ness

Sale was from FDIC to a private entity. I don't think you'll see it published anywhere, but what do I know? I think it was listed at $5 million. I also stumbled onto a listing for WindRush at $5.8 million. Ain't gonna happen.

So, was this guy's reputation harmed so that it affected him? Or was he just uptight, looking to right a wrong and make a buck? You didn't mention his name....

Yellow strips? I see a lot of them.

You know Smallie, I know where you're coming from. There are definitely abuses within the process, but I don't see Al's example as one of them. This whole intellectual property thing is misunderstood by a lot of folks. If you make your living from creating things, and someone comes along and swipes it for their use, it's really stealing. Swiping one of the billion or so copies of the Loch Ness monster for an avatar is one thing; swiping a painting, applying it to a product you are selling is another thing. Al gave them a warning and they challenged him. So he stuck it to them. That's fair. Probably felt pretty good too, right Al?

Glad you ordered that. I don't know the Ed Story book, but the Tryon book is great. It's a good intro to fly fisning, and lays out most all the locations. Another book I really like, that is more geared toward small stream tactics, is Curtis Creek Manifesto. It's written in a comic book format, but don't think it's for kids. It has some of the best discussion of technique around, and the format is really helpful for making it stick. It's very concise, and heavily illustrated. Funny too.

The kevlar/epoxy kit Gavin mentioned will work on an Old Town too. And if it doesn't, all you're out is an Old Town Not a real hard project at all. They are tough!

No mistakes, just happy accidents

Firefox from mozilla.org -- watch your browser troubles melt away!

Have you got Fly Fishing for Trout in MO by Chuck Tryon? I think it's an excellent book with a lot of good information about locations in MO. A lot of the rules have changed, and some of the info on places to stay will have changed, but that shouldn't matter too much.

I've seen more the last couple years too. Also had a good pheasant season in NW MO this year. Didn't even go to western KS. I'm hopeful.

Clear that advertisement outta your signature bub. It's in EVERY post.

..and then there's that too.

What's been clear is that some folks have had it in for Ron for quite a while. It started with mockery and progressed all the way up to plain old nastiness, and it was pretty much non-stop. All along the way I was impressed with his calm responses. He's the good guy in all this.

Ron had some interesting ideas and techniques. I'm gonna miss learning from him.

I'd just add (and, I know you know this Matt), that it is art to be able to see a scene, be there at the right time, compose it correctly, expose it correctly, know what filter will enhance the scene, etc. I really try to get it right at the time of the shot. Most of my pp is cropping and the occasional exposure, contrast or saturation adjustment. The more you get away from the original, the more artifacts you end up with. I haven't used Photoshop in a few years -- most everything I want to accomplish is handled by a good capture, in RAW, with minor PP in Lightroom. You won't be surpised that I'm not a real fan of HDR, will you? MItch: I'd venture a guess that close to 100% of chicks in magazines are enhanced. Nobody wants to see yellow teeth, a zit, wrinkles, or hair on a girl's face.

Sorry to hear that Britts. Like they say, grief is the price we pay for love. I'm sure you've got a ton of great memories. Our oldest Brittany, Molly, is coming up on 11 and I really noticed her slowing down this year. Kinda hard to see.

Hmmm. Last thing I need is another book on the pile, but I may do this anyway. Or Netflix. Or both.

I live 15 minutes the other way. I agree on the tackle -- everything you need for fishing Minnesota, and most of what you need close to home. The gun library, and used gun sections suck me right in. Fly shop is just so-so.

I think that's been Photoshopped to make you look younger. Oh, and the EXIF info says you took it with a Nikon Coolpix S550 on June 12, 2011.

Flatlander means I can see far beyond what you ditch-dwellers can. Anyhoo -- if an old photo in a current report here is used to deceive the reader, it's clearly wrong. If it's to better tell the story of how the day went, well, that's a tad better -- but still questionable enough that I wouldn't do it here without disclosing it. It's pretty routine stuff in publications though.

You mean a report here? No journalistic integrity required to post on here. Using a fake name helps too.

New York Times, National Geographic, Time, Vanity Fair? George Eastman, Elton John, Alice Walton, Walt Disney, the Nelson and Kemper? Dang.

Some interesting thoughts. There isn't really a right answer on the original question. Most people assume photographs capture a 'real' image, but that's just not so. Neither film nor sensors can see as much in a scene as the human eye can. They just can't capture the very darkest and very lightest details. And the interpretation of color is never perfect. Since the beginning of photography people have grappled with these problems, and we still are. With film, you made and exposure and kinda had to live with it. You could tweak things when the print was made by varying the amount of light that hit the photographic paper. You could darken or lighten portions of the print by increasing the length of time light hit a certain part while shading another part with a mask, and vice versa. Different film types had different contrast and saturation properties. 'Kodachrome, gimme the nice bright colors...' was talking about just that. If you shot film, you could get a lot more saturation with that, or Fuji Velvia and Reala. If you shot under incandescent light, you bought another film, or suffered the yellow cast with no way to fix it after the shot. If you had your prints made, you likely had a machine try to adjust it to 'average' when it printed, rather than just take it as it saw the negative. And, remember, you had a meter tell you or your camera how to expose it anyway. Today's sensors are a huge leap forward. The dynamic range (range from darks to lights) are expanding. The sensitivity is increasing exponentially (The top of the line Nikon digitals get 125,000 ISO equivalent; I remember being excited with 400 film) The White Balance allows shooting in all kinds of light from sun to incandescent to sodium to florescent. Photographers have been doing things to make the picture look better all along. Not better than reality -- better than the technology could reproduce. Ansel Adams himself looked at the negative and the print as two separate processes, comparing the negative to a composers score, and the print to the performance. Sooo much room for interpretation in the 'performance'. Great photographers have many of the same skills of great artists. They know composition, pattern, light, color, all that stuff. A great photograph has the elements of a great painting. They are truly art. If you see a photograph and you kinda think, 'Wow' and it makes you want to look at it, you've encountered a great photograph. Whether it be a spectacular moment in time, a beautiful scene you wish you could step into, or anything else that stimulates emotion...that's art. When you understand what makes a great photograph, you appreciate it more. I see 'neat' stuff all the time...things that tickle that 'Wow' button. But, I know enough to see whether it's pure trickery (usually) or a dedicated photographer that put in the time to catch the subject at the perfect moment in time, compose it correctly and get the technical part right. The phony stuff usually exposes itself in one way or another. So, I'm fairly comfortable I can discern between a photoshop creation and a photograph. But not always! When you significantly alter the reality of a scene that is presented as reality, I think there's an obligation to disclose it. I would. But not everyone will -- and you should be a little skeptical if your brain tells you some photo is absolutely AMAZING!

I don't know the Falcon boxes -- may have to give them a look. Plano doesn't seem to be able to make a box with a good, durable latch that stays shut if you bump it around. Also, the boxes with moveable inserts aren't very well made. Dividers slip out of their slots and sometimes need trimming to make them fit. The lid doesn't fit snug down on top of the dividers, so loose hooks will slide over the top, stuff gets snagged, etc.

Sweet, in sooo many ways.