Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:19:34 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:53:59 -0700, "RG" wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
I really like the way it came out.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197bw.jpg
Nice. When I opened it up in my browser, it looked waaay over sharpened.
But once I downloaded the file and opened it full-screen in Irfanview, that
issue completely went away. It has a nice tone to it. Almost a sepia-like
quality to it.
Its actually several layers of some very slight halftone changes to
various areas of the image. I wanted to give it an antique look while
keeping the overall sharp nature of the image.

I think it came out really nice.

I like it.
Who's the chick?

--Vic


The women SW photographs look like this after he "fixes" them in Photoshop:

http://bjoernssite.com/frameset/bild...g/ef1teck.html

It's hard to tell, but she started out looking like this:

http://men.style.com/gq


:)

John wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:16:58 -0500, Boater wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:47:26 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:45:51 -0800, "Mike" wrote:

Sorry, but it does nothing for me. It looks like prison bars on the beach.
I'm certainly no expert though, and I'm willing to learn. No offense I hope.
Neanderthal. :)

Here's the original converted from RAW (ORF) into .jpeg at high Q and
without editing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197org.jpg
Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm
Tell you what Harry - you seem to be an expert on these things - I'll
give you password access to a directory on my web site just for you
and you can post your stuff there. All yours - you can post all your
best work for everybody to see and look at, comment on, etc.

Open offer - no strings.

Calm down, Tom. All I said was that I thought your original photo was
more, well, photogenic, than your Photoshopped versions. You seem to be
taking that as an insult, but it isn't. Think about it.

Did you bother to look at the photos of the Mies Farnsworth House? If
you did, you would have seen plain, simple, elegant design, unadorned,
and virtually impossible to improve upon. "Less is more." Do you think
that house needs to be Rococo-ized? Do you think Leonardo could have
improved on Mona Lisa by Photoshopping a different background?

I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe
nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do.


You know, Harry, I wouldn't be surprised if even your *comments* about the
work of others is a cut'n'paste from somewhere.

Do you think stealing the work of others makes you an expert?

Yes, you and Tom have different philosophies. He takes his own pictures.

Try it, take him up on his offer. Post some of your 'good' stuff (actually
taken by you). Or, as has been said, STFU.


Fourth post of the day from the asshole Herring, and the third insult of
his today aimed my way.

He's not too obsessed, is he? :?

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:16:58 -0500, Boater wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:47:26 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:45:51 -0800, "Mike" wrote:

Sorry, but it does nothing for me. It looks like prison bars on the beach.
I'm certainly no expert though, and I'm willing to learn. No offense I hope.
Neanderthal. :)

Here's the original converted from RAW (ORF) into .jpeg at high Q and
without editing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197org.jpg

Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm

Tell you what Harry - you seem to be an expert on these things - I'll
give you password access to a directory on my web site just for you
and you can post your stuff there. All yours - you can post all your
best work for everybody to see and look at, comment on, etc.

Open offer - no strings.


Calm down, Tom. All I said was that I thought your original photo was
more, well, photogenic, than your Photoshopped versions. You seem to be
taking that as an insult, but it isn't. Think about it.

Did you bother to look at the photos of the Mies Farnsworth House? If
you did, you would have seen plain, simple, elegant design, unadorned,
and virtually impossible to improve upon. "Less is more." Do you think
that house needs to be Rococo-ized? Do you think Leonardo could have
improved on Mona Lisa by Photoshopping a different background?

I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe
nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do.


You know, Harry, I wouldn't be surprised if even your *comments* about the
work of others is a cut'n'paste from somewhere.

Do you think stealing the work of others makes you an expert?

Yes, you and Tom have different philosophies. He takes his own pictures.

Try it, take him up on his offer. Post some of your 'good' stuff (actually
taken by you). Or, as has been said, STFU.
--
John

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:45:51 -0800, "Mike" wrote:

Sorry, but it does nothing for me. It looks like prison bars on the beach.
I'm certainly no expert though, and I'm willing to learn. No offense I hope.

Neanderthal. :)

Here's the original converted from RAW (ORF) into .jpeg at high Q and
without editing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197org.jpg

What is high Q?

Sounds like an Asian exercise and meditation art form?

Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:47:26 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:45:51 -0800, "Mike" wrote:

Sorry, but it does nothing for me. It looks like prison bars on the
beach. I'm certainly no expert though, and I'm willing to learn. No
offense I hope.
Neanderthal. :)

Here's the original converted from RAW (ORF) into .jpeg at high Q and
without editing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197org.jpg

Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm

Tell you what Harry - you seem to be an expert on these things - I'll
give you password access to a directory on my web site just for you
and you can post your stuff there. All yours - you can post all your
best work for everybody to see and look at, comment on, etc.

Open offer - no strings.


Calm down, Tom. All I said was that I thought your original photo was
more, well, photogenic, than your Photoshopped versions. You seem to be
taking that as an insult, but it isn't. Think about it.

Did you bother to look at the photos of the Mies Farnsworth House? If
you did, you would have seen plain, simple, elegant design, unadorned,
and virtually impossible to improve upon. "Less is more." Do you think
that house needs to be Rococo-ized? Do you think Leonardo could have
improved on Mona Lisa by Photoshopping a different background?

I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't believe
nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do.

Ansel Adams believed mother nature needed to be improved upon and
definitely did not believe you should try to capture what you saw.
So it looks like Tom is in good company.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:47:26 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:45:51 -0800, "Mike" wrote:

Sorry, but it does nothing for me. It looks like prison bars on the beach.
I'm certainly no expert though, and I'm willing to learn. No offense I hope.

Neanderthal. :)

Here's the original converted from RAW (ORF) into .jpeg at high Q and
without editing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197org.jpg


Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm

I like the shopped one better. More or less.

--Vic

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:16:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:


Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm




However, photography is an art form and as such, modernism produced
Pablo Picasso who over his career veered from Symbolist imagery to
Surrealism - all and any of which were never boring, sterile or
monotone in concept or execution and still called "modernist".

Let's see your stuff - put it out there.


I don't know what all the fuss is about. Some pictures look very nice
natural. Some look very nice photoshopped. Personally, I have a lot of fun
with PaintShop Pro. Here's a modified picture taken of
a horse paddock that I modified in PSP to look like an oil painting. Both
the original photo and the "painting" look fine to me.

http://www.eisboch.com/paintshoppainting2.jpg

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:16:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm



However, photography is an art form and as such, modernism produced
Pablo Picasso who over his career veered from Symbolist imagery to
Surrealism - all and any of which were never boring, sterile or
monotone in concept or execution and still called "modernist".

Let's see your stuff - put it out there.


I don't know what all the fuss is about. Some pictures look very nice
natural. Some look very nice photoshopped. Personally, I have a lot of fun
with PaintShop Pro. Here's a modified picture taken of
a horse paddock that I modified in PSP to look like an oil painting. Both
the original photo and the "painting" look fine to me.

http://www.eisboch.com/paintshoppainting2.jpg

Eisboch




Great frame!


I agree with your point.

Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:16:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:47:26 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:45:51 -0800, "Mike" wrote:

Sorry, but it does nothing for me. It looks like prison bars on
the beach. I'm certainly no expert though, and I'm willing to
learn. No offense I hope.
Neanderthal. :)

Here's the original converted from RAW (ORF) into .jpeg at high Q and
without editing.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/_C050197org.jpg
Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm
Tell you what Harry - you seem to be an expert on these things - I'll
give you password access to a directory on my web site just for you
and you can post your stuff there. All yours - you can post all your
best work for everybody to see and look at, comment on, etc.

Open offer - no strings.

Calm down, Tom. All I said was that I thought your original photo was
more, well, photogenic, than your Photoshopped versions. You seem to
be taking that as an insult, but it isn't. Think about it.

Did you bother to look at the photos of the Mies Farnsworth House? If
you did, you would have seen plain, simple, elegant design,
unadorned, and virtually impossible to improve upon. "Less is more."
Do you think that house needs to be Rococo-ized? Do you think
Leonardo could have improved on Mona Lisa by Photoshopping a
different background?

I guess we have a totally different visual philosophy. I don't
believe nature needs a lot of improvement to be attractive. You do.


You know, Harry, I wouldn't be surprised if even your *comments* about
the
work of others is a cut'n'paste from somewhere.

Do you think stealing the work of others makes you an expert?

Yes, you and Tom have different philosophies. He takes his own pictures.

Try it, take him up on his offer. Post some of your 'good' stuff
(actually
taken by you). Or, as has been said, STFU.


Fourth post of the day from the asshole Herring, and the third insult of
his today aimed my way.

He's not too obsessed, is he? :?

Your narcissistic self image and crazy ideas just beg to be toyed with.
I wouldn't call it obsession. We're just having a little fun with you.
No offense.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:16:58 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Much more interesting photo in original form.

Remember Mies..."Less is more." That holds true for photo
post-processing, too.

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm



However, photography is an art form and as such, modernism produced
Pablo Picasso who over his career veered from Symbolist imagery to
Surrealism - all and any of which were never boring, sterile or
monotone in concept or execution and still called "modernist".

Let's see your stuff - put it out there.


I don't know what all the fuss is about. Some pictures look very nice
natural. Some look very nice photoshopped. Personally, I have a lot of
fun with PaintShop Pro. Here's a modified picture taken of
a horse paddock that I modified in PSP to look like an oil painting.
Both the original photo and the "painting" look fine to me.

http://www.eisboch.com/paintshoppainting2.jpg

Eisboch


Great frame!


I agree with your point.

I am going to break my self-imposed rule here by posting these, but here's a
couple of "natural" pictures of our barn and house that I think came out
pretty good. They are not artistic statements, but I just like them.
They were taken late in the daytime, so the afternoon shadows and
directional lighting are coming into play.

Nikon D70s with "borrowed" Mrs.E. lens. All I have done was to resize them
in InfranView to a manageable size for posting on the website.

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

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

Eisboch