Paul Furman - Image thief

In a reply to a post in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Mr Furman posted a
link to two of my images he had stolen without permission. He modified one
to degrade the image with the express intent of using his altered version to
bully me.

The full message he sent is reproduced below. Decide for yourselves if he
can be trusted to produce pictures he might claim are his own but which
could in fact have been stolen from someone else's web site.

Doug

Path:
news-server.bigpond.net.au!pit-transit.telstra.net!pit-in1.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news.linkpendium. com!news.linkpendium.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.ne t!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.c om!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prod igy.net.POSTED!d1e16ee4!not-for-mail
From: Paul Furman
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.13)
Gecko/20060414
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Subject: Dumb Question on Lenses
References:





In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 30
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.107.82.173
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.net 1191430557 ST000 69.107.82.173 (Wed, 03
Oct 2007 12:55:57 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:55:57 EDT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1:
TSU[@I_A\S@SSV\[BRKHOFXBWR\HPCTL@XT^OBPLAH[\BPIB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSCENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA @X_DCBHXR[C@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWHFIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:55:57 GMT
Xref: news-server.bigpond.net.au rec.photo.digital.slr-systems:97178

D-Mac wrote:

"Per Inge Oestmoen" wrote in message
...

D-Mac wrote:

The real difference between the lenses is
so small in practice as to be insignificant.

This is so contrary to the fact as to be perverse.

The difference between low end consumer grade lenses and "pro" lenses is
considerable.

However, most amateurs do not understand the significance of increased
durability, faster apertures, faster autofocus, higher contrast, better
sharpness and superior color rendition.

But for those who do appreciate the differences, only the "professional"
lenses will be satisfactory. These discriminating users will gladly save
up for months and years if need be, and rightfully so.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Well at least you have an opinion. Why not let me have one too?
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/POD/07-09-07.htm

For educational purposes:
http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/20d-fz50

On Oct 3, 10:16 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:
In a reply to a post in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Mr Furman posted a
link to two of my images he had stolen without permission. He modified one
to degrade the image with the express intent of using his altered version to
bully me.


Looks to me like he modified both images with the same tone curve in
an attempt not to bully you, but to show how little wiggle-room the
Panasonic JPG had left after you Photoshopped the crap out of it.

I myself questioned some of the mysterious artifacts in those pics
which were created by your poor Photoshop techniques. Specifically,
the white "aura" around the wings on the Panasonic pic as well as the
dark brush strokes above the edge of the plane in the same pic.
It would be nice if you could post the unaltered originals from those
pics, but that's about as likely as me buying a Nikon D3.

D-Mac wrote:
In a reply to a post in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Mr Furman posted a
link to two of my images he had stolen without permission. He modified one
to degrade the image with the express intent of using his altered version to
bully me.

C'mon, Mac, no one who's been around here for a few years can be
bullied, nor really insulted to any harm, including you. Calling out
"bully" seems a bit nancy at times.

--
john mcwilliams

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
D-Mac wrote:
In a reply to a post in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Mr Furman posted a
link to two of my images he had stolen without permission. He modified
one to degrade the image with the express intent of using his altered
version to bully me.

C'mon, Mac, no one who's been around here for a few years can be bullied,
nor really insulted to any harm, including you. Calling out "bully" seems
a bit nancy at times.

--
john mcwilliams

Maybe so but does that excuse his theft?

The whole point in photography is displaying photographs the way the
photographer decides to show them. How much work I did on what image is of
no consequence. It's the final result that gets exhibited, not some cocked
up botch job some wannabe does in trying to put someone down.

Doug

Annika1980 wrote:

On Oct 3, 10:16 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:

In a reply to a post in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Mr Furman posted a
link to two of my images he had stolen without permission. He modified one
to degrade the image with the express intent of using his altered version to
bully me.

Looks to me like he modified both images with the same tone curve in
an attempt not to bully you, but to show how little wiggle-room the
Panasonic JPG had left after you Photoshopped the crap out of it.

For educational purposes.


I myself questioned some of the mysterious artifacts in those pics
which were created by your poor Photoshop techniques. Specifically,
the white "aura" around the wings on the Panasonic pic as well as the
dark brush strokes above the edge of the plane in the same pic.
It would be nice if you could post the unaltered originals from those
pics, but that's about as likely as me buying a Nikon D3.

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
. net...
Annika1980 wrote:

On Oct 3, 10:16 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:

In a reply to a post in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, Mr Furman posted a
link to two of my images he had stolen without permission. He modified
one
to degrade the image with the express intent of using his altered version
to
bully me.

Looks to me like he modified both images with the same tone curve in
an attempt not to bully you, but to show how little wiggle-room the
Panasonic JPG had left after you Photoshopped the crap out of it.

For educational purposes.


I myself questioned some of the mysterious artifacts in those pics
which were created by your poor Photoshop techniques. Specifically,
the white "aura" around the wings on the Panasonic pic as well as the
dark brush strokes above the edge of the plane in the same pic.
It would be nice if you could post the unaltered originals from those
pics, but that's about as likely as me buying a Nikon D3.

Sorry thief... UNless you are and educator and use the copyright material to
educate in a sancioned school, you have are just a liar trying to justify
your incredably bad behaviour.

DOug

OFF TOPIC.

Yes, it's the same old, oft repeated Douglas MacDonald "I'm being
bullied" signature tune! The one he rolls out every time he posts
some ridiculously flawed image comparison, or an example of his
incompetence at post-processing* and then someone has the audacity to
shoot his argument down in flames..
*Eg: http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/MJW-image-demo.htm (Aka, "how to kill
a rabbit"..)
(By the way, THOSE IMAGES DO NOT BELONG TO DOUGLAS!!!)

His previous tactics didn't seem to work (he used to just quickly pull
the images down), so now he uses the "bully" routine.

To Paul - and anyone else looking at this who may be Doug's next
'victim' - if Douglas MacDonald complains to your ISP, would you mind
sending a copy of the details to me? I'll happily do the same in
return. Thanks. (O:

To any ISP, or anyone else who gets a complaint from Mr MacDonald, you
would be VERY well-served to carefully investigate the behaviour of Mr
MacDonald before making copyright and 'fair use' judgements. Are the
images he claims are his, *really* his? He has certainly posted
images that were NOT his, on numerous occasions, and admitted that
fact (see above and below).

More history here (not on Google links, just to be different):
http://www.photography-forums.com/t8...y-of-dmac.html

Here's proof that he has posted images that were NOT his, and an
indication of his typical behaviour when criticised:
http://www.photography-forums.com/t8...m-the-criminal...

And he
http://www.photography-forums.com/t1...al-images.html
is where, about halfway down, Douglas posts as "Graham Hunt" in an
attempt to promote his business. Fraudulent behaviour, imo.

Thanks for listening. (I've got a million of 'em)

(O;

OFF TOPIC

On Oct 4, 9:37 pm, wrote:
http://www.photography-forums.com/t8...m-the-criminal...

Sorry, link broken, try:

http://www.photography-forums.com/t8...ilverberg.html

On Oct 4, 7:37 am, wrote:
Are the
images he claims are his, *really* his? He has certainly posted
images that were NOT his, on numerous occasions, and admitted that
fact (see above and below).

Yeah, but it is OK when he does it.

On Oct 4, 2:18 am, "D-Mac" wrote:

Sorry thief... UNless you are and educator and use the copyright material to
educate in a sancioned school, you have are just a liar trying to justify
your incredably bad behaviour.

You have done the exact same thing many times, D-Mac.
Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.

We all know that there is nothing you can do about Furman using your
images in this way except to make a few threats and then **** and
moan, so you might as well go ahead and get it over with.

Note that I am not defending Furman's actions. He is a Nikon guy so
he deserves what's coming to him.