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

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.