I didn't notice that you'd slagged anyone. However if you'd like...
I can't this is too good, technically you got the exposure right on.
There's good detail in the dog
which is very hard to do while keeping acceptable detail in the shadows,
which you also seem to
have achieved, (at least as
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:05:26 -0500, Peter J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't notice that you'd slagged anyone. However if you'd like...
I can't this is too good, technically you got the exposure right on.
There's good detail in the dog
which is very hard to do while keeping
.
Regardless of my nit picking, I like the photo.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11/4/2004 3:19:38 PM
Subject: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
Okay, the EE thing is a joke - it's actually somewhat blasphemous to
have
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
- Original Message -
From: Kenneth Waller
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
Wouldn't it make more sense to ban
(an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
- Original Message -
From: Kenneth Waller
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
I mean ban as in no driving privilege.
A fine/surcharge doesn't work.
Thats about the third step here.
Depends on the driving infraction.
William
Stenquist
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
Because irresponsible people have cross bred pit bulls to make them
vicious, ill-tempered fighting dogs. Perhaps that's not the case in
Canada, but it's true in the US. Yes, there are some good ones, but
they look exactly like
On 5/11/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
Statistics suggest that the proportion of dangerous pit bulls is quite
high, at least in some parts of the US. That is reason to be concerned.
The proportion of dangerous red sports cars is quite low.
Of course, you could maybe have a red
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
Statistics suggest that the proportion of dangerous pit bulls is
quite high, at least in some parts of the US. That is reason to be
concerned.
Sure, statistics can be made to say
William Robb wrote on 11/5/2004, 9:31 AM:
snip lots of things about dogs, etc
Thanks Bill. I was just composing something along the same lines no
need to send it now.
--
Christian
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Christian
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
William Robb wrote on 11/5/2004, 9:31 AM:
snip lots of things about dogs, etc
Thanks Bill. I was just composing something along the same
lines no
need to send it now.
Yer welcome
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
Statistics suggest that the proportion of dangerous pit bulls is
quite high, at least in some parts of the US
Yes, and it's done frequently and in many jurisdictions. Too many moving
violations or accidents and one's license is suspended or revoked.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wouldn't it make more sense to ban the people who ruin dogs rather
than the dogs
frank theriault wrote:
Okay, the EE thing is a joke - it's actually somewhat blasphemous to
have a photo of mine mentioned in the same breath as The Master, but
who better to blaspheme but me? vbg.
Comments are always welcome - indeed, they are encouraged. Here's the
chance for everyone
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:30:08 -0500, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank,
I would probably have cropped this a bit tighter as I don't feel the rest
of what is shown in the image really adds.
If a dog can look sad that one surely does.
Thanks for your thoughts, Ken,
If I were
Wow! Huge improvement. The image is now much more compelling in my
opinion. You still get the feeling of the two men ignoring the rather
unfortunate dog, and the dog is now much more dominant. I liked it
before. I love it now.
Paul
On Nov 5, 2004, at 4:16 PM, frank theriault wrote:
On Thu, 4
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:22:43 -0500, Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, You know I gotta love this one, Frank :)
EE probably would like it too
I never saw a more forlorn looking pitbull and he probably is a sweet dog.
Thank you, Ann. I appreciate your thoughts. He seemed
I did a couple of QD adjustments on Frank's pic ... the differences
between the two adjusted pics may be subtle, but they do exist. I didn't
try to do anything but open up the shadows and tone down the fried
highlights and put a little more detail into the dog.
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:36:53 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did a couple of QD adjustments on Frank's pic ... the differences
between the two adjusted pics may be subtle, but they do exist. I didn't
try to do anything but open up the shadows and tone down the fried
highlights
QD = Quick and Dirty
Shel
[Original Message]
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did a couple of QD adjustments on Frank's pic ... the differences
between the two adjusted pics may be subtle, but they do exist. I
didn't
try to do anything but open up
- Original Message -
From: Kenneth Waller
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
Wouldn't it make more sense to ban the people who ruin dogs rather
than the dogs themselves?
Using the car/accident analogy, wouldn't it also make more sense to
ban the people
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:01:38 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QD = Quick and Dirty
LOL!!
And here I thought you were using some PS lingo or something... vbg
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
PS means what? LOL
Shel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QD = Quick and Dirty
LOL!!
And here I thought you were using some PS lingo or something... vbg
frank theriault wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:30:08 -0500, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank,
I would probably have cropped this a bit tighter as I don't feel the rest
of what is shown in the image really adds.
If a dog can look sad that one surely does.
Thanks for your
PhotoShop
On Nov 5, 2004, at 7:23 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
PS means what? LOL
Shel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QD = Quick and Dirty
LOL!!
And here I thought you were using some PS lingo or something... vbg
Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott
Erwitt)
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:30:08 -0500, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Frank,
I would probably have cropped this a bit tighter as I don't feel the
rest
of what is shown in the image really adds.
If a dog can look sad that one surely does
I mean ban as in no driving privilege.
A fine/surcharge doesn't work.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
- Original
William Robb wrote:
Perhaps little red sports cars were a bad analogy. lets just pick
cars in general. Statistically, they are very dangerous. They kill
lots of people, and should probably be banned (using yhe logic you
have presented).
Not banned, but perhaps people should only be allowed to
- Original Message -
From: Kenneth Waller
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
I mean ban as in no driving privilege.
A fine/surcharge doesn't work.
Thats about the third step here.
Depends on the driving infraction.
William Robb
Paul Stenquist wrote:
PhotoShop
On Nov 5, 2004, at 7:23 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
PS means what? LOL
Shel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QD = Quick and Dirty
LOL!!
And here I thought you were using some PS lingo or something... vbg
What about LOL ???
I thought PS meant
Okay, the EE thing is a joke - it's actually somewhat blasphemous to
have a photo of mine mentioned in the same breath as The Master, but
who better to blaspheme but me? vbg.
Comments are always welcome - indeed, they are encouraged. Here's the
chance for everyone who I slagged critiquing this
Nice shot. Good to see that puppy is muzzled. I like the composition
and the framing.
Paul
On Nov 4, 2004, at 6:15 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Okay, the EE thing is a joke - it's actually somewhat blasphemous to
have a photo of mine mentioned in the same breath as The Master, but
who better to
: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11/4/2004 3:19:38 PM
Subject: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
Okay, the EE thing is a joke - it's actually somewhat blasphemous to
have a photo of mine mentioned in the same breath as The Master, but
who
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
Good to see that puppy is muzzled.
Ummm, why?
William Robb
, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: PAW:
White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
Good to see that puppy is muzzled.
Ummm, why?
William Robb
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:42:06 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Frank ...
This is a pretty good shot in that I think you captured the dog quite
nicely. It might be a more powerful photo if you moved in a bit closer,
framed a bit tighter, shot from a slightly lower vantage
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
Because irresponsible people have cross bred pit bulls to make them
vicious, ill-tempered fighting dogs. Perhaps that's not the case in
Canada, but it's true in the US. Yes
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault
Subject: Re: PAW: White Pitbull (an hommage to Elliott Erwitt)
I am somewhat frustrated that I can't seem to get my scans to look
like the print.
Perhaps you need to make prints that work better on a scanner.
It's not necessarily a given
Hi Bill,
Your point is well taken, but I was able to make major adjustments to
Frank's scanned image. Lots of information was in the scan. IMO, Frank
may need greater proficiency with Photoshop more than he needs to adjust
the print to get better scans.
Shel
[Original Message]
From:
Hi Frank,
The details you mention are in the scanned image. Without even knowing
what to look for, just by opening up the tonal range a bit, mostly the
shadows, pretty much all your complaints with the scan disappeared. I've
found that a lot of fine detail gets lost when reducing the size of a
39 matches
Mail list logo
