TTQ B4U

...off to go put my empty Coffee Can in the middle of Sawmill Rd. BRB.

Joshua, first off, great shot. I really like it. The expression on the dads face is great too. Wholesome and proud. I like it. The image overall didn't need a whole lot and honestly there are so many variables involved in adjusting such an image you'll get a number of different opinions. 98% of people out there have monitors running a standard profile thus colors will never be perfect for them. Reds are very subjective too. I think in the version you were working on, what you were seeing in the reds was the impact of the Gold Reflector. I normally use silver only and warm up my images with white balance adjustments. The only technical point I would suggest is to download the DOF guide to your phone. I use mine all the time. Full frame MKII's will quickly show you how shallow f/4 is on a full frame, thus why mom is sharp and father and son are slightly blurred. You were at 35mm. Next time step back and shoot them at 70-100mm range. That will isolate them allowing for a really nice bokeh, compensate for the f/4 limitation of your lens and give you the depth of focus to get them all tack sharp. The subjects will really pop and the background will fade. Examples from a 1.3 crop factor (not quite full frame even) Here's one shot at 100mm http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/130320812/original Here's one shot at 200mm http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/128685207/original Here's what I did with your shot: Horizon Adjusted to straight Exposure in sky no longer clipped and Shadows Adjusted the same Color balance corrected Several Distracting background features removed Full size image shows minor skin tone adjustments Full size image will show catch-lights added and removal of gold reflector Let me know your thoughts and if there are any other adjustments you would like. If it's not at all what you're looking for, tell me that too I'll email you back the full size version next with a secret tip on portraits too. http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/140322264/original.jpg

Will have to modify for correct aspect ratio depending the page size: Request for April 2012: April 28 is Astronomy Day and I thought this would be a cool shot for it http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/133620899/original.jpg or Request for January 2012 I reserve the right to edit exposure for a brighter/mid-day appearance vs actual image below http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/121707455/original.jpg Now if we could just get a decent snowfall, I would fire up a couple cameras and have at it.

If they can power a huge chunk of metal for decades then why the fuck are we still filling up our gas tanks every week. It's a rhetorical question....stand down. First in line for Alien porn.

because I can.

Are you trying to push religious beliefs off on us? Look out the Agnostic and Atheist police are coming for you....

Start here: http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94171 Triple Play stopped :gabe:

^^ this.

IMO he has a right to be pissed. Hopefully he applied for copyright and can go after them legally.

I like it! I'm still disappointed GM stopped making them and the Saturn Sky.

Part of the reason it's not looking right here is that you need to convert your image to sRGB for web display. You have this one displayed using Adobe RGB (1998) and it's going to look muted. You'll get in debates rivaling the Ford Chevy when it comes to discussing color space, but I stand by the fact that unless you are printing at home in a controlled environment or using a lab that will use your color profile then use sRGB as your color space. Also if you don't have a calibrated printer, to match your monitor, shoot in sRGB. Happy to help. PM me the RAW. I'll also adjust the sky that appears clipped and the blacks that are ever so slightly clipped. FWIW, while I love Canon bodies and how they capture colors, reds are their weak point if you must point out one. Happy to help. PM me the RAW. timothylauro@yahoo.com

Nearly empty bottle of Jack, Brown Overalls and a granny....man, no one parties like you. Check out the guy in the red jersey behind you. He looks like he's taking a bet that you were going to tap granny. :gabe:

Here too :gabe:

True You make some pretty big assumptions on why the family is pursuing another child. Funny thing is back even just 1-2 generations large families like this were not so odd. My father has 11 siblings and my wifes father is 1 of 18. Two completely different families that couldn't be more polar opposites in just about every way. This goes back to the 1930's and things were just fine. Again, pretty big assumptions and likely true for the "average" family. However, again, look at this family; they are pretty strong and put together. These kids are being mentally tortured. They actually understand quite well. Her reasons are exactly that, hers. And for someone such as yourself that doesn't like others to push their religious and personal thoughts onto you, you sure don't mind doing so in a pretty outspoken way right back. The irony here is strong. So they aren't normal because they put faith into the mix, yet they are obviously doing extremely well financially, have what appears to be a pretty close and strong family and give back to the community while balancing and supporting the tradition practices of medicine and yet they are the ones who are morons? Wow, I'm glad so many here are doing doing so much better then the Duggars. I'm fucking lucky to be among such a famed few. I would lay odds that mom has a far better understanding of biology, especially as it relates to child birth than you or anyone here outside a couple in the medical field.

I'm still confused. Just a few posts ago you said you have no problem with people choosing to have 19 kids. Now your saying they should have the typical 2.5 kids; numerically speaking You said that your problem was with morons who think God is grabbing hold if the husband's shaft and deciding, "Yes, yes, I shall bless them with another child!" I'm cool with your thinking people of faith are morans....that's your opinion and again, I don't care. It's when you stated raise a normal family, that's where I disagree with how you define normal. If they can afford 19 kids and raise them well (which knowing what I do, i stand by original statement that they could likely teach everyone a few things), it seems to me they are doing just fine. If you call normal not having a faith of any kind and calling those who do morons, their God a Fairy Weirdo and that people should all just live average lives numerically speaking in terms of the number of children they should foster, then I would say you and I have a difference of opinion on the definition of a "normal" family. I'm fine with that difference. Just was clarifying your definition of normal is all.

You're right, you could shell out $5k and the other side could continue to fight and keep you in court for weeks on end. Don't blame your attorney though as they have no control over what the other side is going to do and how much money they are will to spend to tie you up in attorney's fees on your end. Happens all the time, thus yes, many cases go on for years. In all fairness, attorney's don't take your money. They bill you for their time / services they provide. They can't put a limit on how much time it's going to take as they have very little control over the variables involved. Again, your situation isn't a simple case. Custody battles are tough, when you're not the legal parent it's even more difficult mix it up with a colorful history and an opposition that is combative in a number of ways including in the court system and the question isn't how much you should have in the bank, it's whether you're willing to do whatever it takes to win. No one can tell you a number. I've literally seen such cases go upwards of $40k in one year. I wouldn't say the number one concern is to make money. Is running an efficient successful business wrong? No. Is making money the number one concern? No. My wife and I operate on the belief that you do what you love and be the best you can be and stand for something. Do that and run a business wisely and the money will follow. Money isn't the why we do what we do, it's what comes from doing it well. She runs her practice with the best interest of her clients in mind. Kids normally trump parents as honestly, in most of her cases, parents fight to fight and usually over money and emotion but it's rare the litmus test ever shows the child's best interest. They say one thing have good intent, but their actions don't always match. Manual labor is way different than practicing law. Thus the reason fee agreements are structured as they are. Scope creep is a way of life as a lawyer. Nothing is ever cut and dry in family law. I've yet to see a family lawyer do much of anything but a simple dissolution for a flat-fee. Custody and divorce cases are always per hour. In the fields there aren't as many variables and even with those that exist, it rarely ever takes as long to complete a task as it can for a lawyer. I've seen cases go on years. My advice is to then take your mind and focus off the costs and look at what really drives the lawyer tempering things with the fact that they run a business within the law. Emotions for them can't be allowed into their world. What you're seeing in terms of charging is again, their business. All costs are passed on to the client. Normal. Same is done in any business, it's just more transparent in the legal system. It would be a foolish move to do otherwise. My parting advice is beware of a lawyer who leads with hopes of doing things on the cheap. Hourly fees may be low, but if they promise hours involved will be xxx and use that to lure you... run. Further insight would be to find an attorney who actually has experiences in your type of case in the county where it's being tried. She likely was caught off guard with how things are done in Union County. That one issue wouldn't likely have changed your position if you did know about it (from what you say) in all honesty, you can't say then really fault the attorney for costs involved. Good luck.

really? you read that much into my question No care. I Still would like to know what you call normal. I suppose is calling any God or faith a fairy weirdo. what else makes up your normal?

what's normal? fucked up average like everyone else in America? IMO they are way ahead of that.

That is cool as shit. Huge and damn strong.

Less mosquitoes in those trees to spread disease. Sounds good to me. If you're there, just stay the fuck out of the trees.

meh....at least they aren't on welfare and seem to be raising a decent small business. Prolly could teach 99.9% of the population a thing or two about raising kids.

Miracle on 34th Street. ...hey, 'tis the season.

Not sure I follow. I have no issues with youtube or vimeo on the ipad or iphone.

Understanding that the original scan is not available, I worked with what I had. As explained in email, it's best to leave the texture if you don't have access to the original whereby it can be properly removed. Otherwise, any use of NR will just further blur details and not truly accomplish the goal. The texture is also indicative of the era and IMO adds to the look of the image, even in a restoration setting whereby the effects of time and yellowing are corrected. This image looks to have been kept in a good album. This was a very good image and scan. I'll email you the version I enlarged to print a good 5x7. I test printed a 4x6 with ease. Here's a Before and After Comparison http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/140274925/original.jpg

Here's an example of removing the repeated frequency spectrum present in this image. Results could be like this or better. I won't know until I can see the original. http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/140273793/original.jpg Here's an even better example. http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/136477038/original.jpg