Da Mook has Landed!

[Anonymous]

By the way, you don't happen to work midnight shift, do you?

[Anonymous]

By the way, you don't happen to work midnight shift, do you?

[Anonymous]

Jen, hope you do not mind waiting for my picture. Thomas the Tank engine will be at the Illinios train museum in 2 weeks. I hope to get one with me and my boy's in front of Thomas. (My wife refuses to join us on the grounds, she does not understand what we see in trains.)
TIM A

[Anonymous]

Jen, hope you do not mind waiting for my picture. Thomas the Tank engine will be at the Illinios train museum in 2 weeks. I hope to get one with me and my boy's in front of Thomas. (My wife refuses to join us on the grounds, she does not understand what we see in trains.)
TIM A

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by skeets

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Well, I broke down and posted a photo...enjoy it guys...

LC

Hey, Limitedclear, if that was really you, better change your handle to "Restricted" or maybe just "Stop".

As you will note, I said I posted a photo, I never said it was a photo of ME. After all the "what does Mookie look like" stuff I figured it would be well received...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by skeets

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Well, I broke down and posted a photo...enjoy it guys...

LC

Hey, Limitedclear, if that was really you, better change your handle to "Restricted" or maybe just "Stop".

As you will note, I said I posted a photo, I never said it was a photo of ME. After all the "what does Mookie look like" stuff I figured it would be well received...

LC

[zardoz]

Ed-
If memory serves, any color correction done to a photo will affect the entire photo. Perhaps there is a way to do just the skin tones using a photo editor, but I'd bet it would be a time-consuming task.

With film, if the type of film is correct for the intended use (daylight film for outdoors) there should be no need for correction (except for polarization). For indoor shooting under flourescent light with daylight film i use a FLD filter.

But digital just cannot do skin tones correctly. I have had many sales persons at many pro equipment stores try to sell me digital cameras. I always ask to see a representation of work done with digital, and I can ALWAYS tell the difference if there are people as the main or seconday subject. I probably could not tell the difference if, say, a train photo was taken digitally, unless I had a film image of the exact same scene. I'm sure someday soon digital will be good. And I really hope so! Film is so expensive!

BTW Ed, your photo was digital.

[zardoz]

Ed-
If memory serves, any color correction done to a photo will affect the entire photo. Perhaps there is a way to do just the skin tones using a photo editor, but I'd bet it would be a time-consuming task.

With film, if the type of film is correct for the intended use (daylight film for outdoors) there should be no need for correction (except for polarization). For indoor shooting under flourescent light with daylight film i use a FLD filter.

But digital just cannot do skin tones correctly. I have had many sales persons at many pro equipment stores try to sell me digital cameras. I always ask to see a representation of work done with digital, and I can ALWAYS tell the difference if there are people as the main or seconday subject. I probably could not tell the difference if, say, a train photo was taken digitally, unless I had a film image of the exact same scene. I'm sure someday soon digital will be good. And I really hope so! Film is so expensive!

BTW Ed, your photo was digital.

[edblysard]

And Jenny's photo?
Remember, you said it was digital.
Sure?
One of them was altered on a computer.
One is from film, one is digital.
By the way, I work outdoors 8 to 10 hours a day, and am ruddy colored to begin with.
I own a Cannon F1 35mm I bought in the 70s, along with more lens than I can carry, a YashicaMat 2 1/4 twin lens reflex, a 35mm Olympus single lens reflex, a Cannon TX, also 35mm, and a Minolta Dimage Hi7 digital.
The Dimage digital and the F1 cost about the same, around $1600.00.
I can promise you that, unless you took the photo, you cant tell the difference.
I will explain the red problem with both Jenny's and Kathi's photos tomorrow.
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz1

Ed-
If memory serves, any color correction done to a photo will affect the entire photo. Perhaps there is a way to do just the skin tones using a photo editor, but I'd bet it would be a time-consuming task.

With film, if the type of film is correct for the intended use (daylight film for outdoors) there should be no need for correction (except for polarization). For indoor shooting under flourescent light with daylight film i use a FLD filter.

But digital just cannot do skin tones correctly. I have had many sales persons at many pro equipment stores try to sell me digital cameras. I always ask to see a representation of work done with digital, and I can ALWAYS tell the difference if there are people as the main or seconday subject. I probably could not tell the difference if, say, a train photo was taken digitally, unless I had a film image of the exact same scene. I'm sure someday soon digital will be good. And I really hope so! Film is so expensive!

BTW Ed, your photo was digital.

[edblysard]

And Jenny's photo?
Remember, you said it was digital.
Sure?
One of them was altered on a computer.
One is from film, one is digital.
By the way, I work outdoors 8 to 10 hours a day, and am ruddy colored to begin with.
I own a Cannon F1 35mm I bought in the 70s, along with more lens than I can carry, a YashicaMat 2 1/4 twin lens reflex, a 35mm Olympus single lens reflex, a Cannon TX, also 35mm, and a Minolta Dimage Hi7 digital.
The Dimage digital and the F1 cost about the same, around $1600.00.
I can promise you that, unless you took the photo, you cant tell the difference.
I will explain the red problem with both Jenny's and Kathi's photos tomorrow.
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz1

Ed-
If memory serves, any color correction done to a photo will affect the entire photo. Perhaps there is a way to do just the skin tones using a photo editor, but I'd bet it would be a time-consuming task.

With film, if the type of film is correct for the intended use (daylight film for outdoors) there should be no need for correction (except for polarization). For indoor shooting under flourescent light with daylight film i use a FLD filter.

But digital just cannot do skin tones correctly. I have had many sales persons at many pro equipment stores try to sell me digital cameras. I always ask to see a representation of work done with digital, and I can ALWAYS tell the difference if there are people as the main or seconday subject. I probably could not tell the difference if, say, a train photo was taken digitally, unless I had a film image of the exact same scene. I'm sure someday soon digital will be good. And I really hope so! Film is so expensive!

BTW Ed, your photo was digital.

[edblysard]

If thats a standard accessory with a belt pack, I may change my mind about RCL. But I can promise you productivity will go way down. Of course, most other things will be way up.[:D]
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Well, I broke down and posted a photo...enjoy it guys...

LC

[edblysard]

If thats a standard accessory with a belt pack, I may change my mind about RCL. But I can promise you productivity will go way down. Of course, most other things will be way up.[:D]
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Well, I broke down and posted a photo...enjoy it guys...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

If thats a standard accessory with a belt pack, I may change my mind about RCL. But I can promise you productivity will go way down. Of course, most other things will be way up.[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

If thats a standard accessory with a belt pack, I may change my mind about RCL. But I can promise you productivity will go way down. Of course, most other things will be way up.[:D]