ANGELS LOVE THE 40D!

The only lie here is you, Jurkin.

 

tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 16/10/2008 2:34 PM:

never mind, chaplain: in another coupla posts
Helen will accuse me of being jurgen...

French maids and Munich beergarden maids aren't half bad, though.
Specially at hooters...

 

Jurgen wrote,on my timestamp of 15/10/2008 7:05 PM:

BWAHAHAHA!
<putting legs up, picking up the munchies bag>

 

I know better, your far crankier than Douggie ;-)
and your spellingis much gooder.

better at Oktoberfest ;-)

 

Atheist Chaplain wrote,on my timestamp of 19/10/2008 12:21 PM:

You do, but Helen doesn't.
<whisper>
I use a spell checker...

Damn! That reminded me which month we're in!
I've missed half of it already!...

 

I home brew, its always Oktoberfest here

 

amen ;-)

 

Atheist Chaplain wrote,on my timestamp of 19/10/2008 9:04 PM:

you lucky bastard!

 

I really don' t have to think about it. Considering it came from you.
Any category that Ms Helen or Annika1980 is in I would be considered
in good company.


Draco

 

Not all that gullible that I can't let it roll of my back like water.
As to what you know or don't know Tony I wouldn't pretend to know or
don't know nor take for granted.

Draco

 

you don't know the half of it, I put down a wheat beer with a friend a
couple of months ago, and we had a taste the other day, 30 bottles were gone
in a weekend, we had a bit of help from some friends as we just had to share
it, it really was that good, and best part, it cost about $20 and some time

Seriously, I would recommend home brewing to anyone, the modern kits you can
buy at places like Big W will produce a good beer every time, as long as you
keep everything operating room clean (and there are sterilizing agents
available that don't even need drying before you use the gear) and can
follow simple instructions and after a while, you can start to
experiment a bit, we put some orange zest and coriander seeds in this wheat
beer and the results were spectacular.

 

Atheist Chaplain wrote,on my timestamp of 21/10/2008 10:13 PM:

yeah, I know: a bloke just down the
road does his own beer as well. Best
brew in a long time. I can't drink most
commercial beers: allergic to whatever
preservative shit they use.
But home brew stuff, no probs. Will have
to look into it.
Right now I can't drink ANY: diet...

 

you know diet is just the word "Die" with a "T" tacked on the end !!
and If I'm going to die, I'm going out fighting and enjoying myself ;-)

 

Atheist Chaplain wrote,on my timestamp of 22/10/2008 8:02 PM:

s'ok: the kids keep calling me "dad" as well
and I keep telling them I'm not "dead" yet!
Biggest problem for me is really the preservative
crap they stick into commercial beers here:
instant allergic reaction!
Last time had to get an anti-histamine shot:
eyes puffed up straight away, couldn't see...

 

no preservative in home brew, and even xxxx gold is going preservative free,
and soon beer will even be able to help fight the barstard cancer
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9117656
http://tinyurl.com/6fbfp5

 

Maybe you should try dipping your dick in it?

 

Maybe you should try dipping your dick in it?


ROFLMAO!! it has to be cheaper than viagra, though I'm not saying Noons
needs this as he can be a hard prick at times ;-)

 

: Let me make one point clear about my position on Photoshopped images:
: it's a very legitimate form of the photographer's art. That's what we
: try to create...art. We try to create interesting and pleasing images
: that capture the attention of the viewer. Sometimes that comes right
: out of the camera, and sometimes that comes from manipulation of the
: image.
:
: My only objection to Photoshopped (or images manipulated by any
: program) is when an altered or manipulated image is presented as a
: "straight" image and a denial of manipulation is stated.
:
: Even this is a gray area. Sharpening, boosting detail or colors with
: Channels or Curves, cloning out imperfections, and the use of the some
: of the other tools in Photoshop is manipulation. Changing exposure of
: a RAW image is manipulation.

Would you call exposure bracketing manipulation? What's the practical
difference between choosing the best of a series of bracketed exposures and
adjusting the exposure value with a photo editor? Some camera/speedlight
combinations are designed with a deliberate propensity to underexpose in order
to avoid blown highlights; the photographer is expected to make the necessary
corrections in the resulting image. Yes, you can use flash exposure
compensation to defeat that propensity, but isn't that manipulation too, since
the effect is pretty much the same?

White balance is a similar case. If you use auto white balance, you're letting
the camera make an educated guess with the full understanding that you're
going to have to override its judgement a certain percentage of the time.
(Indeed, many cameras don't even apply the white balance correction; they
simply package the information as an adjunct to the RAW image and let the
photo editor or RAW converter apply it.) If you eschew auto white balance and
any after-the-fact correction, you'd better have your color temperature meter
and correcting filters handy at all times. But what purpose is served by
substituting yesterday's tools for a capability that's built into any modern
camera?

: And, in my opinion, legitimate manipulation that need not be disclosed.

I don't think that goes far enough. To me, using the options offered by modern
cameras and photo editors to get the exposure and color balance right is not
manipulation, period.

I think that in many cases even color intensity should fall under the same
umbrella. The human eye/brain system responds differently from a photovoltaic
sensor, and color intensity correction may be necessary to bridge the gap
between what the camera saw and what (in human terms) it thought it saw.

: When two or more photos are combined into one, though, it becomes Photoshopped
: art and not a "straight" photograph.

Sure, but that's obviously a qualitatively different issue.

The reason all this hair splitting matters, of course, is that we all remember
the recent case of a news photographer who was fired on the spot for removing
a distracting detail that was utterly irrelevant to the substance of the
picture, just because the removal violated the newspaper's strict definition
of manipulation and stringent policy against its use. I take no position on
whether the newspaper's action was justified or its definition of manipulation
was correct. (The photographer presumably knew what the policy was, even if
his violation of it was inadvertent.) But the case shows that what does and
doesn't fall within the definition should be carefully thought out.

Bob

 

No. I was referring to manipulation in post-processing. Exposure
bracketing is done in-camera before the image is taken.

I didn't say or imply that there is a difference. I was discussing
post-processing only, and specifically in editing programs like
Photoshop.

I'm snipping the rest of your comments, but not because they are not
valid observations. I'm snipping because they don't address
manipulation in post-processing. It is not manipulation when you set
options in advance of taking the actual photograph.

 

:
: >On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:12:24 -0400, tony cooper <>
: >wrote:
: >: Let me make one point clear about my position on Photoshopped images:
: >: it's a very legitimate form of the photographer's art. That's what we
: >: try to create...art. We try to create interesting and pleasing images
: >: that capture the attention of the viewer. Sometimes that comes right
: >: out of the camera, and sometimes that comes from manipulation of the
: >: image.
: >:
: >: My only objection to Photoshopped (or images manipulated by any
: >: program) is when an altered or manipulated image is presented as a
: >: "straight" image and a denial of manipulation is stated.
: >:
: >: Even this is a gray area. Sharpening, boosting detail or colors with
: >: Channels or Curves, cloning out imperfections, and the use of the some
: >: of the other tools in Photoshop is manipulation. Changing exposure of
: >: a RAW image is manipulation.
: >
: >Would you call exposure bracketing manipulation?
:
: No. I was referring to manipulation in post-processing. Exposure
: bracketing is done in-camera before the image is taken.
:
: >What's the practical
: >difference between choosing the best of a series of bracketed exposures and
: >adjusting the exposure value with a photo editor?
:
: I didn't say or imply that there is a difference. I was discussing
: post-processing only, and specifically in editing programs like
: Photoshop.
:
: I'm snipping the rest of your comments, but not because they are not
: valid observations. I'm snipping because they don't address
: manipulation in post-processing. It is not manipulation when you set
: options in advance of taking the actual photograph.

I guess I didn't make my point clear, since you seem to have missed it
entirely. My assertion is that if setting the exposure value or white balance
in advance is not manipulation, then correcting it afterwards using a photo
editor isn't either. Conceptually, this is true in all cases (or so I would
claim). But with RAW files, at least on some cameras, it's literally the case,
since the in-camera correction is not applied to the image until
post-processing. On the face of it, my position appears to contradict yours
(not sidestep it, as you seem to imply), especially in view of the
clarification you offer above.

What about cropping? Is that manipulation? If your answer is yes, then what
about using a telephoto lens? I assume that by your definition, that would not
be manipulation. But suppose I would use a telephoto lens but don't have one.
If I take the picture with a normal lens and crop it to the size it would have
been if a telephoto were used, is that manipulation?

The common theme here is that with today's equipment and the multitude of
options that it offers, simplistic definitions of what constitutes
manipulation are inadequate and sometimes counterproductive.

Bob