If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:17:16 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
wrote: : Taking some pics at a family wedding last week I was able to break out : my trusty Gary Fong flash diffuser. Check out these two pics taken a : fraction of a second apart. : : http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/99721017 : http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/99721018 : : In the first pic another person's flash fired at the exact moment as : my shutter tripped, causing a severely overexposed shot which I was : able to rescue thanks to shooting in RAW mode. : Some of the highlights are still blown, reminding one of what they'd : get had they hired a low-budget photographer from Queensland. : : The second pic was illuminated by my 580EX bounced with my Gary Fong : diffuser. Note the more even lighting and the lack of harsh shadows. : Even the pro hired to shoot the wedding told me later that she wished : she had a Gary Fong. Yeah, the flatter lighting is an improvement, although some might say it's almost too flat. But what occurs to me is that even the "low-budget photographer from Queensland" might have thought to tell the B&G to look at the camera (or at least at each other). And shouldn't we see the knife? I realize that "everything looks yellow to a jaundiced eye", but does *every* reference to wedding photography in this newsgroup have to serve as an opportunity to ritually bash Doug M? He certainly didn't screw up this shoot; presumably he was 10,000 miles away. Bob |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
"Robert Coe" wrote in message ... On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:17:16 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 wrote: : Taking some pics at a family wedding last week I was able to break out : my trusty Gary Fong flash diffuser. Check out these two pics taken a : fraction of a second apart. : : http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/99721017 : http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/99721018 I realize that "everything looks yellow to a jaundiced eye", but does *every* reference to wedding photography in this newsgroup have to serve as an opportunity to ritually bash Doug M? He certainly didn't screw up this shoot; presumably he was 10,000 miles away. Bob Bob, you probably missed it, but Douggie took the opportunity to jump in very early in the thread tomake a stupid observation which demonstarted that he hadn't read the post. "Your flash must've been on a six-feet long pole" or words to that effect. Most attacks on Doug are defensive responses. This was one of those. -- Jeff R. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:48:49 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote:
: : Bob, you probably missed it, but Douggie took the opportunity to jump in : very early in the thread tomake a stupid observation which demonstarted : that he hadn't read the post. "Your flash must've been on a six-feet : long pole" or words to that effect. : : Most attacks on Doug are defensive responses. This was one of those. How do you figure that? Bret's sneering reference to Doug was in his original post and obviously preceded Doug's puerile response. Bob |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:55:35 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
wrote: : On Jul 13, 1:01*pm, Robert Coe wrote: : : Yeah, the flatter lighting is an improvement, although some might say : it's almost too flat. But what occurs to me is that even the "low-budget : photographer from Queensland" might have thought to tell the B&G to look : at the camera (or at least at each other). And shouldn't we see the knife? : : I'm sure the "official" pro photographer did tell them that. : I was just there to take happy snaps. Oh. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:48:49 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote: Bob, you probably missed it, but Douggie took the opportunity to jump in very early in the thread tomake a stupid observation which demonstarted that he hadn't read the post. "Your flash must've been on a six-feet long pole" or words to that effect. Most attacks on Doug are defensive responses. This was one of those. How do you figure that? Bret's sneering reference to Doug was in his original post and obviously preceded Doug's puerile response. Bob "Sneering" responses to Doug are perfectly appropriate. The nature of his messages here (and elsewhere) deserve no better. In this thread though, the fact remains that Dog made an ignorant and abusive response which demonstrated that he simply hadn't read Bret's post - or failed to understand it. Waste no sympathy on D-Mac. His personal attacks and childish sexual taunts preclude such treatment. Unless - of course - you are extending human compassion to those who are truly in need of help and sympathy and pity. Doug would surely qualify there, and that would be a creditably decent response. Just don't expect him to return it in kind. -- Jeff R. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
Jeff R. wrote:
Robert Coe wrote: On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:48:49 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote: Bob, you probably missed it, but Douggie took the opportunity to jump in very early in the thread tomake a stupid observation which demonstarted that he hadn't read the post. "Your flash must've been on a six-feet long pole" or words to that effect. Most attacks on Doug are defensive responses. This was one of those. How do you figure that? Bret's sneering reference to Doug was in his original post and obviously preceded Doug's puerile response. Bob "Sneering" responses to Doug are perfectly appropriate. The nature of his messages here (and elsewhere) deserve no better. In this thread though, the fact remains that Dog made an ignorant and abusive response which demonstrated that he simply hadn't read Bret's post - or failed to understand it. Waste no sympathy on D-Mac. His personal attacks and childish sexual taunts preclude such treatment. Unless - of course - you are extending human compassion to those who are truly in need of help and sympathy and pity. Doug would surely qualify there, and that would be a creditably decent response. Just don't expect him to return it in kind. For someone who stole Dad's images and tried to ridicule him only to be presented with evidence proving you really are the stupid idiot respectable people would recognise in an instant, you sure are a bugger for punishment. Instead of making a point out of using Dad's images, you are just showing everyone what a pathetic little individual you really are. Bret's example of a cake cutting was something straight out of a 1960s wedding photographer's standard kit of photos. Other examples he's posted from time to time of his wedding and portrait skills are from the same boring era of skill and show not the slightest ounce of imagination. Proving that when Dad said Bret needed to learn how to take a decent photo, he was totally (if bluntly) correct. Bret took offence and the brawl started. This is how we shot cake cuttings in 2005 - 2007. http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/cut-cake.htm I won't show you how we do it now because we (dad and I) pride ourselves in being amongst the most imaginative and sought after wedding photographers in the state. Our poses are widely copied by all the wannabe photographers who think they can imitate us and make out they are somehow "Professional" in doing it. If they bothered to develop their own portfolio instead of copy ours, they might be. The greatest complement anyone can pay someone is to copy their style. For you it is steal their work. Here's a message for you Mr Ralph (the R in Jeff R) if you need to steal another photographer's photos so you can make a point, you must be such a **** poor photographer yourself that you are frightened someone might do to you what you so freely do to others. To then try and deny you own the site you posted the stolen photos on, only to be presented with ownership evidence is pathetic. Just like you are. Dad's description of you as the "Feral" from Rooty Hill surely must be close enough to the mark as to pin you for what you are. As for me? I'd describe you as a despicable little fool striving for recognition when none is deserved. You and Mark Thomas must surely be the biggest embarrassment to the teaching profession ever to walk into a classroom. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
2SQUID wrote:
For someone who stole Dad's images and tried to ridicule him "tried"? Don't worry Doug, you poor sad, pathetic individual. Help may be at hand. http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cg...stract/4/4/442 http://www.osric.com/university/pathlying.html http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/...disorders.html -- Jeff R. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
On 7/25/08 1:49 AM, in article , "2SQUID" wrote: Jeff R. wrote: Robert Coe wrote: On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:48:49 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote: Bob, you probably missed it, but Douggie took the opportunity to jump in very early in the thread tomake a stupid observation which demonstarted that he hadn't read the post. "Your flash must've been on a six-feet long pole" or words to that effect. Most attacks on Doug are defensive responses. This was one of those. How do you figure that? Bret's sneering reference to Doug was in his original post and obviously preceded Doug's puerile response. Bob "Sneering" responses to Doug are perfectly appropriate. The nature of his messages here (and elsewhere) deserve no better. In this thread though, the fact remains that Dog made an ignorant and abusive response which demonstrated that he simply hadn't read Bret's post - or failed to understand it. Waste no sympathy on D-Mac. His personal attacks and childish sexual taunts preclude such treatment. Unless - of course - you are extending human compassion to those who are truly in need of help and sympathy and pity. Doug would surely qualify there, and that would be a creditably decent response. Just don't expect him to return it in kind. Bret's example of a cake cutting was something straight out of a 1960s wedding photographer's standard kit of photos. Other examples he's posted from time to time of his wedding and portrait skills are from the same boring era of skill and show not the slightest ounce of imagination. Proving that when Dad said Bret needed to learn how to take a decent photo, he was totally (if bluntly) correct. Bret took offence and the brawl started. This is how we shot cake cuttings in 2005 - 2007. http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/cut-cake.htm Nice ceiling, but the chandeliers look pretty cheap. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
"2SQUID" wrote in message
... mindless lies and bull**** removed for sanities sake This is how we shot cake cuttings in 2005 - 2007. http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/cut-cake.htm I won't show you how we do it now because we (dad and I) pride ourselves in being amongst the most imaginative and sought after wedding photographers in the state. Honestly is that the ONLY wedding you have Douggie Boi, why not post something recent instead of the same old couple of weddings, I'm sure you must have stacks and stacks of weddings to choose from, or are all the others of such poor quality that you have to keep posting the same couple of weddings. Oh and please stop pretending to be your daughter, if your too gutless to stand and face the ridicule like a man, then I suggest you get off Usenet and go do some knitting on a deck chair somewhere warm. -- God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG!
George Kerby wrote:
On 7/25/08 1:49 AM, in article , "2SQUID" wrote: Jeff R. wrote: Robert Coe wrote: On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:48:49 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote: Bob, you probably missed it, but Douggie took the opportunity to jump in very early in the thread tomake a stupid observation which demonstarted that he hadn't read the post. "Your flash must've been on a six-feet long pole" or words to that effect. Most attacks on Doug are defensive responses. This was one of those. How do you figure that? Bret's sneering reference to Doug was in his original post and obviously preceded Doug's puerile response. Bob "Sneering" responses to Doug are perfectly appropriate. The nature of his messages here (and elsewhere) deserve no better. In this thread though, the fact remains that Dog made an ignorant and abusive response which demonstrated that he simply hadn't read Bret's post - or failed to understand it. Waste no sympathy on D-Mac. His personal attacks and childish sexual taunts preclude such treatment. Unless - of course - you are extending human compassion to those who are truly in need of help and sympathy and pity. Doug would surely qualify there, and that would be a creditably decent response. Just don't expect him to return it in kind. Bret's example of a cake cutting was something straight out of a 1960s wedding photographer's standard kit of photos. Other examples he's posted from time to time of his wedding and portrait skills are from the same boring era of skill and show not the slightest ounce of imagination. Proving that when Dad said Bret needed to learn how to take a decent photo, he was totally (if bluntly) correct. Bret took offence and the brawl started. This is how we shot cake cuttings in 2005 - 2007. http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/cut-cake.htm Nice ceiling, but the chandeliers look pretty cheap. Yes. That venue is billed as 5 star, $150 a head. I guess the ***** gives them that advantage. I often wonder at how the decorators of these palaces think. The worst one is Brisbane City Hall. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG! | George Kerby | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | July 10th 08 05:02 PM |
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG! | Alienjones[_5_] | Digital Photography | 4 | July 10th 08 02:35 PM |
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG! | Cal I Fornicate | Digital Photography | 0 | July 9th 08 04:46 PM |
THE RETURN OF THE GARY FONG! | Cal I Fornicate | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | July 9th 08 04:46 PM |