[SI] My observations and ramblings

Tully Albrecht:
At first I though this was an asparagus stalk! The image itself whilst
being technically correct doesn't do anything for me. The rendered
wall behind it is more a distraction than a complementary image
component.

Michelo:
This a good example of how to draw a person's attention whilst
entertaining them with the whole image. The grain is a component of
the image, without it I doubt there would be enough drama.
Congratulations.

Mike Benveniste:
My father told me long ago if you have nothing constructive to say,
say nothing.

The Dave:
Partial flowers have - put bluntly, been done to death. I would have
liked this one based on it's colours had the rose been more clearly
focused. There is plenty of time with static objects to shoot multiple
shots for DOF problems. As it is, nice try but just misses my
attention.

Paul Campbell:
I'm not sure what you thought with this one. Sunflower pictures
attract your eve with vibrancy if the yellow is over a blue sky. This
image leaves me looking for something (anything) in the blocked area
of the centre. Sometimes images which frustrate the viewer can be
extraordinarily popular. Not for me this time but don't give up. There
is promise there somewhere.

Jim Kramer:
It wasn't until I saw the "IR" after the camera model I realized
exactly what it was. If this was you plan, it succeeded. I would have
liked to have seen some discipline in the composition but it is
unusual, that's for sure.

Douglas MacDonald: (me)
Whilst photographing canvas prints left over from last year with a
view to selling them at a discount, I took the time to reflect on this
one. Frangapanni's are a quite difficult to photograph in one shot
and get detail in the highlights to show the texture of the petals.
This is a sort of HDR image where I merged two images and used the
erase tool to selectively delete unwanted stuff from the darker image.

Paul Furman:
Too much of this image is out of focus for me to make any constructive
comments.

Doug

"Cryptopix" wrote in message
...


Michelo:
This a good example of how to draw a person's attention whilst
entertaining them with the whole image. The grain is a component of
the image, without it I doubt there would be enough drama.
Congratulations.


Thanks, you gave favorable review to my last two participations to the
shooting.

But I'm not sure if it's a good sign or not, considering how your "friends"
repeatedly bash at your work. :-)

Thanks for commenting.

Michel

On Jan 24, 10:30 pm, "michelo" wrote:
"Cryptopix" wrote in message

...



Michelo:
This a good example of how to draw a person's attention whilst
entertaining them with the whole image. The grain is a component of
the image, without it I doubt there would be enough drama.
Congratulations.

Thanks, you gave favorable review to my last two participations to the
shooting.

But I'm not sure if it's a good sign or not, considering how your "friends"
repeatedly bash at your work. :-)

Thanks for commenting.

Michel
--------------

I'll let you into a secret Michel...
Whenever "the friends" make negative comments about my photos... The
paying public demonstrate a totally different opinion. These payers
are my masters, not the clowns who think "Critique" makes better
photographers. A critique is a systematic inquiry into the conditions
and consequences of a concept or set of concepts, and an attempt to
understand its limitations. Sadly when the limitations are those who
who claim to be critics, the whole thing falls apart!


Mark Thomas (if that 's his name today) remarked that this photo on my
home page http://www.douglasjames.com.au/ was "gorgeous" when I first
showed it to the "friends". I've sold 3 prints in 2 years!.

The same self opinionated clown said of a photo I took of pelicans on
poles at sunset (for the 2007 Stradbroke Island Calendar). "Totally
inappropriate use of flash" suggesting at the same time my lack of
photographic ability ruined the picture! ROTFL. I've sold over 30
canvas prints of that picture, the last one (damaged) from my
traveling exhibition was sold on eBay for $350.

Basically Michel, my belief is that the "friends" who target me are
unable to demonstrate any skills, ability with a camera or
qualifications of their own that might give them some credibility when
they attack a (qualified) working professional. Shootin was originally
created by a Pro photographer trying to keep this group alive. Now
it's something quite the opposite.

I commented on the Shootin line-up based on it's artistic merit. Where
I found none, I said nothing. My "friends" as you put it have a need
to force feed you and anyone else who will read their drivel about how
intelligent they are, how well educated they are in English spelling
and how fantastic they believe their photography is... THEY SEEK YOUR
APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE. When they don't get it, they revert to the
idiots they always were.

I'll remember to leave out any mention of your photos in future
comments.

Douglas

On Jan 25, 10:48 am, Cryptopix wrote:
Mark Thomas (if that 's his name today) remarked that this photo on my
home pagehttp://www.douglasjames.com.au/was "gorgeous" when I first
showed it to the "friends". I've sold 3 prints in 2 years!.

Would you mind posting a link to where I said that, Douglas?

Cryptopix wrote:
On Jan 24, 10:30 pm, "michelo" wrote:
"Cryptopix" wrote in message

...



Michelo:
This a good example of how to draw a person's attention whilst
entertaining them with the whole image. The grain is a component of
the image, without it I doubt there would be enough drama.
Congratulations.
Thanks, you gave favorable review to my last two participations to the
shooting.

But I'm not sure if it's a good sign or not, considering how your "friends"
repeatedly bash at your work. :-)

Thanks for commenting.

Michel
--------------

I'll let you into a secret Michel...
Whenever "the friends" make negative comments about my photos... The
paying public demonstrate a totally different opinion. These payers
are my masters, not the clowns who think "Critique" makes better
photographers. A critique is a systematic inquiry into the conditions
and consequences of a concept or set of concepts, and an attempt to
understand its limitations. Sadly when the limitations are those who
who claim to be critics, the whole thing falls apart!


Mark Thomas (if that 's his name today) remarked that this photo on my
home page http://www.douglasjames.com.au/ was "gorgeous" when I first
showed it to the "friends". I've sold 3 prints in 2 years!.

Wow, that many hey.


The same self opinionated clown said of a photo I took of pelicans on
poles at sunset (for the 2007 Stradbroke Island Calendar). "Totally
inappropriate use of flash" suggesting at the same time my lack of
photographic ability ruined the picture! ROTFL. I've sold over 30
canvas prints of that picture, the last one (damaged) from my
traveling exhibition was sold on eBay for $350.

Link?


Basically Michel, my belief is that the "friends" who target me are
unable to demonstrate any skills, ability with a camera or
qualifications of their own that might give them some credibility when
they attack a (qualified) working professional.

I have never used a camera except for the one on my phone when I am on
the beach and see tits.

Shootin was originally
created by a Pro photographer trying to keep this group alive. Now
it's something quite the opposite.

I commented on the Shootin line-up based on it's artistic merit. Where
I found none, I said nothing. My "friends" as you put it have a need
to force feed you and anyone else who will read their drivel about how
intelligent they are, how well educated they are in English spelling
and how fantastic they believe their photography is... THEY SEEK YOUR
APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE. When they don't get it, they revert to the
idiots they always were.

I'll remember to leave out any mention of your photos in future
comments.

Douglas

On Jan 25, 11:21 am, wrote:
On Jan 25, 10:48 am, Cryptopix wrote:

Mark Thomas (if that 's his name today) remarked that this photo on my
home pagehttp://www.douglasjames.com.au/was"gorgeous" when I first
showed it to the "friends". I've sold 3 prints in 2 years!.

Would you mind posting a link to where I said that, Douglas?

Ho hum... You are the one with the Google research skills. Telling
everyone how good you are in tracking down my aliases.
Go find it yourself or can you not type: "containing gorgeous" and
your name as the poster?

On Jan 25, 11:21 am, wrote:
On Jan 25, 10:48 am, Cryptopix wrote:

Mark Thomas (if that 's his name today) remarked that this photo on my
home pagehttp://www.douglasjames.com.au/was"gorgeous" when I first
showed it to the "friends". I've sold 3 prints in 2 years!.

Would you mind posting a link to where I said that, Douglas?

Not at all. Only a total ****wit would have such a poor memory they
can't recall a complement to someone they've been **** canning for
years

...after about 5 minutes of looking through your bull**** - and there
is plenty of it too- I came up with this little gem...



View profile
More options May 28 2007, 8:54 pm
Newsgroups: aus.photo, rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From:
Date: 28 May 2007 03:54:52 -0700
Local: Mon, May 28 2007 8:54 pm
Subject: Photo for 27th May 2007


Mmmm. It's goooorgeous!! /O:

Me.. I would probably have made at least a token effort to get the
horizon level, cropped it a little differently to either include or
exclude the half-trees (Dougie doesn't crop, of course, but I can't
help thinking that a more interesting scene awaited by getting closer
to 'Sirocco'...), waited for a day with a more interesting sunset/
rise, and perhaps been a bit more selective about how many things I
included in one photo...
----------

Hey loser... Figured out yet that the Trans Australian STANDARD GAUGE
rail line wasn't finished in 1917?

Gezzz mate, you got one idiot too many in that vacant space between
your ears.
If you had half a brain you'd remember what you said, when you said it
and to whom.
As it is, I'd reckon it'd be a hazard if you nodded your head.

Off topic.

On Jan 25, 3:16 pm, Cryptopix wrote:
Go find it yourself or can you not type: "containing gorgeous" and
your name as the poster?

Why did you say this, and then post it? Are you insane or senile?

Off topic.

On Jan 25, 3:50 pm, Cryptopix wrote:
On Jan 25, 11:21 am, wrote:

On Jan 25, 10:48 am, Cryptopix wrote:

Mark Thomas (if that 's his name today) remarked that this photo on my
home pagehttp://www.douglasjames.com.au/was"gorgeous" when I first
showed it to the "friends". I've sold 3 prints in 2 years!.

Would you mind posting a link to where I said that, Douglas?

Not at all. Only a total ****wit would have such a poor memory they
can't recall a complement to someone they've been **** canning for
years

You seriously think the following was a complement (sic)? Too funny.
And *I'm* a f***-wit?

...after about 5 minutes of looking through your bull**** - and there
is plenty of it too- I came up with this little gem...

Got one for you below, too... (O; Seems nuthin' changes..

Mmmm. It's goooorgeous!! /O:

Gee, Doug. If I had searched on 'gorgeous' like you told me, I might
not have found it.

Me.. I would probably have made at least a token effort to get the
horizon level, cropped it a little differently to either include or
exclude the half-trees (Dougie doesn't crop, of course, but I can't
help thinking that a more interesting scene awaited by getting closer
to 'Sirocco'...), waited for a day with a more interesting sunset/
rise, and perhaps been a bit more selective about how many things I
included in one photo...

If it was me, I'd have spotted the sarcasm, and NOT been stupid enough
to post this as an endorsement. Here, let me explain:

1. If you see "goooorgeous!!" followed by a wry smilie, it is probably
being said in... sarcasm.
2. If you then see criticism of the crooked horizon, the bad cropping
and the boring light, then it is *almost certain* that it was said in
sarcasm. If still in doubt, why not ask the poster? here, let me..

Q. Mark, did you say "goooorgeous" in sarcasm?
A. Yes.

Q. Mark, would someone claiming that as a 'compliment' be a lying
******?
A. Yes.

Anything else I can help you with, Doug?

By the way, what happened to all those threats...? Many of us are
still waiting, including this guy, from 2001:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/bn...69720dbbcdb95e

I notice during that thread, way back in 2001, you posted as several
folk, including Alienjones, Pseudo Puppet, and Juliana. Is Juliana
the love child of Julian and Sarina/Susana?

(O:

On Jan 25, 5:53 pm, wrote:
Off topic.

On Jan 25, 3:50 pm, Cryptopix wrote:

On Jan 25, 11:21 am, wrote:

On Jan 25, 10:48 am, Cryptopix wrote:

Mark Thomas (if that 's his name today) remarked that this photo on my
home pagehttp://www.douglasjames.com.au/was"gorgeous" when I first
showed it to the "friends". I've sold 3 prints in 2 years!.

Would you mind posting a link to where I said that, Douglas?

Not at all. Only a total ****wit would have such a poor memory they
can't recall a complement to someone they've been **** canning for
years

You seriously think the following was a complement (sic)? Too funny.
And *I'm* a f***-wit?

...after about 5 minutes of looking through your bull**** - and there
is plenty of it too- I came up with this little gem...

Got one for you below, too... (O; Seems nuthin' changes..

Mmmm. It's goooorgeous!! /O:

Gee, Doug. If I had searched on 'gorgeous' like you told me, I might
not have found it.

Me.. I would probably have made at least a token effort to get the
horizon level, cropped it a little differently to either include or
exclude the half-trees (Dougie doesn't crop, of course, but I can't
help thinking that a more interesting scene awaited by getting closer
to 'Sirocco'...), waited for a day with a more interesting sunset/
rise, and perhaps been a bit more selective about how many things I
included in one photo...

If it was me, I'd have spotted the sarcasm, and NOT been stupid enough
to post this as an endorsement. Here, let me explain:

1. If you see "goooorgeous!!" followed by a wry smilie, it is probably
being said in... sarcasm.
2. If you then see criticism of the crooked horizon, the bad cropping
and the boring light, then it is *almost certain* that it was said in
sarcasm. If still in doubt, why not ask the poster? here, let me..

Q. Mark, did you say "goooorgeous" in sarcasm?
A. Yes.

Q. Mark, would someone claiming that as a 'compliment' be a lying
******?
A. Yes.

Anything else I can help you with, Doug?

By the way, what happened to all those threats...? Many of us are
still waiting, including this guy, from 2001:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/bn...m/thread/53697...

I notice during that thread, way back in 2001, you posted as several
folk, including Alienjones, Pseudo Puppet, and Juliana. Is Juliana
the love child of Julian and Sarina/Susana?

(O:

Who the **** is Juliana?