![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
... On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win wrote: Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in unnatural hues. Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in birds' feathers. Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images) http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg Compare to the same species taken using available light alone. http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with flash in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by black-lights. The have no concept of reality left. Gee, was that really taken by you. It actually is a nice shot. -- Peter |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:21:57 -0400, "Peter The TROLL"
wrote: I see you have also managed to bend light so the rays appear to come at different angles in different parts of the image. Good work. And I see that your'e a total moron pretend-photographer troll that doesn't know how to use reflecting light off existing nearby structures to benefit their subjects. How could you, when you don't even own a camera. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
... On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:21:57 -0400, "Peter The TROLL" wrote: I see you have also managed to bend light so the rays appear to come at different angles in different parts of the image. Good work. And I see that your'e a total moron pretend-photographer troll that doesn't know how to use reflecting light off existing nearby structures to benefit their subjects. How could you, when you don't even own a camera. We all know that swamp water has a highly reflective surface. -- Peter |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 17:51:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2010-09-06 17:30:03 -0700, "Peter" said: "Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message ... On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win wrote: Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in unnatural hues. Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in birds' feathers. Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images) http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg Compare to the same species taken using available light alone. http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with flash in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by black-lights. The have no concept of reality left. Gee, was that really taken by you. It actually is a nice shot. Of course it isn't his. It was processed with PS, and he has told us he wouldn't touch PS. ...and then there is the © notification to consider. So he is just using others' work as usual. His stuff is usually postage stamp size, and degraded to the point of being useless. Now, why would you want them to be useful to you? So you can steal them and use them for your own gain like so many images of mine have been stolen and used in the past? The above two are not mine but were good examples to show how flash destroys all nature photography, especially bird photography, nothing more. A very simple way to tell--those two will still be on the net at those same links 24-36 hours from now. Mine will not. Just as every photo of my own that I posted is no longer available on any past discussion threads. Still can't get enough attention, eh? You ****ingly useless off-topic thread-hijacking crapshooting TROLL. LOL! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:10:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: "Peter" wrote in message ... "Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message ... On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win wrote: Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in unnatural hues. Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in birds' feathers. Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images) http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg Compare to the same species taken using available light alone. http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with flash in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by black-lights. The have no concept of reality left. Gee, was that really taken by you. No, it wasn't taken by the troll. He does this frequently, swipes the work of photographers who know what they're doing and passes it off here as his own. He has various phony excuses for why he never presents the images in a larger size; the actual reason is that he just takes them off the Internet at the sizes he finds them in. You're nothing but a ****ing slanderous liar. Nothing more. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:10:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: "Peter" wrote in message ... "Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message ... On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win wrote: Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in unnatural hues. Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in birds' feathers. Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images) http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg Compare to the same species taken using available light alone. http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with flash in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by black-lights. The have no concept of reality left. Gee, was that really taken by you. No, it wasn't taken by the troll. He does this frequently, swipes the work of photographers who know what they're doing and passes it off here as his own. He has various phony excuses for why he never presents the images in a larger size; the actual reason is that he just takes them off the Internet at the sizes he finds them in. Correction: You're ALL nothing but ****ing slanderous liar TROLLS. Nothing more. Here's 100% proof that that's all that you are and will ever be. Downsize just posted: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4964883939_71fc42a8c5_z.jpg 100% pixel crop: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/4966255846_107ce516f3_t.jpga Downsize just posted: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/4964883943_6c45c771a9.jpg 100% pixel crop: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4966255870_376bc6e6ff_t.jpg Where oh where did I get those 100% pixel crops if I stole the images? Enjoy eating your decaying fetid crow. What a ****ing waste of my time. Having to show the whole world what pathetic liars you are. I'm sure others must be aware enough to have figured that out on their own from your past behaviors, but just in case -- the above is 100% proof that you all are just that, lousy slanderous liar trolls, and only that. Absolutely nothing more than that. Nor will you ever be more than that in your sorry excuses for lives. Of course, if you had seen the image of the rare white Tiger Swallowtail butterfly that I posted in the past and then the 100% pixel crop showing resolution detail down to individual wing scales, shot from 7 feet away, that too would prove you all to be the pathetic liar trolls that you are. Why you even bother trying to continue to prove that's all you are is beyond me. What a legacy you leave of yourselves on the net, and to the world. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
All links to my own photos now working (for 24-36 hours).
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:10:18 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "Peter" wrote in message ... "Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message ... On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win wrote: Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in unnatural hues. Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in birds' feathers. Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images) http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg Compare to the same species taken using available light alone. http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with flash in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by black-lights. The have no concept of reality left. Gee, was that really taken by you. No, it wasn't taken by the troll. He does this frequently, swipes the work of photographers who know what they're doing and passes it off here as his own. He has various phony excuses for why he never presents the images in a larger size; the actual reason is that he just takes them off the Internet at the sizes he finds them in. Correction: You're ALL nothing but ****ing slanderous liar TROLLS. Nothing more. Here's 100% proof that that's all that you are and will ever be. Downsize just posted: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4964883939_71fc42a8c5_z.jpg 100% pixel crop: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/4966255846_107ce516f3_t.jpg Downsize just posted: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/4964883943_6c45c771a9.jpg 100% pixel crop: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4966255870_376bc6e6ff_t.jpg Where oh where did I get those 100% pixel crops if I stole the images? Enjoy eating your decaying fetid crow. What a ****ing waste of my time. Having to show the whole world what pathetic liars you are. I'm sure others must be aware enough to have figured that out on their own from your past behaviors, but just in case -- the above is 100% proof that you all are just that, lousy slanderous liar trolls, and only that. Absolutely nothing more than that. Nor will you ever be more than that in your sorry excuses for lives. Of course, if you had seen the image of the rare white Tiger Swallowtail butterfly that I posted in the past and then the 100% pixel crop showing resolution detail down to individual wing scales, shot from 7 feet away, that too would prove you all to be the pathetic liar trolls that you are. Why you even bother trying to continue to prove that's all you are is beyond me. What a legacy you leave of yourselves on the net, and to the world. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter" wrote in message ... "Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 20:21:57 -0400, "Peter The TROLL" wrote: I see you have also managed to bend light so the rays appear to come at different angles in different parts of the image. Good work. And I see that your'e a total moron pretend-photographer troll that doesn't know how to use reflecting light off existing nearby structures to benefit their subjects. How could you, when you don't even own a camera. We all know that swamp water has a highly reflective surface. probably swamp gas. not only a ufo, but also unidentified photography "skill". |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2010-09-06 18:10:18 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:
"Peter" wrote in message ... "Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message ... On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win wrote: Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in unnatural hues. Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in birds' feathers. Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images) http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg Compare to the same species taken using available light alone. http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with flash in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by black-lights. The have no concept of reality left. Gee, was that really taken by you. No, it wasn't taken by the troll. He does this frequently, swipes the work of photographers who know what they're doing and passes it off here as his own. He has various phony excuses for why he never presents the images in a larger size; the actual reason is that he just takes them off the Internet at the sizes he finds them in. It actually is a nice shot. Yes indeed. A very nice shot by P.H. Chuah, more of whose work appears he http://www.hocus-phocus.com/hppage1.htm Chuah's copyright notice appears in the lower right of the shot. What do you want to bet that Chuah used a DSLR, too? -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 07/09/2010 03:51, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
All links to my own photos now working (for 24-36 hours). On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 21:10:18 -0400, "Neil wrote: wrote in message ... "Superzooms Still wrote in message ... On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:53:04 -0500, Superzooms Still Win wrote: Flash ruins any nature-photography subject. It also imparts unnatural colors due to its intensity and UV light output, causing many structures like feathers of birds and exoskeletons of insects to fluoresce in unnatural hues. Here's a good example of what high-powered flash does to the colors in birds' feathers. Broad-tailed Hummingbird (female, both images) http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1027755241_f0b4caf468.jpg Compare to the same species taken using available light alone. http://www.hocus-phocus.com/Images/CRW_6518BroadtailedHb1.jpg You'd never find the artificially and garishly colored one taken with flash in any birder's ID guide. People who put photos like that on their walls also have a collection of black-velvet fluorescent Elvis paintings lit by black-lights. The have no concept of reality left. Gee, was that really taken by you. No, it wasn't taken by the troll. He does this frequently, swipes the work of photographers who know what they're doing and passes it off here as his own. He has various phony excuses for why he never presents the images in a larger size; the actual reason is that he just takes them off the Internet at the sizes he finds them in. Correction: You're ALL nothing but ****ing slanderous liar TROLLS. Nothing more. Here's 100% proof that that's all that you are and will ever be. Downsize just posted: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4964883939_71fc42a8c5_z.jpg 100% pixel crop: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/4966255846_107ce516f3_t.jpg Downsize just posted: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/4964883943_6c45c771a9.jpg 100% pixel crop: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4966255870_376bc6e6ff_t.jpg Where oh where did I get those 100% pixel crops if I stole the images? Indeed yours... the 100% crop is indeed of P&S "quality". Now, the curious thing is that the 100% crop of the first shows that the image you honor us with is a 25% reduction, so the original image would be about 2248 pixels wide, so that would be a 3.8Mpix camera and I doubt such an oldie could have been used to take that kind of picture. So you do happen to crop your pictures now and then? -- Bertrand |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A couple of questions on a Nikkor 500 mm f/4 ED AF-S II | Dave[_27_] | Digital Photography | 12 | September 22nd 08 03:54 AM |
A couple of questions on a Nikkor 500 mm f/4 ED AF-S II | Dave[_27_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | September 22nd 08 03:54 AM |
A couple questions regarding the Canon 550 EX flash | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | April 1st 08 06:08 AM |
A couple of questions about DIGITAL camcorders. | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | August 29th 06 01:41 PM |
Nikon D70, couple of questions | Jon | Digital Photography | 28 | August 29th 04 07:48 PM |