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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:46:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: On Aug 11, 7:58*am, PeterN wrote: Scoundrel. Your lack of a proper response is telling us that you have no reply. -- Peter The response fits your actions to a TEE. I would write "to a t", but the "tee" version is common. Like most phrases, the origin is not really known but it is probably a reference based on "to a tittle". A "tittle" is a tiny amount best known in the Biblical phrase "jot or tittle". (Matthew 5:18) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The "tee" version could not be a reference to a golf tee because the phrase is recorded as first appearing in 1693. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
In article ,
PeterN wrote: On 8/11/2011 3:44 AM, Sandman wrote: In , PeterN wrote: RichA: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess age39064364 Looks very "busy." PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye): You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your inability to comprehend written material. OG: You really like the bokeh in the first photo? PeterN: Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others that are fine. Rich: Thanks for the 180, moron. PeterN: So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the equality of the lens. Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then? If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a reason. And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a discontinued lens. Yah, that was me But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm, "confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P -- Sandman[.net] |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
"Rich" wrote in message ... "Charles" wrote in : Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and boring studio shot. To each his own. I don't like bokeh that seems to invoke great motion. A couple Voigtlander lenses I've used have been similar, but stop them down 2 stops and they look great. Not bokeh ... the background can fight with the subject and overwhelm it. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On 8/11/2011 1:50 PM, Sandman wrote:
In , wrote: On 8/11/2011 3:44 AM, Sandman wrote: In , PeterN wrote: RichA: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess age39064364 Looks very "busy." PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye): You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your inability to comprehend written material. OG: You really like the bokeh in the first photo? PeterN: Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others that are fine. Rich: Thanks for the 180, moron. PeterN: So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the equality of the lens. Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then? If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a reason. And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a discontinued lens. Yah, that was me But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm, "confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P I have a pretty thick skin and don't really pay much attention to personal attacks in a newsgroup. Sadly, Rich uses a personal attack as a diversionary substitute for a proper reply. -- Peter |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
PeterN wrote in
: On 8/11/2011 1:50 PM, Sandman wrote: In , wrote: On 8/11/2011 3:44 AM, Sandman wrote: In , PeterN wrote: RichA: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess age39064364 Looks very "busy." PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye): You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your inability to comprehend written material. OG: You really like the bokeh in the first photo? PeterN: Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others that are fine. Rich: Thanks for the 180, moron. PeterN: So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the equality of the lens. Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then? If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a reason. And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a discontinued lens. Yah, that was me But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm, "confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P I have a pretty thick skin and don't really pay much attention to personal attacks in a newsgroup. Sadly, Rich uses a personal attack as a diversionary substitute for a proper reply. My God, an amazing example of denial (thick skin??!) and hypocrisy. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
In article ,
PeterN wrote: RichA: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess age39064364 Looks very "busy." PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye): You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your inability to comprehend written material. OG: You really like the bokeh in the first photo? PeterN: Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others that are fine. Rich: Thanks for the 180, moron. PeterN: So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the equality of the lens. Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then? If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a reason. And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a discontinued lens. Yah, that was me But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm, "confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P I have a pretty thick skin and don't really pay much attention to personal attacks in a newsgroup. Sadly, Rich uses a personal attack as a diversionary substitute for a proper reply. Again, neither of that changes the fact that personal attacks in this thread originated with you. I very much consider your subject change and comments about his alleged inabilities to be in lieu of a proper reply as well. -- Sandman[.net] |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On 8/12/2011 1:25 AM, Sandman wrote:
In , wrote: RichA: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess age39064364 Looks very "busy." PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye): You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your inability to comprehend written material. OG: You really like the bokeh in the first photo? PeterN: Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others that are fine. Rich: Thanks for the 180, moron. PeterN: So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the equality of the lens. Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then? If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a reason. And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a discontinued lens. Yah, that was me But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm, "confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P I have a pretty thick skin and don't really pay much attention to personal attacks in a newsgroup. Sadly, Rich uses a personal attack as a diversionary substitute for a proper reply. Again, neither of that changes the fact that personal attacks in this thread originated with you. I very much consider your subject change and comments about his alleged inabilities to be in lieu of a proper reply as well. They were in addition to, not in lieu of: I also suppose that he may have done this in prior threads is irrelevant: But: Tell ya what. The next time he posts a Richism, I will only comment and ask a question. Let's see what happens. -- Peter |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On 8/11/2011 10:43 PM, Rich wrote:
wrote in : On 8/11/2011 1:50 PM, Sandman wrote: In , wrote: On 8/11/2011 3:44 AM, Sandman wrote: In , wrote: RichA: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess age39064364 Looks very "busy." PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye): You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see to your inability to comprehend written material. OG: You really like the bokeh in the first photo? PeterN: Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are others that are fine. Rich: Thanks for the 180, moron. PeterN: So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the equality of the lens. Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then? If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a reason. And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a discontinued lens. Yah, that was me But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm, "confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P I have a pretty thick skin and don't really pay much attention to personal attacks in a newsgroup. Sadly, Rich uses a personal attack as a diversionary substitute for a proper reply. My God, an amazing example of denial (thick skin??!) and hypocrisy. then answer the questions. -- Peter |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:21:22 -0400, "Charles"
wrote: : : : "Rich" wrote in message : ... : : "Charles" wrote in : : : : Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and : boring studio shot. To each his own. : : I don't like bokeh that seems to invoke great motion. A couple Voigtlander : lenses I've used have been similar, but stop them down 2 stops and they : look great. : : Not bokeh ... the background can fight with the subject and overwhelm it. But that's a different issue, isn't it? The reason bokeh matters is that we're trying to get a distracting or unattractive background out of the way. It's true that a lens with good bokeh won't necessarily make it possible for you to do that effectively. But at least it won't make your task more difficult by introducing its own ugly artifacts and distractions. Rich's original point was that one expects an $1800 portrait lens to exhibit non-intrusive bokeh. If the illusion of coins raining down from the ceiling makes a given shot less bland and boring, that's beside the point, unless it's worth $1800 to you to be able to get that effect. Bob |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
rich is not only dumb, he has no eye
On 2011-08-12 15:41:17 -0700, Robert Coe said:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:21:22 -0400, "Charles" wrote: : : : "Rich" wrote in message : ... : : "Charles" wrote in : : : : Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and : boring studio shot. To each his own. : : I don't like bokeh that seems to invoke great motion. A couple Voigtlander : lenses I've used have been similar, but stop them down 2 stops and they : look great. : : Not bokeh ... the background can fight with the subject and overwhelm it. But that's a different issue, isn't it? The reason bokeh matters is that we're trying to get a distracting or unattractive background out of the way. It's true that a lens with good bokeh won't necessarily make it possible for you to do that effectively. But at least it won't make your task more difficult by introducing its own ugly artifacts and distractions. Rich's original point was that one expects an $1800 portrait lens to exhibit non-intrusive bokeh. If the illusion of coins raining down from the ceiling makes a given shot less bland and boring, that's beside the point, unless it's worth $1800 to you to be able to get that effect. Bob Just to clarify, Rich sucked us in with that premise. However the images in question were not shot with the new $1800 Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G, but the older, less expensive "D" lens. So all the comments critical of the $1800 lens have been misdirected. The subject line in that forum post is: "D300s Nikon 85mm 1.4D Models Kayla Donna", there is no mention of the 85mm f/1.4G. I will await results from other tests, and results from other shooters, before judging the new lens prematurely. The lesson here is we need to read carefully whenever Rich posts anything and implies a failure he finds disappointing. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jews, he should pour dark smogs before the quiet brave foothill, whilst Lionel locally laughs them too, Rich Dumb Dominatrix. | Big Rich Soprano | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 27th 06 10:38 AM |
[SI] Dumb Dummy I am wastefully healthy, so I irritate you. oysPd3u2NDw Dumb Dummy | Lionel Lauer | Digital Photography | 0 | April 10th 06 07:15 PM |
Dumb, dumb dumb Qestion | David Napierkowski | Digital Photography | 2 | October 30th 04 09:43 PM |