Picking Lice With The 70-200 VR2!!

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:59:59 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:


Yeah, I think people do believe what I write. I don't spin fantasy
yarns about things-that-never-happened. The scuba diving I've done
*has* been done in safe and controlled conditions.

WHAT? You mean like that crapshot some tourist took of a guest appearance
of Bozo the Clown cleaning the glass in a ray feeding-tank at the Monterey
Bay Aquarium? The one you stole from someone's album on the net? You mean
THAT ONE??? The color in that wet-suit says that whoever that was wasn't
more than 3-4 feet under water, if even that much. Don't give use this song
and dance BULL**** about you being some scuba diver. You're as transparent
as they come!

LOL!

Credibility my ASS!

LOL!

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:20:33 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Tony,
If an image is presented as a pictorial, why do you feel disclosure of
things like a background change is necessary.

It depends on the forum and where the image is displayed. I don't
participate in Flickr, but I might put the image up there without the
disclosure. This forum, though, is different.

There's an issue of credibility here thanks to our
participant-of-many-names. On careful examination of the violinist
photo, you'll see some careless masking around the violin strings. If
I don't tell you the photo has been significantly altered, you might
start doubting my credibility on other photos.

This particular image was a project photo anyway. I thought it was a
good project for practicing using a layer mask to drop the background.
There are so many little areas (mostly around the violin) where the
original background showed through that the detail work was extensive.

Here's the original taken straight from RAW to .jpg.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos...3_BHGFw-XL.jpg

That area around the hands and violin strings was a bitch to mask. I
had to use a shot of the same trees so the masking around the girl's
hair wouldn't show.

I think that if you are
presenting a PJ shot, where background is a part of the scene, or a pure
nature shot, no alteration other than normal adjustments should be made.
for
purposes of my comment I define "normal adjustments" as one which enhances
the image without changing its essential message. IOW the reason the shot
was taken, should not be altered.

If I am presenting a pictorial, I think anything goes.
That of course, is just my opinion.

When I link to photos in the "Street" photography forum I participate
in, I leave them as-shot as far as intrusive background. In that
group, background stuff is quite acceptable that would be criticized
here. We are expected to shoot scenes as we see them and not to go
for posed shots. We can edit for contrast (most shots are in black
and white) and other "normal" adjustments.

This shot was well-received in that forum, but would be roundly panned
he
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...7_W7ACa-XL.jpg



Funny! this morning while picking up my camera after a needed repair, I was
talking with a photographer from a major area newspaper. He clearly stated
that any manipulation, other than some minor dodging, burning and contrast
adjustment would be unethical. Since he strictly does PJ, I can easily
understand where he was coming from.

--
Peter

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:06:32 -0500, LOL! wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:59:59 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:


Yeah, I think people do believe what I write. I don't spin fantasy
yarns about things-that-never-happened. The scuba diving I've done
*has* been done in safe and controlled conditions.

WHAT? You mean like that crapshot some tourist took of a guest appearance
of Bozo the Clown cleaning the glass in a ray feeding-tank at the Monterey
Bay Aquarium? The one you stole from someone's album on the net? You mean
THAT ONE??? The color in that wet-suit says that whoever that was wasn't
more than 3-4 feet under water, if even that much. Don't give use this song
and dance BULL**** about you being some scuba diver. You're as transparent
as they come!

LOL!

Credibility my ASS!

Up to your usual level of knowledge. The bottom at Sting Ray City is
about 33 feet. I was probably down about 20 feet when my daughter
snapped this. It's a scan of a print commercially made from a slide.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:57:32 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:06:32 -0500, LOL! wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:59:59 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:


Yeah, I think people do believe what I write. I don't spin fantasy
yarns about things-that-never-happened. The scuba diving I've done
*has* been done in safe and controlled conditions.

WHAT? You mean like that crapshot some tourist took of a guest appearance
of Bozo the Clown cleaning the glass in a ray feeding-tank at the Monterey
Bay Aquarium? The one you stole from someone's album on the net? You mean
THAT ONE??? The color in that wet-suit says that whoever that was wasn't
more than 3-4 feet under water, if even that much. Don't give use this song
and dance BULL**** about you being some scuba diver. You're as transparent
as they come!

LOL!

Credibility my ASS!

Up to your usual level of knowledge. The bottom at Sting Ray City is
about 33 feet. I was probably down about 20 feet when my daughter
snapped this. It's a scan of a print commercially made from a slide.

RIIIIiiiiiiiight, sure you were. That's why there's reflections in the tank
glass all down the right side. Even a completely vertical edge down the
whole right side, top to bottom, probably from a tank-glass divider.

LOL!!!!!

Credibility my ASS!

LOL!

On 8/5/10 11:06 AM, in article ,
"LOL!" wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:59:59 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:


Yeah, I think people do believe what I write. I don't spin fantasy
yarns about things-that-never-happened. The scuba diving I've done
*has* been done in safe and controlled conditions.

WHAT? You mean like that crapshot some tourist took of a guest appearance
of Bozo the Clown cleaning the glass in a ray feeding-tank at the Monterey
Bay Aquarium? The one you stole from someone's album on the net? You mean
THAT ONE??? The color in that wet-suit says that whoever that was wasn't
more than 3-4 feet under water, if even that much. Don't give use this song
and dance BULL**** about you being some scuba diver. You're as transparent
as they come!

LOL!

Credibility my ASS!

LOL!

Jesus man, please OFF yourself and end your miserable life...

"LOL!" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:57:32 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:06:32 -0500, LOL! wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:59:59 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:


Yeah, I think people do believe what I write. I don't spin fantasy
yarns about things-that-never-happened. The scuba diving I've done
*has* been done in safe and controlled conditions.

WHAT? You mean like that crapshot some tourist took of a guest appearance
of Bozo the Clown cleaning the glass in a ray feeding-tank at the
Monterey
Bay Aquarium? The one you stole from someone's album on the net? You mean
THAT ONE??? The color in that wet-suit says that whoever that was wasn't
more than 3-4 feet under water, if even that much. Don't give use this
song
and dance BULL**** about you being some scuba diver. You're as
transparent
as they come!

LOL!

Credibility my ASS!

Up to your usual level of knowledge. The bottom at Sting Ray City is
about 33 feet. I was probably down about 20 feet when my daughter
snapped this. It's a scan of a print commercially made from a slide.

RIIIIiiiiiiiight, sure you were. That's why there's reflections in the
tank
glass all down the right side. Even a completely vertical edge down the
whole right side, top to bottom, probably from a tank-glass divider.



There are several of us who have done UW photography, including me. I can't
speak for others but it is obvious to me that you don't know WTF you are
talking about. What you may be referring to is normal underwater particle
dispersion. How about doing a test. If you are certified, which I doubt, I
will escort you on a local wreck dive. Here's your choices. Cruiser San
Diego; The Tea wreck U215; U 853.

I need an excuse to get wet again. But, bring your own dive buddy. I simply
want to be an observer, not a nursemaid. I will bring my own buddy.
If you want something tamer, let me know. I am flexible.
Remember, before I will make any arrangements, I want to see your "C" card.

--
Peter

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:07:52 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"LOL!" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:57:32 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:06:32 -0500, LOL! wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:59:59 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:


Yeah, I think people do believe what I write. I don't spin fantasy
yarns about things-that-never-happened. The scuba diving I've done
*has* been done in safe and controlled conditions.

WHAT? You mean like that crapshot some tourist took of a guest appearance
of Bozo the Clown cleaning the glass in a ray feeding-tank at the
Monterey
Bay Aquarium? The one you stole from someone's album on the net? You mean
THAT ONE??? The color in that wet-suit says that whoever that was wasn't
more than 3-4 feet under water, if even that much. Don't give use this
song
and dance BULL**** about you being some scuba diver. You're as
transparent
as they come!

LOL!

Credibility my ASS!

Up to your usual level of knowledge. The bottom at Sting Ray City is
about 33 feet. I was probably down about 20 feet when my daughter
snapped this. It's a scan of a print commercially made from a slide.

RIIIIiiiiiiiight, sure you were. That's why there's reflections in the
tank
glass all down the right side. Even a completely vertical edge down the
whole right side, top to bottom, probably from a tank-glass divider.



There are several of us who have done UW photography, including me. I can't
speak for others but it is obvious to me that you don't know WTF you are
talking about. What you may be referring to is normal underwater particle
dispersion. How about doing a test. If you are certified, which I doubt, I
will escort you on a local wreck dive. Here's your choices. Cruiser San
Diego; The Tea wreck U215; U 853.

That photograph of mine was taken on slide film with a Canon AS-6
underwater camera. The AS-6 was truly a "point-and-shoot". There
were no settings. The only choice was what ASA film to load. It had
an onboard flash, but it was for fill and not illumination.

The link was to a scan that I made from a print from a slide. That
"reflection" what's-his-name thinks he sees is some anomaly created
somewhere in those conversions.

I got some good shots with that camera in water up to 30 feet or so,
and in some deeper water in very clear conditions, but the deeper I'd
shoot the more blue the image would be. Photo labs, though, could
push those very blue images and bring in some very decent color. You
had to ask. The bottom at Sting Ray City is white sand with very
little coral, so on a sunny day shooting at 30 feet was like shooting
at 15 feet.

I still have the camera, but it doesn't work. I left the batteries in
it and got some corrosion. I just keep the camera as a souvenir.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...


That photograph of mine was taken on slide film with a Canon AS-6
underwater camera. The AS-6 was truly a "point-and-shoot". There
were no settings. The only choice was what ASA film to load. It had
an onboard flash, but it was for fill and not illumination.

I standardized on Ektachrome for all my underwater work. It emphasized the
blue background and the colors brought out by the storbe would really pop. I
used a Nikkormat in an Ikelight housing, usually with a 20 or w28mm lens.
Athought the strobe and its housing are gone, the housing needs only new "O"
ring seals. The Nikkormat is curently in the posession of my daughter.


The link was to a scan that I made from a print from a slide. That
"reflection" what's-his-name thinks he sees is some anomaly created
somewhere in those conversions.

Those artifacts look very much like particle dispersion. It just may have
been emplasized in the conversion process.


I got some good shots with that camera in water up to 30 feet or so,
and in some deeper water in very clear conditions, but the deeper I'd
shoot the more blue the image would be. Photo labs, though, could
push those very blue images and bring in some very decent color. You
had to ask. The bottom at Sting Ray City is white sand with very
little coral, so on a sunny day shooting at 30 feet was like shooting
at 15 feet.



--
Peter

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:33:28 -0500, Larry Thong
wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:37:49 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

It depends on the forum and where the image is displayed. I don't
participate in Flickr, but I might put the image up there without the
disclosure. This forum, though, is different.

There's an issue of credibility here thanks to our
participant-of-many-names. On careful examination of the violinist
photo, you'll see some careless masking around the violin strings. If I
don't tell you the photo has been significantly altered, you might start
doubting my credibility on other photos.

This particular image was a project photo anyway. I thought it was a
good project for practicing using a layer mask to drop the background.
There are so many little areas (mostly around the violin) where the
original background showed through that the detail work was extensive.

Here's the original taken straight from RAW to .jpg.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos...3_BHGFw-XL.jpg

Tony, my feeling on this is it would have been perfect right out of the
camera had you stopped down a lot more. It would have blown out the
background into the realm of total creamery while adding the depth you
need to give it a more 3D feel by blurring the hand, which should be
blurred since it is only a minute part of the theme you're trying to
convey.

The first Photoshopped one simply doesn't work. even on a perfect and
seamless integration, the background is just too busy and distracting. I
particularly like tighter DoF on these types of shots. And no, the hand
being out of focus won't distract from your theme.

I still can, you know. The background is a layer, and the file is a
..psd, I can blur, blow-out, fade, lighten, or otherwise manipulate
that background any way I want.

I've lost interest, though. It was a project piece to practice layer
masking. The finished product doesn't interest me that much now.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article ,
"Peter" wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:20:33 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


good stuff snipped

When I link to photos in the "Street" photography forum I participate
in, I leave them as-shot as far as intrusive background. In that
group, background stuff is quite acceptable that would be criticized
here. We are expected to shoot scenes as we see them and not to go
for posed shots. We can edit for contrast (most shots are in black
and white) and other "normal" adjustments.

This shot was well-received in that forum, but would be roundly panned
he
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...5398187_W7ACa-
XL.jpg


Tony, that shot is hilarious. I love the fact that almost everything in
the mage has a brand name or logo written on it (Chanel sunglasses,
Macanudo cigars, etc.) It reminds me of the documentary on R. Crumb,
where he says that San Francisco is still pretty much like it was way
back in the "Mr. Natural" days, except that "Everyone is walking around
wearing tee shirts with corporate logos on them. And no one besides me
thinks that's weird!"

The other thing about your image is that although the woman on the right
is over exposed, that's one of the reasons I love black & white -- huge
density differences can work just fine. Atget's photo of Notre Dame de
Paris, 1925, has a very dark foreground and the cathedral in the
background almost luminous in its translucence.

http://www.masters-of-photography.co...dame_full.html