Olympus Point and Shoot out performs DSLRs

On Nov 15, 7:34 pm, John Navas wrote:

Also, the camera clearly does NOT take pics like that since it was a
stitched panorama. ...

Nothing inconsistent there either -- stitching doesn't mean it wasn't
taken with that camera.

Like I said, that camera cannot take pics like that.
He should have written, "Here's a stitched photo I made from my old
Olympus a few years ago." That would have been honest.
Instead, he implies that the photo in questuion was taken with a 4-
year old camera.

My point of this nitpicking is simply to reiterate that the truth
ain't in him.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:01:30 -0800 (PST), -hh
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
-hh wrote:
[supposedly, the EXIF data of the image in question]

...
Exif Image Width = 2048
Exif Image Height = 1536

Gosh, its pretty trivial to see that the image online is only 720 x
369.

Thus, your claimed EXIF data (that's not from the posted image) fails
to match the posted image by an incredibly wide margin. Golly, gee -
how can this be?

Elementary my dear Watson -- EXIF data from an original image from which
a smaller resized image has been made for posting while retaining
original EXIF data. Some (not all) image resizing tools work that way.
You didn't know that?

The work was in Photoshop - - which defaults to amending the EXIF when
resizing.

How could you possibly know that?

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:09:36 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
wrote in
:

On Nov 15, 7:34 pm, John Navas wrote:

Also, the camera clearly does NOT take pics like that since it was a
stitched panorama. ...

Nothing inconsistent there either -- stitching doesn't mean it wasn't
taken with that camera.

Like I said, that camera cannot take pics like that.
He should have written, "Here's a stitched photo I made from my old
Olympus a few years ago." That would have been honest.
Instead, he implies that the photo in questuion was taken with a 4-
year old camera.

My point of this nitpicking is simply to reiterate that the truth
ain't in him.

With all due respect, it's just meaningless hairsplitting that proves
nothing.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:09:36 -0800, Annika1980 wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:34 pm, John Navas wrote:

Also, the camera clearly does NOT take pics like that since it was a
stitched panorama. ...

Nothing inconsistent there either -- stitching doesn't mean it wasn't
taken with that camera.

Like I said, that camera cannot take pics like that. He should have
written, "Here's a stitched photo I made from my old Olympus a few years
ago." That would have been honest. Instead, he implies that the photo
in questuion was taken with a 4- year old camera.

My point of this nitpicking is simply to reiterate that the truth ain't
in him.

Now, now Bret. Just because you can't take pictures like that with your
toy is no reason to go getting yourself all flustered. It;s the end
result people see, not the work in progress. Like you never steal my
photos and paste porn images into them, do you?

Just because I post a picture you can't take, is no reason to get huffy
when I didn't ask your permission to join frame P1010023 and P1010024
together.

Take a quick gander at your efforts from last year and earlier this year.
http://www.annika1980.com You really are jealously facinated with me,
aren't you? Maybe when you get around to figuring out what makes a photo
into wall art, you'll recognize that I create art from my photos and do
it for a living. You never did grasp that part of it, did you? Art I mean.

It's a funny thing Bret. When you paste stuff from one of your pathetic
shots into your "Pbase version", it means zilch to you but when I paste
1/3rd of a frame into the following frame to complete the shot, it's
cheating? Go cry to your mommy child. This is the real world here.

It sort of reminds me of when you got your nackers in a twist over this
pictu http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au...bay-print1.htm
because I'd folded 15% of the left side out to make it more interesting.

What amused me was you completely missed the opportunity to get in a few
digs on the real work of art... The one I made from *SIX* seperate images.
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au...bay-print3.htm

Not only have these two "photoshoped images" sold out from the first
edition but the gorge is currently being printed as I write ...on
wallpaper! It will cover a 15 feet wide by 8 feet high wall and... have
all the resolution you'd expect from half a dozen 5D images stitched
together! Even your dodo mate Mark couldn't resist commenting it was a
"halfway decent seascape". ROTFL.

You really do look smart in the court jester outfit Bret! LOL

Keep it up mate, I'll lift the beat next time so you won't have to diet
off all those donuts and double choc malts... That'll be fun, eh?

Douglas
--
If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any!

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:22:58 +1100, The Vintage Monk wrote:

wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:50 am, Douglas wrote:
You are right about the camera. I havent used it for a while and
fuddled the numbers.
Typical.


Blown highlights are not the exclusive domain of P&S cameras. There
were 2, 25 watt globes lighting the cabin but outside it was "sunny
16". No camera or film could capture that EV range... Thus the
portholes are blown... Sort of fitting for an old warship!
The problem area is the friggin' area around the *lamp*, you twit.

I am a little confused, a few days ago Dogless said he had blocked me
and my two bully troll friends, at first I thought he meant you and
Atheist but in the last 3 days he has replied to everyone in this group.

I have a feeling Douglas MacDonald, the worlds biggest usenet bully
against woman, is a bit of a liar.

Oh Monk(ey)...
How could I stay away, knowing what you were doing to yourself in my
absence? Just collecting evidence monk.

Douglas



--
If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any!

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:01:30 -0800 (PST), -hh
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
-hh wrote:
[supposedly, the EXIF data of the image in question]

...
Exif Image Width = 2048
Exif Image Height = 1536

Gosh, its pretty trivial to see that the image online is only 720 x
369.

Thus, your claimed EXIF data (that's not from the posted image) fails
to match the posted image by an incredibly wide margin. Golly, gee -
how can this be?

Elementary my dear Watson -- EXIF data from an original image from which
a smaller resized image has been made for posting while retaining
original EXIF data. Some (not all) image resizing tools work that way.
You didn't know that?

The work was in Photoshop - - which defaults to amending the EXIF when
resizing.

How could you possibly know that?


LOL

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:09:36 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
wrote in
:

On Nov 15, 7:34 pm, John Navas wrote:

Also, the camera clearly does NOT take pics like that since it was a
stitched panorama. ...

Nothing inconsistent there either -- stitching doesn't mean it wasn't
taken with that camera.

Like I said, that camera cannot take pics like that.
He should have written, "Here's a stitched photo I made from my old
Olympus a few years ago." That would have been honest.
Instead, he implies that the photo in questuion was taken with a 4-
year old camera.

My point of this nitpicking is simply to reiterate that the truth
ain't in him.

With all due respect, it's just meaningless hairsplitting that proves
nothing.

Completely different to your hair splitting posts of course!!

Douglas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:22:58 +1100, The Vintage Monk wrote:

wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:50 am, Douglas wrote:
You are right about the camera. I havent used it for a while and
fuddled the numbers.
Typical.


Blown highlights are not the exclusive domain of P&S cameras. There
were 2, 25 watt globes lighting the cabin but outside it was "sunny
16". No camera or film could capture that EV range... Thus the
portholes are blown... Sort of fitting for an old warship!
The problem area is the friggin' area around the *lamp*, you twit.
I am a little confused, a few days ago Dogless said he had blocked me
and my two bully troll friends, at first I thought he meant you and
Atheist but in the last 3 days he has replied to everyone in this group.

I have a feeling Douglas MacDonald, the worlds biggest usenet bully
against woman, is a bit of a liar.

Oh Monk(ey)...
How could I stay away, knowing what you were doing to yourself in my
absence?

Oh ****wit, In your absence I was making a list of the names you use. Up
to 1756 now.

Just collecting evidence monk.


Oh no I am so scared, I spoke to my mate at the courthouse today and you
addressing me as Monkey gives me right to call you a ****wit, well she
used a word starting with C but after some laughter we settled with ****wit


Douglas
#1 cyber girl basher on the net

On Nov 16, 7:46 am, John Navas wrote:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/captains-cabin.htm
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/panasonic-red.htm

Broken links, at the moment. (Which is probably a good thing.)

Using professional web-hosting for these sites, OP? Maybe you should
ask for your money back.

Those links have worked every time I've tried them.
And how *exactly* does that prove they were working when I checked?
And how *exactly* does that prove they were working when Pete D had
the same problem:

Newsgroups: aus.photo, rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Pete D"
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:50:49 +1100
Local: Wed, Nov 14 2007 6:50 pm
Subject: More Panasonic P&S perfection

Sorry but you don't seem to exist!
Server not found
Firefox can't find the server at www.douglasjames.com.au.

Oh look, "evidence". Can you see that it wasn't just me?

You seem to be the only one.
Oh, really? So I guess that thing above was just my imagination.
Shall I post the exact link? Do you want another?

Apology forthcoming?

I can guarantee that at the time I posted my reply they were
down, and yes, for me. So it *could* have been my connection. But
given the other reports, what do you think is more likely?

I think an ISP or Internet transit problem or even just cockpit error
are as likely as a server problem in the complete absence of any
evidence. Instead of adding evidence, you added an insult.

My 'insult' was "Sheesh." Your reply was "Insults are childish and
inappropriate at best, and just make you look
foolish when you're so far off the mark". Go ask an *unbiased
observer* which one is the most insulting... Hint - would you be
insulted if I called you a childish fool..?

instead done some checking, you might have found:
The use of "done some checking" is rather funny, given that *you*
didn't. Then you post a quote that shows absolutely ****-all about
what was happening when Pete and I had a problem, along with some
domain provider advertising spiel that has sweet FA to do with it.

Actually, that line:
Internap and Dotster are both "professional" operations, and
the multiple IP addresses are a load-balancing server farm
...makes you sound so much like Doug, you could be a pigeon pair.

Sheesh.

Insults are childish and inappropriate at best, and just make you look
foolish when you're so far off the mark

"Sheesh" upsets you so? A little fragile, by chance? (O: And just
who was off the mark again?

But, anyway, if it floats your boat to decide there wasn't a problem
because:
- *you* didn't see it
- you worship Doug
- you worship Internap and Dotster
- you doubt the word of at least 2 others
... then your position and approach to life is quite clear. Do carry
on!

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:45:03 -0800, mark.thomas.7 wrote:

On Nov 16, 7:46 am, John Navas wrote:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/captains-cabin.htm
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/panasonic-red.htm

Broken links, at the moment. (Which is probably a good thing.)

Using professional web-hosting for these sites, OP? Maybe you
should ask for your money back.

Those links have worked every time I've tried them.
And how *exactly* does that prove they were working when I checked? And
how *exactly* does that prove they were working when Pete D had the same
problem:

Newsgroups: aus.photo, rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Pete D"
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:50:49 +1100 Local: Wed, Nov 14 2007 6:50 pm
Subject: More Panasonic P&S perfection

Sorry but you don't seem to exist!
Server not found
Firefox can't find the server at www.douglasjames.com.au.

Oh look, "evidence". Can you see that it wasn't just me?

You seem to be the only one.
Oh, really? So I guess that thing above was just my imagination. Shall
I post the exact link? Do you want another?

Apology forthcoming?

I can guarantee that at the time I posted my reply they were down, and
yes, for me. So it *could* have been my connection. But given the
other reports, what do you think is more likely?

I think an ISP or Internet transit problem or even just cockpit error
are as likely as a server problem in the complete absence of any
evidence. Instead of adding evidence, you added an insult.

My 'insult' was "Sheesh." Your reply was "Insults are childish and
inappropriate at best, and just make you look foolish when you're so far
off the mark". Go ask an *unbiased observer* which one is the most
insulting... Hint - would you be insulted if I called you a childish
fool..?

instead done some checking, you might have found:
The use of "done some checking" is rather funny, given that *you*
didn't. Then you post a quote that shows absolutely ****-all about what
was happening when Pete and I had a problem, along with some domain
provider advertising spiel that has sweet FA to do with it.

Actually, that line:
Internap and Dotster are both "professional" operations, and
the multiple IP addresses are a load-balancing server farm
..makes you sound so much like Doug, you could be a pigeon pair.

Sheesh.

Insults are childish and inappropriate at best, and just make you look
foolish when you're so far off the mark

"Sheesh" upsets you so? A little fragile, by chance? (O: And just who
was off the mark again?

But, anyway, if it floats your boat to decide there wasn't a problem
because:
- *you* didn't see it
- you worship Doug
- you worship Internap and Dotster
- you doubt the word of at least 2 others .. then your position and
approach to life is quite clear. Do carry on!

Ha, ha ha. ROTFL.
The DNS you are hooked into and Pete's ISP leaches off is notourious for
taking anything up to 2 weeks to refresh itself. Saves Singapore head
office money. Not unlike AOL and their "keep it within" attitude.

Appology? LOL. what about *MY* appology for the lies and defamation you
spread about me? You don't seem to like it when someone else points out
your childish and pedantic rantings are just that.

Douglas
--
If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any!