A 45 minute drive away

This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number
of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to
travel far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

NB Duck, no teleconverter was used.


--
PeterN

On 8/24/2015 5:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number
of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to
travel far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

NB Duck, no teleconverter was used.



Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg

--
PeterN

On 2015-08-24 22:35:41 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/24/2015 5:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number
of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to
travel far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

NB Duck, no teleconverter was used.



Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg

Why? The first one was better. Why did you think it needed correction,
and what did you do to "correct" it?

For some reason, this (#2) version appears "de-popped" by some strange
"Peter Processing". The first version looks like you used an OnOne
filter, perhaps their "Golden Hour Enhancer", or something of that ilk,
but it isn't too bad.

As far as this version goes, I just can't put my finger on what you did
in post to ruin it, but ruined (for my eye anyway) it is.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/24/15 PDT 4:23 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Mon, 24 Aug 2015
16:11:12 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On
2015-08-24 22:35:41 +0000, PeterN said On
8/24/2015 5:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number
of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to
travel far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0
NB Duck, no teleconverter was used.
Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg

Why? The first one was better. Why did you think it needed correction,
and what did you do to "correct" it?

For some reason, this (#2) version appears "de-popped" by some strange
"Peter Processing". The first version looks like you used an OnOne
filter, perhaps their "Golden Hour Enhancer", or something of that ilk,
but it isn't too bad.

As far as this version goes, I just can't put my finger on what you did
in post to ruin it, but ruined (for my eye anyway) it is.

I was equally disappointed by the second version. I really like the
first version, and thought "Wow! A photo from Peter that the Duck
won't bash!".

I like the water better in v2.

I don't think bash is the best word for Duck's comments generally.

In article
PeterN wrote:


This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number
of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to
travel far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

Where in Coney Island was this taken? I've seen plenty of people
using rods and reels fishing there, but I've never seen two guys
using nets to drag the shallows.

On 8/24/2015 7:11 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-24 22:35:41 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/24/2015 5:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number
of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to
travel far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0


NB Duck, no teleconverter was used.



Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg

Why? The first one was better. Why did you think it needed correction,
and what did you do to "correct" it?

For some reason, this (#2) version appears "de-popped" by some strange
"Peter Processing". The first version looks like you used an OnOne
filter, perhaps their "Golden Hour Enhancer", or something of that ilk,
but it isn't too bad.

As far as this version goes, I just can't put my finger on what you did
in post to ruin it, but ruined (for my eye anyway) it is.



No # looked too flat, to me. In # 2 their faces were just a bit short of
looking posterized. I applied a light surface blur.

--
PeterN

"Whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 24 August 2015 23:36:03 UTC+1, peterN wrote:
On 8/24/2015 5:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a
number
of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to
travel far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

NB Duck, no teleconverter was used.



Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg

--
PeterN

I prefered the first version this one lokos like the detail has been
replaced by mud or blurring. I assume teh 45 min drive is some sort of
decription....
and I thought some of my titling was bad .

I once entered a picture entitled An 'orse it was a close up
of a horse's head.

I believe 45 minutes is about how long it would take Peter to drive to
Coney Island, unless there is a lot of traffic.

On 8/25/2015 1:18 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 8/24/15 PDT 4:23 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Mon, 24 Aug 2015
16:11:12 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On
2015-08-24 22:35:41 +0000, PeterN said On
8/24/2015 5:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a
number
of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to
travel far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

NB Duck, no teleconverter was used.
Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg


Why? The first one was better. Why did you think it needed correction,
and what did you do to "correct" it?

For some reason, this (#2) version appears "de-popped" by some strange
"Peter Processing". The first version looks like you used an OnOne
filter, perhaps their "Golden Hour Enhancer", or something of that ilk,
but it isn't too bad.

As far as this version goes, I just can't put my finger on what you did
in post to ruin it, but ruined (for my eye anyway) it is.

I was equally disappointed by the second version. I really like the
first version, and thought "Wow! A photo from Peter that the Duck
won't bash!".

I like the water better in v2.

I don't think bash is the best word for Duck's comments generally.

Given that the word bash has a negative connotation, I agree.

--
PeterN

On 8/25/2015 7:11 AM, Anonymous wrote:
In article
PeterN wrote:


This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number
of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to
travel far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

Where in Coney Island was this taken? I've seen plenty of people
using rods and reels fishing there, but I've never seen two guys
using nets to drag the shallows.



On the Northwest side, facing the VZ bridge. There is a housing
development, with a small park across the street.

--
PeterN

On 8/24/2015 7:23 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:11:12 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-08-24 22:35:41 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/24/2015 5:52 PM, PeterN wrote:

This is an old image, which could have been taken in any one of a number
of countries, was taken in Coney Island. Shows one doesn't have to
travel far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6ft06ubmm6l3ww/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg?dl=0

NB Duck, no teleconverter was used.



Oops Posted the wrong image. corrected image now posted.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/fishermen%20at%20dusk.jpg

Why? The first one was better. Why did you think it needed correction,
and what did you do to "correct" it?

For some reason, this (#2) version appears "de-popped" by some strange
"Peter Processing". The first version looks like you used an OnOne
filter, perhaps their "Golden Hour Enhancer", or something of that ilk,
but it isn't too bad.

As far as this version goes, I just can't put my finger on what you did
in post to ruin it, but ruined (for my eye anyway) it is.

I was equally disappointed by the second version. I really like the
first version, and thought "Wow! A photo from Peter that the Duck
won't bash!".

I like the word "bash" by the way. It works either way. To bash
someone is to strongly criticize them. But, a bash is a good party.
It would be inappropriate to bash someone at a bash.





You really don't think the first was too flat?

--
PeterN