
today, hopefully we can put this whole thing to bed..

wrote in message
...

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?


New to me.

Not exactly stock.
Not exactly production, but is of a production model.

Not exactly a boutique guitar (whatever that means) I don't think.
Famous fingers played upon it's fretboard.

Now, us tempermental artists shouldn't be rushed. I'll be back later.

A ---- F#m ----- D ------ E -------

Eisboch

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:25:47 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

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.

It's not up now - I wanted to see what the metadata file showed.

25 adjustments?

Damn...

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:39:05 -0400, hk wrote:

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

I don't think so. But, I don't have much of an eye for these things. I
zoomed in on the obvious .... her eyes .... but the image just gets
pixilated and I can't tell.

Pretty girl, though.

So, was it?

Nope. No need to improve on nature.

Would you mind putting it back up - I'd like to see it.

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 18:45:52 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...



So, was it?

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

I've met you.

There is some small resemblance.

~~ snerk ~~

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:56:37 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

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.

Would you mind putting it back up?

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.

The last photo was the one I liked, but the blown out sky and the sun
almost directly overhead made it look harsh and flat. I definitely
would have cropped out that tiny bit of dock on the right.

On Aug 2, 8:08*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

...

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?

New to me.

Not exactly stock.
Not exactly production, but is of a production model.

Not exactly a boutique guitar (whatever that means) *I don't think.
Famous fingers played upon it's fretboard.

Now, us tempermental artists shouldn't be rushed. * I'll be back later.

A ---- F#m ----- D ------ E -------

Eisboch

I will be patient.. A guy at the store when I bought my special guitar
(I think you have seen it) refered to it as a Boutique guitar..
handmade, rare, with a few characteristics that could be considered
"novelty"..

A F#m D E huh, ok, give me a minute..

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


All of the top of the line professional non-news photographers I get to
work with from time to time spend a considerable amount of time in set-up,
lighting, composition, and in taking test shots with a polaroid camera
back.


I remember years ago .... probably 80's through mid 90's .... we would
occasionally have some professional photography done of some of the systems
we built at the business I was in. In those days what you described was
the norm .... set ups with white umbrellas, big, monster power supplies for
multiple flash units, light meters, etc. The camera was a big Hasselblad
and several Polaroid test shots were taken before the actual shooting.

The systems almost always had temporary argon or oxygen bottles nearby and
temporary wiring strung all over the place because they were usually under
final testing before shipment when the pictures were taken. The
photographer would airbrush all the messy ancillary equipment out of the
finished photo.

That all changed when they started using digitals. Half the equipment or
less. Many more pictures were taken, and frankly, for our purposes, the
results were as good or better.

Of course, we weren't entering them in any photography contests. They were
for ads in trade magazines (4 color) or for brochures.

Eisboch

"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?