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


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...na-fishing.jpg

Dali's Tuna Fishing

Hey, I knew tuna, and I still eat tuna.
That's not tuna.
Maybe tuna salad in a bad deli.
Ever hear the joke about Picasso having his estate
taken over by home invaders who robbed him?
He drew the police a sketch of the perps.
Can't remember the punch line, but if anybody knows it please post.
Regarding photos, Photoshop is a toy for those who like to play.
The "best" photos are always the result of subject, composition and
light when shot.
When I was interested in photography the pros always said keep your
camera and mind's eye ready for the right moment, and shoot, shoot,
shoot.
Do that, and you'll get some shots that astound you.
Sort of like the million monkeys pounding out Shakespeare, but not
quite that extreme.
That's all my opinion of course, and you know what they say.....

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:09:20 -0400, hk wrote:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...na-fishing.jpg

Dali's Tuna Fishing

Hey, I knew tuna, and I still eat tuna.
That's not tuna.
Maybe tuna salad in a bad deli.
Ever hear the joke about Picasso having his estate
taken over by home invaders who robbed him?
He drew the police a sketch of the perps.
Can't remember the punch line, but if anybody knows it please post.
Regarding photos, Photoshop is a toy for those who like to play.
The "best" photos are always the result of subject, composition and
light when shot.
When I was interested in photography the pros always said keep your
camera and mind's eye ready for the right moment, and shoot, shoot,
shoot.
Do that, and you'll get some shots that astound you.
Sort of like the million monkeys pounding out Shakespeare, but not
quite that extreme.
That's all my opinion of course, and you know what they say.....

--Vic


Interesting. I was reading a piece on digital white balance the other
day, and the author contended there were ways to handle it easier in the
camera than in photoshop. I'll have to re-read the article a few more
times, though.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:09:20 -0400, hk wrote:


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...na-fishing.jpg

Dali's Tuna Fishing

Hey, I knew tuna, and I still eat tuna.
That's not tuna.
Maybe tuna salad in a bad deli.
Ever hear the joke about Picasso having his estate
taken over by home invaders who robbed him?
He drew the police a sketch of the perps.
Can't remember the punch line, but if anybody knows it please post.
Regarding photos, Photoshop is a toy for those who like to play.
The "best" photos are always the result of subject, composition and
light when shot.
When I was interested in photography the pros always said keep your
camera and mind's eye ready for the right moment, and shoot, shoot,
shoot.
Do that, and you'll get some shots that astound you.
Sort of like the million monkeys pounding out Shakespeare, but not
quite that extreme.
That's all my opinion of course, and you know what they say.....

--Vic

Its funny that you mention that. My wife takes some very interesting and
sometimes breathtaking pictures, yet has never taken any photography courses
or instruction. I know virtually nothing about photography, but when she
first got Harry's camera and started "composing", she would take forever to
take a shot. 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.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:09:20 -0400, hk wrote:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...na-fishing.jpg

Dali's Tuna Fishing

Hey, I knew tuna, and I still eat tuna.
That's not tuna.
Maybe tuna salad in a bad deli.
Ever hear the joke about Picasso having his estate
taken over by home invaders who robbed him?
He drew the police a sketch of the perps.
Can't remember the punch line, but if anybody knows it please post.
Regarding photos, Photoshop is a toy for those who like to play.
The "best" photos are always the result of subject, composition and
light when shot.
When I was interested in photography the pros always said keep your
camera and mind's eye ready for the right moment, and shoot, shoot,
shoot.
Do that, and you'll get some shots that astound you.
Sort of like the million monkeys pounding out Shakespeare, but not
quite that extreme.
That's all my opinion of course, and you know what they say.....

--Vic

Its funny that you mention that. My wife takes some very interesting and
sometimes breathtaking pictures, yet has never taken any photography courses
or instruction. I know virtually nothing about photography, but when she
first got Harry's camera and started "composing", she would take forever to
take a shot. 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.

Eisboch




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.

"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

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, 7:17*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.

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.