Correction for Jeff R.

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 5/09/2009 1:30 PM:
On Sep 3, 5:19 am, "Jeff R." wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/116813649/original
1/40 second!
..and no flash.
Is that right?

--
Jeff R.
(boggled)


As you know, Noons is always ragging me for "pasting" or "slapping"
info into the EXIF field in Pbase when I show my pics.

And you just proved once more that I am 100% right in doing so!
Thank you.

The truth is
that Noons is an idiot and I don't normally do anything with that
field unless I'm shooting with a 1.4x or 2x TC, in which case I'll
adjust the focal length.

In other words: you fabricate the EXIF info, which is exactly
what I have pointed out. Thanks you once again for demonstrating
openly to the world that you are nothing but a liar.



So I couldn't understand why you acted amazed that my hummingbird pic
showed 1/40 sec with no flash.
The no flash part was simple enough .... the flashes were off-camera
and Pbase screws that part of the EXIF up anyway. And I knew I didn't
change the EXIF info so I figured the exposure was correct.

So just a few minutes ago I went back and checked my original pics
(note the plural) and lo and behold it shows 1/125 sec @ f/8, ISO 800
on the pic of the hummingbird. So where did that other EXIF info come
from, you ask?

In other words: I was 100% correct in claiming the EXIF info
n your fabricated images is always false or slapped there
by you. Thanks again for proving I was 100% correct.

It came from the second pic I took of the background after I removed
the feeder.

Ah, so your fantastic "photo" is nothing more, nothing else,
than a PS fabrication. Man, this must be the day I thank
you mo you have just proved once again I am 100% correct
in calling your "photos" nothing less than PS fakes.


I think these two full frame pics will explain better.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/116889308/original

Bingo.

Just thought you'd like to know the rest of the story, in the spirit
of full disclosure and all.

Amazing: a shred of honesty from the likes of you?
This is indeed the day of days!

If Noons doesn't like that he can suck me.

I love it, so Iam afraid you'll have to suck yourself.
Shouldn't be difficult, your dick is not that
far from your mouth.


I give less than a ****
what he thinks, but thought you deserved clarification.

And yet, amazingly, you cnfirmed every single one of my
claims about your "photos". They are not the product
of the equipment you use, they are fabrications made
in PS. That is why you seldmon if ever show them in
reasonably large sizes: the fakery will be clear then.

Once again, thank you for making it clear your
work is fabricated images, not photography.

What are you doing showing them in rec.photo.*?

Noons wrote:

snip sad, pathetic drivel)

Ah, so your fantastic "photo" is nothing more, nothing else,
than a PS fabrication. Man, this must be the day I thank
you mo you have just proved once again I am 100% correct
in calling your "photos" nothing less than PS fakes.


If Bret *could* create such a photo from scratch in PS, that would make him
ever cleverer.

You jealousy must be gnawing away at your innards something fierce, Noonsie.
How you must wish, with every ounce of your pathetic being, that you could
produce something - *anything* - with a half, nay, a *quarter* of the polish
of Bret's routine postings.

*And* he does all that, handicapped as he is, with a Canon camera!

--
Jeff R.
(I wish I hadn't said that last bit... don't hit [send]... don't hit
[send]... )



oops

Jeff R. wrote,on my timestamp of 6/09/2009 6:34 PM:



in calling your "photos" nothing less than PS fakes.


If Bret *could* create such a photo from scratch in PS, that would make
him ever cleverer.

Any moron can create "photos" in PS, dickhead.



You jealousy must be gnawing away at your innards something fierce,
Noonsie.

Jealousy? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

How you must wish, with every ounce of your pathetic being,
that you could produce something - *anything* - with a half, nay, a
*quarter* of the polish of Bret's routine postings.

I'd be ashamed to produce anything even remotely similar to his monotone crap,
dickhead!



*And* he does all that, handicapped as he is, with a Canon camera!


His handicap is a lot larger than just a camera...

Noons wrote:
Any moron can create "photos" in PS, dickhead.


Righto, bigmouth...

Show us a realistic PSed image you have created of, say, a kookaburra.

...or anything else.

But you can't, can you?

--
Jeff R.
(after all, you're not just *any* moron...)

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 7/09/2009 1:36 AM:

As you know, Noons is always ragging me for "pasting" or "slapping"
info into the EXIF field in Pbase when I show my pics.
And you just proved once more that I am 100% right in doing so!
Thank you.

No, that's a lie.


YOUR own admission, dickhead.


I don't normally do anything with that
field


And of course normally you do something to other fields, isn't it?
Like I said: your own admission, dickhead.


unless I'm shooting with a 1.4x or 2x TC, in which case I'll
adjust the focal length.
In other words: you fabricate the EXIF info, which is exactly
what I have pointed out. Thanks you once again for demonstrating
openly to the world that you are nothing but a liar.
No, another lie from you. You really should learn to read or at least
get someone else with an IQ higher than a monkey to explain it to
you. In the case of the TC, I am correcting the false EXIF info to
make it correct, not fabricating info. But you knew that, right?


And of course you "correct" the flash info as well, isn't it?
(not!)

So tell us: why is it that you are soooooooo thorough with correcting the lens
focal length but you systematically ignore the flash info even when it is there?
One would assume that in the interest of correctness, you'd correct BOTH?
But then again: truth is not your main stream, is it?


In other words: I was 100% correct in claiming the EXIF info
n your fabricated images is always false or slapped there
by you. Thanks again for proving I was 100% correct.

Uh, no. You're just lying again.

Hey, you just admitted to fixing the focal length and doing nothing with flash.
Like I said: false, or slapped there by you.
Which part of that can't you relate to?


I've posted more full size images than anyone else here.

BWAHAHAHAHA!
Ah yes, I forgot: Canon gear produces "full size images" at 800X600!
Sorry, my bad.


I've even offered to send the RAW files as proof of what I'm saying,
but every time that offer is made you run away crying like a little
girl.


There is no way in the world I'll ever load a crap Canon raw file in my system,
dickhead. Much less one fabricated by the likes of you: get it once and for all!

Jeff R. wrote,on my timestamp of 7/09/2009 11:03 PM:

Righto, bigmouth...

Show us a realistic PSed image you have created of, say, a kookaburra.

..or anything else.

But you can't, can you?

I don't use PS, dickhead. Can't you read?
Any *moron* can create "photos" in PS, dickhead.

Annika1980 wrote:

too many words, but this is good:

Noonsie:


BTW, how does one fabricate a RAW file?

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 8/09/2009 11:03 AM:

All I've demonstrated is that you're too ****ing stupid to understand
the difference between adjusting a few focal length settings and
claiming "the EXIF info in your fabricated images is ALWAYS false or
slapped there by you." That brilliant statement is right up there
with "ALL your pics are fakes!"

Exactly. And that is precisely what they are.
And that is precisely what you do.
What's the matter, can't cope with the truth
or reality?



So tell us: why is it that you are soooooooo thorough with correcting the lens
focal length but you systematically ignore the flash info even when it is there?

Because I could give a **** about the flash info.

In other words, you do patch the EXIF when and where
you feel like. Which is precisely included in
"the EXIF info in your fabricated images is ALWAYS false or
slapped there by you.". Tampered EXIF is false EXIF, diddums.

Thank you for once again confirming that you
alter the EXIF in your images, wherever you feel
like, and don't disclose where you done it.



One would assume I care little what you think.

Or anyone else. That's been the sum of your
sorry life, hasn't it?


One would also assume
that since they are my pics I can post them however I like.

Of course. Just don't lie about what you do.


And one
would also correctly assume that you have a big nose and like sniffing
little boys' underwear.

Once again, showing off the low-life you really are.


Ah yes, I forgot: Canon gear produces "full size images" at 800X600!

What does that have to do with the fact that I've posted more full
size images than anyone else here?

You have not. And it has to do with the fact your "full size" is 800X600.
Which part of basic English do you find hard to grasp?

If I've posted only two of them
then my statement would probably be true, but I've posted lots more
than that.


Sure...
BWAHAHAHAHA!


TRANSLATION: "My name is Noons, and I'm a dickless pussy who runs away
whenever someone exposes my bull****."

TRANSLATION: "My name is Bret Douglas and I'm an impotent midget who engages in
ad-homine attacks and abuses children to attack adults who expose my lies."


BTW, how does one fabricate a RAW file?

Couldn't care less and there is still no way any of your RAW crap, Canon or not,
will ever get in my systems. Got that, diddums?

John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 8/09/2009 12:26 PM:




You do not know much about computers, do you?

Noons wrote:
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 8/09/2009 11:03 AM:

BTW, how does one fabricate a RAW file?

Couldn't care less and there is still no way any of your RAW crap, Canon
or not, will ever get in my systems. Got that, diddums?

Powerless pudge: Do show us a RAW file that you've fabricated, and I'll
forever shut up. But you have to make it yourself.

--
john mcwilliams

Max thought the night-time burglary at the California surfing museum
would be a safe caper, but that was before he spotted the security cop
riding a bull mastiff, blond hair blowing in the wind, and noticed the
blue-and-white sign wired to the cyclone fence, "Guard dude on
doggy."8:01:30 AM