Return to film... True!

And, as posted many times before, I have a reasonable amount of stuff
posted he

http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm
and
http://community.webshots.com/album/262782767hrxRfS

...while I am rebuilding my 'real' webpage. You and others are free to
crtiticise those samples (which are just samples, and do not, imo,
represent my best stuff - but you can assume for the purposes herewith
that they *are* my best stuff, and flame away!!)
Maybe you should read the notes on each image before criticising,
however, as many of those images were posted to *show* particular
problems. But I actually enjoy criticism, because I learn stuff and
try to improve...

Douglas, just let me know exactly what you would like to see, and I'll
post an example. I do *not* withdraw my images on a whim, like you,
and I do what I say I will do.

So what would you like? A *real* example of enlargability, done with
real mathematics, perhaps? An example of dynamic range comparisons of
film and digital? Raw vs jpeg? I work, so it may not be until next
weekend, but I'll post anything you like within reason. Can't get much
fairer than that...

And finally, I took the liberty of visiting your stand at the Cleveland
markets today. Grin. And I saw exactly what I expected. A few nice
enlargements, but several with blown highlights and poor cropping, and
one with a very odd colour cast. And not a single one with detail
beyond about 100 ppi. They look fine from a distance (doesn't
everything?) but do not stand close inspection, and are exactly what I
would expect from ordinary, garden-variety interpolation from 6-8Mp
files. The marina one was quite second-rate, I'm sorry, but some of
them were good. They are, of course, printed on canvas, so the texture
makes the lack of detail somewhat irrelevant.

But you weren't there, sadly, to defend your work, Douglas. (Well, not
at about 9:30am, anyway).

So, again, *you* made the claims - where is your evidence?

wrote in message
oups.com...
: Douglas, may I simply remind you that *you* are the one making the
: outlandish claims without substance or example, and that *you* are the
: one who posts evidence like this:
:
: http://www.geocities.com/chrlzs/flinders-20D.htm
:
:
Theft of another's photographs to use on your own web site is about as
criminal as you can get.

" It is Yahoo!'s policy, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion,
to disable and/or terminate the accounts of users who may infringe or
repeatedly infringe the copyrights or other intellectual property rights of
Yahoo! and/or others."

You'd better hope you gave them a false identity.
Thief, stalker, liar. Quite a collection you are getting here. What do you
do for entertainment, play with children?

Scott W wrote:

sobolik wrote:

Amen. Unfortunately there are large numbers of computer addicts that
will never give up their fix. And they buy stuff, and more stuff and
more stiuff. Consequently we are forced more and more to dabble in
computer skills that have little to do with photography. Due to market
place profit and loss pressures. I feel the most sorry for the casual
non enthusiast user. Just look at any forum and see how many problems
need solving with digital, and how few with film. Digital photography
is a nice toy for techno junkies and a few others.

Well first off in this day and age just about everybody should know how
to use a computer, this is very much like being literate in the last
century was.


Considering how many illiterates we managed to produce in the last
couple of decades of the XXth century ...

Speaking here strictly from my own experience.

It's disheartening when you have to work with someone who has a
doctorate in a field, yet cannot write a coherent paragraph, or doesn't
know how to find simple information that's not within the purview of
their field of specialization.

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
: In article ,
: MoioM wrote:
: We both agreed the dynamic range of the camera he used (his own D100) was
: the problem.
:
: So basically, you picked a very low budget photographer, and now you
: got low budget results. Sound like the way it is supposed to be.
:
: The guy should never have taken that assignement if he knew that his
: camera couldn't handle it. If he didn't know, he just an hobbyist. Next
: time, get somebody who knows what he is doing.
:
---------------
How stupid are you Phillip?
You have no knowledge of a person's qualifications or their occupation. You
know nothing at all about them yet you pass judgment they are a low budget
hobbyist - based on what? The model of camera they used? If you bothered to
ask to see the pictures you'd have been shown but like all trolls you never
do, just try to present yourself as some sort of armchair expert. By your
clearly stupid comments, you are demonstrating how much of a lightweight you
actually are.

To then try and justify photographic quality by the cost of a camera is
further evidence you haven't got a clue. If you'd tried to pass judgment on
pictures you had seen, or the reputation of a lens used, Even the name or
reputation of the Photographer, I might be tolerant but you don't. You just
rattle the keyboard for your own personal entertainment and haven't got the
faintest idea of what you are talking about... Get a play station man, it's
closer to your level of comprehension.

wrote in message
oups.com...
: :
: And finally, I took the liberty of visiting your stand at the Cleveland
: markets today. :
: But you weren't there, sadly, to defend your work, Douglas. (Well, not
: at about 9:30am, anyway).
:
: So, again, *you* made the claims - where is your evidence?
:
----------------
What I pity. It might surprise you to discover, I am never there. It is just
a market stall selling canvas photographs, most of them taken by my
customers.

Had I known I'd get a visit from someone as criminally intent as you, I'd
have made the journey across (rough seas and all) just to actually confront
you for the defamation, lies, theft of my images and stalking you have done
in the past year. I really would have liked to see what spineless,
thieving, liar actually looks like in person. I might check the security
camera in my office opposite and see if I can guess which one is you. It
ought to be obvious enough.

Make no bones about it scumbag, you are not welcome anywhere near me, in any
of my stores or galleries or near anything of mine. I will exercise my right
to use all reasonable force to eject you from any of my shops if you are
ever stupid enough to visit one while I am there.

The frequency with which you steal my images should alert everyone to the
possibility you also stole the images you claim to be yours. In fact... When
you so openly steal, the presumption must be you stole everything. You are
such a habitual liar and self confessed thief, you most likely don't
actually have any photographs of your own, just ones you stole off the
Internet.

In article ,
MoioM wrote:
You have no knowledge of a person's qualifications or their occupation. You
know nothing at all about them yet you pass judgment they are a low budget
hobbyist - based on what? The model of camera they used? If you bothered to
ask to see the pictures you'd have been shown but like all trolls you never
do, just try to present yourself as some sort of armchair expert. By your
clearly stupid comments, you are demonstrating how much of a lightweight you
actually are.

Who is complaining about the quality of his images. Let me quote from the
original posting:
"I just saw 1600 frames one of my contract photographers shot off for
"Australia day and there are a few hundred out of focus, a few hundred with
"uncontrollable crowd intervention and maybe 50 I might have use for.

Yeah, that's is a professional.

"We both agreed the dynamic range of the camera he used (his own D100) was
"the problem. I have photoshoped nearly all the pictures and they are more
"than passable now. Really... You shouldn't have to do this.

Yeah, again a sure sign of a professional. His results are 'more than
passable now'. I don't know about down under, but over here, similar
statements tend to mean that his work is basically poor quality that could
be rescued. Hardly a sign of a professional.

From the tests of R.N. Clark we know that some digital cameras are quite
capable of matching color print film. So, a real professional would have
used such a camera.

Now, I don't know that dynamic range of the D100, but given that, and I quote
'We both agreed the dynamic range of the camera he used (his own D100) was
"the problem' it is probably not as good as that of 1D mk II.

So, a professional would not have wasted his time playing with an early
consumer camera. But would have gotten a camera that is actually up to the
job. (Of course, the few hunderd out of focus images could not have
anything to do with the relatively poor AF system that was lifted from a
cheap consumer film body. No, it must have been the skills of the
professional).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency