I posted the wrong finished picture. The final is the one below where I whitened the adults teeth and removed a red mark on the fathers face.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Giant Jim on May 09, 2020, 12:26:40 PM
Cleveland/Los Angeles Rams-The Cleveland Rams started out playing in what is known as the second American Football League in 1936. The first American Football League was organized by C. C. Pyle featuring Red Grange in 1926 and folded after one season. The Rams were scheduled to play for their league's championship that first season against the Boston Shamrocks. Boston's owner never paid the Rams for their regular season game earlier in Boston and also hadn't paid his players for several games. The Shamrock players refused to travel to Cleveland without being paid the money owed to them. Boston's owner announced to the press the game was canceled because of the weather without consulting with the league or the Rams. The Shamrocks were awarded the league championship due to their higher winning percentage. The game would've made the season profitable for the Rams. The Rams, feeling betrayed by Boston and the league, announced they were leaving the league and started negotiations to join the NFL. The NFL had been playing with an odd number(9) of teams for a few years, and Joe Carr, the commissioner, wanted a tenth team to have an even schedule. The Rams had the 2nd best winning percentage and were in better financial condition than most of the AFL. The Cleveland Rams were chosen and joined the NFL in 1937. After losing the Rams, the 2nd AFL folded before the end of its 2nd season.
Side note- The league wouldn't allow the Rams to move to Los Angles or Dallas until they threatened to leave the NFL. In 1945, as league champions, the NFL was afraid they'd join the AAFC which was starting its first season in 1946, giving the new league instant credibility so they allowed the Rams to move to prevent them from joining the new league.
Quote from: LennG on August 11, 2020, 04:57:39 PM
It is truly amazing what you can do Frank,
Serious kudos to you.
Quote from: LennG on August 09, 2020, 02:15:11 PM
I agree Frank, but I would attribute the decline in these cameras with the fact that phones and tablets have improved so much. For the average picture takers, a good phone will do the trick, They take remarkable pix when you consider people are using their phones. AND as the dinosaurs like us leave this planet, do we really think the younger gneration will spend the money on these type of cameras, unless they are truly serious into photography. There will always be a market for 'real' cameras' but it will get less and less as phones improve more and more.
When I ask some one to take a pix of me and the missus, I always look for someone with what I call a 'real' camera and not a phone. When I take pix I always look thru the eyepiece, as I'm sure you do also,. I have seen some people I have asked before, to take a pix of us, looking at the screen, not understanding that they have to look thru the eye piece and not even knowing where to look.
That's why I usually carry a tripod with me.
Quote from: LennG on August 09, 2020, 12:32:32 PM
Interesting about SONY. The only problem I see with that is you would have to use it as a secondary camera or go out and start buying a stock of lenses for it. I seriously doubt they would make a camera with an adapter to use other manufacturers lenses? That's why I stayed with a Canon, even when I went in for a Nikon, because I had a slew of lenses for a Canon and the money saved, there would be minimal difference between the Nikon and the Canon.
Quote from: Jim143 on August 08, 2020, 08:18:52 AM
I know the digital world has changed photography a lot. In the film based world, when I was shooting track meets or anything fast, I would use a faster speed film. In High School, all I knew was 400 iso. I have some good pictures of me pole vaulting (a friend who is now a professional photographer used my camera). I wish is still had it, but last day of senior year for the class two grades ahead of me, some of the guys with muscle cars decided to smoke the tires in the parking lot. I had a great black and white photo of an old GTO, smoke billowing off the back tires, yet the speed of the film stopped the tires to where you could read the white lettering on the tires.
In Japan, I learned that FujiFilm made 800 iso and I learned you could "push" it at higher speeds. I ran 800 iso, pushed to 1200 iso for Air Shows. Those were some great pictures that I wish I could find. They are in a box somewhere in the house. For closeups and portraits, 100 or 200 iso was the best.
So, my question - in the digital world, can you change the iso or does that even exist anymore? I am wondering because in the film world, I would push the iso for a clearer photo on the surfer. This is in NO way a slam on the picture. I know how hard it is to capture a moving target. And the distance from the shore to the wave, and him moving quickly, those are good pictures.
Quote from: LennG on August 07, 2020, 12:12:27 PM
Frank
I am with Ozzie on this, I LOVE the surfer pix. Just looking at it shows action color and just sets the mood. Do you have what the original looked like before you made it what it is? Just curious and I am simply amazed what one can do with pics with software and knowledge.