Why when I save a photo from photobucket, it's not a JPEG?

On 2015-04-21 10:09:42 +0000, sid said:

Slow day at the office today trollboy? If the poster that I directed my
first post in this thread to wants to discuss it further I will be pleased
to do so with him, however I have no desire to spend any more time arguing
with a troll that refuses to even read the discussion he purports to be in
reference to.

Ta ta.

While I appreciate Jonas' support in this, I see little point by
engaging in an endless flamewar cycle.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , sid wrote:

sid:
As is, btw, your cross posting hypocrisy.

Savageduck:
What X-posting hypocrisy would that be?

It was the OP, Don Phillpson, a Linux user with problems
of his own making who initiated the X-post. You might have
noticed, this post of mine which you chose to respond to
was not X-posted. I doubt that the OP even monitors
rec.photo.digital.

Was I supposed to maintain his X-post, or not?

sid:
I'll leave the answer to that as an exercise for your
own memory seeing as I can't find the post where you called
me an asshole for doing what you have done here.

Sandman:
Then you should retract your statement.

sid:
No I shouldn't, if he argues that cross posting is good and
should not be messed around with and then does exactly that, it
is hypocritical.

Sandman:
That's your "if" that is yet to be substantiated, and since you
can't and won't substantiate it, you should retract it.

Slow day at the office today trollboy? If the poster that I directed
my first post in this thread to wants to discuss it further I will
be pleased to do so with him, however I have no desire to spend any
more time arguing with a troll that refuses to even read the
discussion he purports to be in reference to.

Ta ta.

"Discuss" something with you, Sid? Haha, that's a funny one!

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Floyd is as scratchy as woolen underwear, and some of his
technical comments are certainly debatable, but to impugn his
photographic ability is completely undeserved.

Sandman:
How so? It's not like he hasn't done that himself a million times.
He's an asshole that knows next to nothing about photography, but
the point was that it's not due to him using Linux.

Andreas Skitsnack:
I invite anyone to review the images at: http://www.apaflo.com/
and find the work of a "not very good photographer".

Sandman:
Uh, yeah, I already did that, remember? It was even as a response
to you. I linked to some of his photos which had been really
poorly shot and really poorly post-processed. The photos I
"picked" were just the first ones I picked at random, not going
through his site to try to find bad ones.

You can look at anyone's portfolio of shots and find some you don't
like.

With Floyd, I didn't, as I just wrote above. I didn't "find" photos. I took
random photos from several galleries. Not cherry-picking bad ones. In fact,
when randomly choosing galleries, I was totally unable to find one good photo.

What you don't like, though, is not necessarily an indication
of bad photography.

This isn't about what I "like". I was in reference to particular photos that
was poorly shot and poorly post-processed. Again, like I said above. I didn't
go there and found photos which I personally disliked.

It's an indication of a style to which you
don't subscribe.

No, this isn't about "style". It's about not being able to handle the equipment
and the post processing of photographs.

Also, it can be a result of a predisposition to
find fault. That, I think, factors in greatly in this case.

At the time, I wasn't trying to find fault. I was questioning your apparent
admiration of his photos, and I picked some photos at random and asked you just
what about them you thought were so great, I was unable to find something great
with them.

"Poorly post-processed" is very subjective. Again, it's more a
matter of liking the style or not.

No, not in this case, where the post-processing was shoddily executed on a
technical level, where blurring and sharpening had been used inappropriately
and in a sub-standard way.

Sandman:
His reply? Well, that they are were really good photographs,
calling them "Nice shot!" as some form of self-encouragement. Of
course, in the end I didn't "understand" the photos and in what
supposed way they were great, which had me chuckling for a while.

Of course he would. You would defend a criticized effort of yours.

Haha, no I wouldn't. If I were to post photos I've taken and someone were to
claim they are bad, I wouldn't go "Nah, they're great photos!" as a response. I
leave that to people like Floyd who seems to think he's a master photographer.

You had something in mind when you shot the image, and something in
mind when you did the post. What you had in mind might not come
across to the viewer.

What Floyd supposedly had "in mind" is of no relevancy here, I am in reference
to a lot of his photos not being very good on a technical viewpoint, and a
post-processing viewpoint.

Your comment was rude, boorish, and undeserved.

It was neither of those things.

If you want to
continue the tit for tat game and question his technical expertise,
that's up to you. But, to claim he's not a good photographer
exposes your inadequacies, not his.

Keep telling yourself that.

Remember, I responded to a post where he called me (and nospam) "less
technically astute fanboy" and I responded in kind, where I just let him know
that we're not complaining about his photographs because he uses Linux, but
because he's not a very good photographer.

Sure, the reason why his post processing is so bad might be due to him using
Linux, but I'm sure a proficient photographer could use Linux and post-process
photos a lot better than he does.

--
Sandman

Op 22-04-15 om 07:53 schreef Sandman:
In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Floyd is as scratchy as woolen underwear, and some of his
technical comments are certainly debatable, but to impugn his
photographic ability is completely undeserved.

Sandman:
How so? It's not like he hasn't done that himself a million times.
He's an asshole that knows next to nothing about photography, but
the point was that it's not due to him using Linux.

Andreas Skitsnack:
I invite anyone to review the images at: http://www.apaflo.com/
and find the work of a "not very good photographer".

Sandman:
Uh, yeah, I already did that, remember? It was even as a response
to you. I linked to some of his photos which had been really
poorly shot and really poorly post-processed. The photos I
"picked" were just the first ones I picked at random, not going
through his site to try to find bad ones.

You can look at anyone's portfolio of shots and find some you don't
like.

With Floyd, I didn't, as I just wrote above. I didn't "find" photos. I took
random photos from several galleries. Not cherry-picking bad ones. In fact,
when randomly choosing galleries, I was totally unable to find one good photo.

What you don't like, though, is not necessarily an indication
of bad photography.

This isn't about what I "like". I was in reference to particular photos that
was poorly shot and poorly post-processed. Again, like I said above. I didn't
go there and found photos which I personally disliked.

It's an indication of a style to which you
don't subscribe.

No, this isn't about "style". It's about not being able to handle the equipment
and the post processing of photographs.

Also, it can be a result of a predisposition to
find fault. That, I think, factors in greatly in this case.

At the time, I wasn't trying to find fault. I was questioning your apparent
admiration of his photos, and I picked some photos at random and asked you just
what about them you thought were so great, I was unable to find something great
with them.

"Poorly post-processed" is very subjective. Again, it's more a
matter of liking the style or not.

No, not in this case, where the post-processing was shoddily executed on a
technical level, where blurring and sharpening had been used inappropriately
and in a sub-standard way.

Sandman:
His reply? Well, that they are were really good photographs,
calling them "Nice shot!" as some form of self-encouragement. Of
course, in the end I didn't "understand" the photos and in what
supposed way they were great, which had me chuckling for a while.

Of course he would. You would defend a criticized effort of yours.

Haha, no I wouldn't. If I were to post photos I've taken and someone were to
claim they are bad, I wouldn't go "Nah, they're great photos!" as a response. I
leave that to people like Floyd who seems to think he's a master photographer.

You had something in mind when you shot the image, and something in
mind when you did the post. What you had in mind might not come
across to the viewer.

What Floyd supposedly had "in mind" is of no relevancy here, I am in reference
to a lot of his photos not being very good on a technical viewpoint, and a
post-processing viewpoint.

Your comment was rude, boorish, and undeserved.

It was neither of those things.

If you want to
continue the tit for tat game and question his technical expertise,
that's up to you. But, to claim he's not a good photographer
exposes your inadequacies, not his.

Keep telling yourself that.

Remember, I responded to a post where he called me (and nospam) "less
technically astute fanboy" and I responded in kind, where I just let him know
that we're not complaining about his photographs because he uses Linux, but
because he's not a very good photographer.

Sure, the reason why his post processing is so bad might be due to him using
Linux, but I'm sure a proficient photographer could use Linux and post-process
photos a lot better than he does.

So refreshing to see that bitching and trolling is not reserved to the
Linux users (or haters)

On 2015-04-22 20:41:02 +0000, Dirk T. Verbeek said:

Op 22-04-15 om 07:53 schreef Sandman:
In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Floyd is as scratchy as woolen underwear, and some of his
technical comments are certainly debatable, but to impugn his
photographic ability is completely undeserved.

Sandman:
How so? It's not like he hasn't done that himself a million times.
He's an asshole that knows next to nothing about photography, but
the point was that it's not due to him using Linux.

Andreas Skitsnack:
I invite anyone to review the images at: http://www.apaflo.com/
and find the work of a "not very good photographer".

Sandman:
Uh, yeah, I already did that, remember? It was even as a response
to you. I linked to some of his photos which had been really
poorly shot and really poorly post-processed. The photos I
"picked" were just the first ones I picked at random, not going
through his site to try to find bad ones.

You can look at anyone's portfolio of shots and find some you don't
like.

With Floyd, I didn't, as I just wrote above. I didn't "find" photos. I took
random photos from several galleries. Not cherry-picking bad ones. In fact,
when randomly choosing galleries, I was totally unable to find one good photo.

What you don't like, though, is not necessarily an indication
of bad photography.

This isn't about what I "like". I was in reference to particular photos that
was poorly shot and poorly post-processed. Again, like I said above. I didn't
go there and found photos which I personally disliked.

It's an indication of a style to which you
don't subscribe.

No, this isn't about "style". It's about not being able to handle the equipment
and the post processing of photographs.

Also, it can be a result of a predisposition to
find fault. That, I think, factors in greatly in this case.

At the time, I wasn't trying to find fault. I was questioning your apparent
admiration of his photos, and I picked some photos at random and asked you just
what about them you thought were so great, I was unable to find something great
with them.

"Poorly post-processed" is very subjective. Again, it's more a
matter of liking the style or not.

No, not in this case, where the post-processing was shoddily executed on a
technical level, where blurring and sharpening had been used inappropriately
and in a sub-standard way.

Sandman:
His reply? Well, that they are were really good photographs,
calling them "Nice shot!" as some form of self-encouragement. Of
course, in the end I didn't "understand" the photos and in what
supposed way they were great, which had me chuckling for a while.

Of course he would. You would defend a criticized effort of yours.

Haha, no I wouldn't. If I were to post photos I've taken and someone were to
claim they are bad, I wouldn't go "Nah, they're great photos!" as a response. I
leave that to people like Floyd who seems to think he's a master photographer.

You had something in mind when you shot the image, and something in
mind when you did the post. What you had in mind might not come
across to the viewer.

What Floyd supposedly had "in mind" is of no relevancy here, I am in reference
to a lot of his photos not being very good on a technical viewpoint, and a
post-processing viewpoint.

Your comment was rude, boorish, and undeserved.

It was neither of those things.

If you want to
continue the tit for tat game and question his technical expertise,
that's up to you. But, to claim he's not a good photographer
exposes your inadequacies, not his.

Keep telling yourself that.

Remember, I responded to a post where he called me (and nospam) "less
technically astute fanboy" and I responded in kind, where I just let him know
that we're not complaining about his photographs because he uses Linux, but
because he's not a very good photographer.

Sure, the reason why his post processing is so bad might be due to him using
Linux, but I'm sure a proficient photographer could use Linux and post-process
photos a lot better than he does.

So refreshing to see that bitching and trolling is not reserved to the
Linux users (or haters)

We run equal opportunity flame wars in the photo groups. Name your
battle ground, from image processing software, to camera manufacturers
& camera type, to HDR, to B&W vs. color, to subject choice, image
sharing services, etc. Then there is the issue of favored OS, all of
the usual suspects are to be found here in the photo groups Win, OSX,
and the Linux flavor of the day.

....and strangely enough, each one of us is burdened with our personal
biases, and prejudices deeply imbedded to justify our positions.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Dirk T. Verbeek" wrote:
Op 22-04-15 om 07:53 schreef Sandman:
In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Floyd is as scratchy as woolen underwear, and some of his
technical comments are certainly debatable, but to impugn his
photographic ability is completely undeserved.

Sandman:
How so? It's not like he hasn't done that himself a million times.
He's an asshole that knows next to nothing about photography, but
the point was that it's not due to him using Linux.

Andreas Skitsnack:
I invite anyone to review the images at: http://www.apaflo.com/
and find the work of a "not very good photographer".

Sandman:
Uh, yeah, I already did that, remember? It was even as a response
to you. I linked to some of his photos which had been really
poorly shot and really poorly post-processed. The photos I
"picked" were just the first ones I picked at random, not going
through his site to try to find bad ones.

You can look at anyone's portfolio of shots and find some you don't
like.

With Floyd, I didn't, as I just wrote above. I didn't "find" photos. I took
random photos from several galleries. Not cherry-picking bad ones. In fact,
when randomly choosing galleries, I was totally unable to find one good photo.

What you don't like, though, is not necessarily an indication
of bad photography.

This isn't about what I "like". I was in reference to particular photos that
was poorly shot and poorly post-processed. Again, like I said above. I didn't
go there and found photos which I personally disliked.

It's an indication of a style to which you
don't subscribe.

No, this isn't about "style". It's about not being able to handle the equipment
and the post processing of photographs.

Also, it can be a result of a predisposition to
find fault. That, I think, factors in greatly in this case.

At the time, I wasn't trying to find fault. I was questioning your apparent
admiration of his photos, and I picked some photos at random and asked you just
what about them you thought were so great, I was unable to find something great
with them.

"Poorly post-processed" is very subjective. Again, it's more a
matter of liking the style or not.

No, not in this case, where the post-processing was shoddily executed on a
technical level, where blurring and sharpening had been used inappropriately
and in a sub-standard way.

Sandman:
His reply? Well, that they are were really good photographs,
calling them "Nice shot!" as some form of self-encouragement. Of
course, in the end I didn't "understand" the photos and in what
supposed way they were great, which had me chuckling for a while.

Of course he would. You would defend a criticized effort of yours.

Haha, no I wouldn't. If I were to post photos I've taken and someone were to
claim they are bad, I wouldn't go "Nah, they're great photos!" as a response. I
leave that to people like Floyd who seems to think he's a master photographer.

You had something in mind when you shot the image, and something in
mind when you did the post. What you had in mind might not come
across to the viewer.

What Floyd supposedly had "in mind" is of no relevancy here, I am in reference
to a lot of his photos not being very good on a technical viewpoint, and a
post-processing viewpoint.

Your comment was rude, boorish, and undeserved.

It was neither of those things.

If you want to
continue the tit for tat game and question his technical expertise,
that's up to you. But, to claim he's not a good photographer
exposes your inadequacies, not his.

Keep telling yourself that.

Remember, I responded to a post where he called me (and nospam) "less
technically astute fanboy" and I responded in kind, where I just let him know
that we're not complaining about his photographs because he uses Linux, but
because he's not a very good photographer.

Sure, the reason why his post processing is so bad might be due to him using
Linux, but I'm sure a proficient photographer could use Linux and post-process
photos a lot better than he does.

So refreshing to see that bitching and trolling is not
reserved to the Linux users (or haters)

Sandman is just jealous.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


Dirk T. Verbeek:
So refreshing to see that bitching and trolling is not reserved to
the Linux users (or haters)

Sandman is just jealous.

That literally had me laughing out loud! Just the idea that you would even
entertain the idea that anyone would be "jealous" of... *you*? Hahaha!

--
Sandman

Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Dirk T. Verbeek:
So refreshing to see that bitching and trolling is not reserved to
the Linux users (or haters)

Sandman is just jealous.

That literally had me laughing out loud! Just the idea that you would even
entertain the idea that anyone would be "jealous" of... *you*? Hahaha!

It's an English word you don't seem to understand, yet.
Ask Tony about it (or actually any native English
speaker that works with words). But to really get the
gist of it, next time the psychiatrist has a chat with
you, ask about how it manifests...

And rest assured that you've "literally had" everyone
laughing.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Dirk T. Verbeek:
So refreshing to see that bitching and
trolling is not reserved to the Linux users (or haters)

Floyd L. Davidson:
Sandman is just jealous.

Sandman:
That literally had me laughing out loud! Just the idea that you
would even entertain the idea that anyone would be "jealous" of...
*you*? Hahaha!

It's an English word you don't seem to understand, yet. Ask Tony
about it (or actually any native English speaker that works with
words). But to really get the gist of it, next time the
psychiatrist has a chat with you, ask about how it manifests...

And rest assured that you've "literally had" everyone laughing.

You're like a duracell bunny stuck running face-first in to a concrete wall over
and over again. Never stop, Floyd! You're the reason why this group is so
entertaining!

--
Sandman