20D LIKES IT HOT !

Scott W wrote:
What I really find odd is that most of the people who will put down
Bret's photos as mundane and boring don't show examples of their
own. There are people taking better photographs then Bret's, it
would be a pretty big surprise if this was not the case, but these
people don't seem to be the ones complaining about his.

I don't think all of his photos are mundane by any means; some of them
are great, others are boring to me. For me at least, I don't post a lot
of pictures here because I don't usually do stuff every day, which is
my loss really. I just find it annoying when someone asks a question
and his only response is "Can0n r3wlz0rs j00!!11!!111!" (Canon rules
you)

I think over all this would be a better forum if people posted more
examples of their photos. And if someone wants to say wow about those
photos I don't think we should give them a hard time about it, do you?

True, we should not be giving them a hard time. On that note I should
explain that I didn't mean to be giving Helen a hard time(well, TOO
hard of a time ), I just find it annoying that all she ever posts is
accolades for every one of his pictures. Maybe it's just me but
whenever I look at peoples work I first think "nice, I like it" or
whatever, and then I immediately look for things I would have done
differently than them to improve the picture, at least in my eyes.

Douglas wrote:
"That_Rich" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 02:09:16 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
wrote:


When things get to the vendetta stage, progress (re-iterating the
obvious is IMHO not progress) is usually zero, not productive.

Here hear!

RP©

When the troll mark -whatever he calls himself today- decided to
spread lies about me. I responded by posting scans of documents that
prove he lied. It hasn't stopped him from continuing the onslaught.

I don't know what "Mark" you're talking about, but I'd appreciate if you'd
specify...since I've never participated in anything remotely resembling the
things you're talking about here.

Who are you talking about, and why don't I see his posts? Perhaps he's in
my kill-file?

He still steals my pictures. Still post lies about me. He's just as
much a part of Usenet as I am yet he seems to think he has some God
given right to consider himself one of the chosen few.

Who is doing these things?

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Annika1980 wrote:
Douglas wrote:
When the troll mark -whatever he calls himself today- decided to
spread lies about me. I responded by posting scans of documents that
prove he lied.

That's rich! (No,not "That Rich.")
As far as I know he's always called himself Mark Thomas.
You are the one who changes his screen name every week, remember?

Maybe you are confusing him with Mark Morgan (aka, "PW) who also calls
you on your bull**** from time to time? That Mark lives in
California. But you're right about one thing ... we are all out to
get you!

Don't encourage his confusion...(wouldn't take much to do that).
I don't see any posts from "Mark Thomas..." likely because he's in my
klink-file.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some more pictures to take:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64337741

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

ShibbyShane wrote:
I just find it annoying when someone asks a question
and his only response is "Can0n r3wlz0rs j00!!11!!111!" (Canon rules
you)


In the future, if you have any questions about the processes I use feel
free to e-mail me.
My point was that Canon digital cameras have much better high ISO
performance than any other brand.

But to answer your question about my pic in more detail, I've made a
little demo. Just click on the link below. As you probably know I
shoot exclusively in RAW mode. This means I have much more control
over all the settings when I convert the pic to a viewable format like
TIF or JPG. I use Adobe Camera RAW for converting my RAW files and it
has a nice little slider called "Color Noise Reduction" which can be
helpful in high-ISO shots. This example shows two actual size crops
from the photo in question, one with Color Noise Reduction set to 0 and
the other with it pushed all the way to 100.
You can see the difference. This also points out just another reason
to shoot RAW and not JPG. With JPG you get what you get. With RAW mode
you have lots more control.

Other RAW converters have similar controls to reduce the amount of
noise. It is very rare when I have to go to Neat Image to clean up a
noisy pic.

Anyway, here's the demo:
http://www.pbase.com/image/64659181

Annika1980 wrote:

ShibbyShane wrote:
I just find it annoying when someone asks a question
and his only response is "Can0n r3wlz0rs j00!!11!!111!" (Canon rules
you)


In the future, if you have any questions about the processes I use feel
free to e-mail me.
My point was that Canon digital cameras have much better high ISO
performance than any other brand.

But to answer your question about my pic in more detail, I've made a
little demo. Just click on the link below. As you probably know I
shoot exclusively in RAW mode. This means I have much more control
over all the settings when I convert the pic to a viewable format like
TIF or JPG. I use Adobe Camera RAW for converting my RAW files and it
has a nice little slider called "Color Noise Reduction" which can be
helpful in high-ISO shots. This example shows two actual size crops
from the photo in question, one with Color Noise Reduction set to 0 and
the other with it pushed all the way to 100.
You can see the difference. This also points out just another reason
to shoot RAW and not JPG. With JPG you get what you get. With RAW mode
you have lots more control.

Other RAW converters have similar controls to reduce the amount of
noise. It is very rare when I have to go to Neat Image to clean up a
noisy pic.

Anyway, here's the demo:
http://www.pbase.com/image/64659181

An interesting demo there, but looking at the two images, I feel that
the 100% version has lost some highlight separation or detail that is in
the 0% image. Is that actually the case, or is it due to processing the
images for posting?

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

ColinD wrote:

Anyway, here's the demo:
http://www.pbase.com/image/64659181

An interesting demo there, but looking at the two images, I feel that
the 100% version has lost some highlight separation or detail that is in
the 0% image. Is that actually the case, or is it due to processing the
images for posting?


I believe that the reduction in noise gives the appearance of softness
or lack of detail.
I also believe that the human eye often misinterprets noise as detail.
And I believe that this explains some of the film vs. digital arguments
where the film shooters claim that the film is capturing more detail.
I believe it is capturing something, but not detail.

Also, it's never been proven to me that a 5400dpi scan of 35mm film has
more detail than a 4000dpi scan. Sure, it'll give you a larger image,
but you won't see anything that you can't see with the 4000dpi scan.
It just makes it bigger.
BTW, I do use a 5400dpi scanner.

Of course, the processing could actually be removing detail as well ...
hard to say.
For most of my images displayed on the web I usually don't worry too
much about the noise for two reasons:
1. It gives the appearance of more detail in the pic.
2. When you downsize the image for web viewing, the noise goes away
anyway.

Annika1980 wrote:
ShibbyShane wrote:
I just find it annoying when someone asks a question
and his only response is "Can0n r3wlz0rs j00!!11!!111!" (Canon rules
you)


In the future, if you have any questions about the processes I use feel
free to e-mail me.
My point was that Canon digital cameras have much better high ISO
performance than any other brand.

But to answer your question about my pic in more detail, I've made a
little demo. Just click on the link below. As you probably know I
shoot exclusively in RAW mode. This means I have much more control
over all the settings when I convert the pic to a viewable format like
TIF or JPG. I use Adobe Camera RAW for converting my RAW files and it
has a nice little slider called "Color Noise Reduction" which can be
helpful in high-ISO shots. This example shows two actual size crops
from the photo in question, one with Color Noise Reduction set to 0 and
the other with it pushed all the way to 100.
You can see the difference. This also points out just another reason
to shoot RAW and not JPG. With JPG you get what you get. With RAW mode
you have lots more control.

Other RAW converters have similar controls to reduce the amount of
noise. It is very rare when I have to go to Neat Image to clean up a
noisy pic.

Anyway, here's the demo:
http://www.pbase.com/image/64659181

Alright, I will direct any further questions there. And yes, I know
the advantages of shooting in RAW; I shoot exclusively RAW also and I
too use Adobe Camera RAW. I've used the Color Noise Reduction to some
extent but I feel that it softens the image if you crank it all the way
to 100. I was just curious before if you had done anything special in
Photoshop, because I have tried using Photoshop's Reduce Noise filter
and I couldn't seem to get it to work the way I wanted..

ShibbyShane wrote:
Anyway, here's the demo:
http://www.pbase.com/image/64659181

Alright, I will direct any further questions there. And yes, I know
the advantages of shooting in RAW; I shoot exclusively RAW also and I
too use Adobe Camera RAW. I've used the Color Noise Reduction to some
extent but I feel that it softens the image if you crank it all the way
to 100. I was just curious before if you had done anything special in
Photoshop, because I have tried using Photoshop's Reduce Noise filter
and I couldn't seem to get it to work the way I wanted..

Funny, I'd never even noticed the Reduce Noise filter until you just
mentioned it. It looks like that filter gives a lot more options than
ACR. The "Reduce Color Noise" slider seems to work identically to the
one in ACR, with the added benefit of offering more options for fine
tuning. Thanks for the tip!

Douglas wrote:

snip

At a point about 2 months ago when Colin Donahue (ColinD claiming to have
been a working professional recently retired in NZ) got a print of mine and
never bothered to post a comment here or communicate to me about the print
... I formed the opinion that my previous approach to these idiots - direct
frontal rebuttal - wasn't working either. You could put a black and white
print in front of any of them and they'd claim it had a magenta cast to it
and nothing anyone else would say, would change their stand.

So now, I refuse point blank to engage the four ****wits snip remainder

Douglas, I have tried to maintain impartiality towards you and your
claims about algorithms and big enlargements. I have never criticized
your methods, or you personally, but the latter has changed as of now.

Last week, in the aus.photo group, you claimed that I never replied to
you after having sent me a 24x36 print, accompanied by considerable
personal abuse directed at me.

I replied, offering apologies and offering to resend it.

Mark Thomas, whom I know you really love {:-), replied with documentary
proof that you were quoting me in posts in another NG, so you did in
fact receive my email.

After offering you the afore-mentioned apology, I replied to M.T.'s
questions, describing your print as better than I could do from my 300D,
and giving due recognition to your system, (note the word 'due').

There has been no reply from you as of today, Sunday.

I then started a new thread in aus.photo called 'PING DOUGLAS', again
asking you for a reply, to which M.T again replied, quoted in part he

Quote:
"the abovementioned conversation took place in this thread:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/au...thread/40e6244...
- in other words it was in public, not by way of private emails.

In my reply to Mark T, I was as honest and helpful as I could be

You were indeed - thanks again, Colin. In fact you even complimented
Douglas on a nice print, which I accept it probably was. But as I
noted, Douglas said that you supported his claims about his magical
algorithms that create detail. His actual words we

" I sent him an interpolated 24"x 36" print for his perusal and he now
agrees that my claims are not false at all."
End quote

You have not replied to the Ping Douglas post either.

I now read this post from you (in spite of those aus.photo posts, which
you must have read, as there are other posts of yours in that group
subsequent to mine).

Not only do you spell my name incorrectly - and you have my email to get
it right - you continue to insult with words like 'idiot', 'unable to
see a magenta cast', '****wits', to add to previous verbal barrages.

So, you have managed to alienate me. I tried to be impartial, to not
criticize, to give credit where due, but now I am lumped in with the
many posters whom you flame and insult with lies, exaggerations,
profanity, and outright abuse. We can all do that, Douglas, but it's
the mark of a rational person to refrain from your style of attack.

So, I have to conclude that you don't want friends in this and other
groups, that you seek adulation for your images, and when that is not
forthcoming, you resort to confrontation and abuse as a means of
satisfaction to yourself, for whatever reasons you may have.

I will answer one more post from you, as to what to do with your
photograph. In the absence of such a reply, I will dispose of it as I
see fit.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article , ColinD
wrote:

Douglas wrote:

snip

At a point about 2 months ago when Colin Donahue (ColinD claiming to have
been a working professional recently retired in NZ) got a print of mine and
never bothered to post a comment here or communicate to me about the print
... I formed the opinion that my previous approach to these idiots - direct
frontal rebuttal - wasn't working either. You could put a black and white
print in front of any of them and they'd claim it had a magenta cast to it
and nothing anyone else would say, would change their stand.

So now, I refuse point blank to engage the four ****wits snip remainder

Douglas, I have tried to maintain impartiality towards you and your
claims about algorithms and big enlargements. I have never criticized
your methods, or you personally, but the latter has changed as of now.

Last week, in the aus.photo group, you claimed that I never replied to
you after having sent me a 24x36 print, accompanied by considerable
personal abuse directed at me.

I replied, offering apologies and offering to resend it.

Mark Thomas, whom I know you really love {:-), replied with documentary
proof that you were quoting me in posts in another NG, so you did in
fact receive my email.

After offering you the afore-mentioned apology, I replied to M.T.'s
questions, describing your print as better than I could do from my 300D,
and giving due recognition to your system, (note the word 'due').

There has been no reply from you as of today, Sunday.

I then started a new thread in aus.photo called 'PING DOUGLAS', again
asking you for a reply, to which M.T again replied, quoted in part he

Quote:
"the abovementioned conversation took place in this thread:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/au...thread/40e6244...
- in other words it was in public, not by way of private emails.

In my reply to Mark T, I was as honest and helpful as I could be

You were indeed - thanks again, Colin. In fact you even complimented
Douglas on a nice print, which I accept it probably was. But as I
noted, Douglas said that you supported his claims about his magical
algorithms that create detail. His actual words we

" I sent him an interpolated 24"x 36" print for his perusal and he now
agrees that my claims are not false at all."
End quote

You have not replied to the Ping Douglas post either.

I now read this post from you (in spite of those aus.photo posts, which
you must have read, as there are other posts of yours in that group
subsequent to mine).

Not only do you spell my name incorrectly - and you have my email to get
it right - you continue to insult with words like 'idiot', 'unable to
see a magenta cast', '****wits', to add to previous verbal barrages.

So, you have managed to alienate me. I tried to be impartial, to not
criticize, to give credit where due, but now I am lumped in with the
many posters whom you flame and insult with lies, exaggerations,
profanity, and outright abuse. We can all do that, Douglas, but it's
the mark of a rational person to refrain from your style of attack.

So, I have to conclude that you don't want friends in this and other
groups, that you seek adulation for your images, and when that is not
forthcoming, you resort to confrontation and abuse as a means of
satisfaction to yourself, for whatever reasons you may have.

I will answer one more post from you, as to what to do with your
photograph. In the absence of such a reply, I will dispose of it as I
see fit.

Colin D.

Isn't it wonderful to have all the digital trespassers in this group
waste our time with this flame war drivel?

Why don't you guys go to rec.photo.digital where you belong.