CRICKETS LOVE THE 40D!

On Feb 4, 6:30*pm, Noons wrote:
On Feb 5, 9:25 am, JimKramer wrote:



Even if you did there is no way to know that it is your pic. *At any
rate I'm sure that you can explain why one post has you in Canada and
another has you in Tennessee. Granted with in two hours, quick
flight? :-)

haven't you followed Brett's posts in RSG?
The man is widely known for his "identity"
pranks. *Most of the "fan" *traffic you see
here is from him.

Jeez...
Amazing, how there is a twit born every
second...
Good thing for rat**** marketing, though!

And you need look no further than a mirror Noons, because if you and
the rest of them believe that garbage about me being Bret, than you
are indeed a twit. Anyone who lists himself in his own profile as
"Chief Moron" as you have should never be taken seriously.
I am indeed a diehard fan of Bret's and I have always been proud of
it. I've endured vicious attacks by many of you. But this will cease
because frankly I've had it.
It's no wonder that Bret has moved on and I will do the same.
Helen

On Feb 5, 9:51*am, Helen wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:30*pm, Noons wrote:



On Feb 5, 9:25 am, JimKramer wrote:

Even if you did there is no way to know that it is your pic. *At any
rate I'm sure that you can explain why one post has you in Canada and
another has you in Tennessee. Granted with in two hours, quick
flight? :-)

haven't you followed Brett's posts in RSG?
The man is widely known for his "identity"
pranks. *Most of the "fan" *traffic you see
here is from him.

Jeez...
Amazing, how there is a twit born every
second...
Good thing for rat**** marketing, though!

And you need look no further than a mirror Noons, because if you and
the rest of them believe that garbage about me being Bret, than you
are indeed a twit. *Anyone who lists himself in his own profile as
"Chief Moron" as you have should never be taken seriously.
I am indeed a diehard fan of Bret's and I have always been proud of
it. *I've endured vicious attacks by many of you. *But this will cease
because frankly I've had it.
It's no wonder that Bret has moved on and I will do the same.
Helen

See ya Brett. ;-)

On Feb 4, 6:30*pm, Noons wrote:
On Feb 5, 9:25 am, JimKramer wrote:



Even if you did there is no way to know that it is your pic. *At any
rate I'm sure that you can explain why one post has you in Canada and
another has you in Tennessee. Granted with in two hours, quick
flight? :-)

haven't you followed Brett's posts in RSG?
The man is widely known for his "identity"
pranks. *Most of the "fan" *traffic you see
here is from him.

Jeez...
Amazing, how there is a twit born every
second...
Good thing for rat**** marketing, though!

That explains everything... you were born again!

On Feb 4, 5:25*pm, JimKramer wrote:

Even if you did there is no way to know that it is your pic. *At any
rate I'm sure that you can explain why one post has you in Canada and
another has you in Tennessee. Granted with in two hours, quick
flight? :-)-

Why don't you figure it out, Sherlock?

On Feb 4, 6:30*pm, Noons wrote:


haven't you followed Brett's posts in RSG?
The man is widely known for his "identity"
pranks. *Most of the "fan" *traffic you see
here is from him.


What a bunch of ****wits!
Not that I owe any of you ****tards an explanation, but here's what
happened. Helen was having trouble with her Google account the other
day. I told her I'd try to help. I logged into her Google account
from work. This was last week sometime. Today I made that post from
work and I was inadvertently still logged in as Helen. That explains
why only one of my groups was showing up in the Group List. I about
went crazy lookin for alt.binaries.pics.anal.asians.

Glad I could provide some excitement into your otherwise dull
existence.

Anyway, back to my niece's pic. I have removed the shiny picture
frame in the background and tried to clean up the light reflection
under her chin.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/92448513

On Feb 4, 7:05*pm, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:

Oh, Bret, don't look back when the door hits you in the ass.


You are the primary reason I don't post much anymore. I can only take
so much of your bull**** trolls and crappy photography.
At least D-Mac is occasionally amusing. You, on the other hand, are
just full of ****. You've polluted the group to the point where it
isn't really worth reading anymore.

I don't much believe in killfiles and Google doesn't offer them
anyway, but if it did I'm sure you'd be the first occupant in mine.
Butt wipe.

On Feb 4, 8:11*pm, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:

Right! *You ****ed up and spilled the beans on your alter ego, "Helen" and
you want us to believe this? *You're funnier than I thought.

Rita

You are nothing but a retarded one-joke comedian telling the same
****in knock-knock joke over and over. And please stop cross-posting
your crap into the golf group. Nobody over there gives a **** about
your limp dicked psychoses.

On Feb 4, 11:23 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
The 85/1.4 Nikkor would have eliminated this problem.
Only if he changed viewpoint - a fuzzy cluttered background ain't much
better than a less fuzzy one, except perhaps to folks like you. The
main problem here is the fact that the background is *both* cluttered
and too sharp. A good photographer will consider *all* the factors
that make up a photograph, rather than simply obsess over a particular
lens..

The 85 may have put him out of the room, or maybe he could have used
stitching, or scrapped the dog... Brilliant thinking from 'Rita'.

No Mark, it is what it is, a poor snap with improper lighting for the focal
length used.
And what exactly does that mean? I take it Rita changes her lighting
depending on her lens? Yes, it's slightly improper lighting for the
SCENE. But please elaborate on this new technique of using different
lighting depending on the lens. Sounds like something about as useful
as Doug's walking panoramas..

Since the flash was on Camera and to the left (As demonstrated
by the blown highlights on the hand and overall shadowing).
Yes, you manged to spot where the flash is - bravo! But the blown
highlights claim is fascinating. How have you got your monitor
adjusted, Rita? I can't see anything beyond 230/205/185 on her hand.
That's *not* blown.
The gold frame thing was blown (now removed). And *this* shot has a
lot of blown highlights - I can post coordinates for all the
255,255,255 bits if you want:
http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/double_stick.htm

So please post a coordinate and the 'blown' RGB readings you are
claiming, Mrs Magoo.

Had he used an 85/1.4 Nikkor he would have been able
to stand back a few paces and get more creative with the flash, or off
camera multiple flash diffused and/or bounced.
Oh gee, it's all about the lens again? Getting 'more creative' with
the flash, as you admit yourself, normally means getting it off the
camera. Once you do that, the lens is irrelevant to the lighting.
The lighting effect is all about the relationship of the light to the
subject. Saying it's all about the lens because he would then move
back with his flash is just daft - there would be no significant
change until he got the flash off the camera, and repositioned the
subject or REMOVED THE MIRROR which appears to have given the
flashback effect.

The fact that you don't understand this really basic stuff and keep
coming back to your one true love, that Nikkor, as the solution to all
the problems of the universe, tells all.

An experience photog wouldn't have used the lighting techniques or that
focal length with all the reflective objects in the surroundings.
The focal length has little to do with it. Simply angling the shot
differently and moving her a little away from the mirror would have
solved the major problems in a flash... and the 85 probably would have
reduced it to a head only shot...

Had Bret
taken a few seconds to think this out and take the ****en flash off the
camera he *might* have got something acceptable.

So now you admit it wasn't about the lens. You're getting there! The
habit you have of arguing then admitting defeat in the next breath was
vaguely funny once...

Even trolls need to get a clue, 'Rita'. Feel free to debate this
point by explaining how a diffuser will *remove* that shadow line, and
where you think the shadow actually came from.

Mark, even your level of stupidity isn't going to garnish a response.

Beautifully side-stepped - I'm sure no-one noticed!! I certainly
didn't.

I'll have to get D-Mac in here to spank
your ass again.

Ooh, bringing in the other most highly respected shooter - scary.
Yawn. Doug seems to be a little quiet right now.. By the way, where
*were* you when D-Mac had his 'walking panorama' posting completely
demolished? I see he was so embarrassed about the lies he posted he
has now pulled the page. He might need some support, Rita..

Spoken by an expert at that..
And enjoying every minute of it. Thank you.

Oh yes, you have sooooo pwned us. 1337. Kewl. Us noobs is just putty
in your xpurt trollin' hands.

I think we need to rename you --- R337 the 1337.

On Feb 4, 7:42*pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:30*pm, Noons wrote:



haven't you followed Brett's posts in RSG?
The man is widely known for his "identity"
pranks. *Most of the "fan" *traffic you see
here is from him.

What a bunch of ****wits!
Not that I owe any of you ****tards an explanation, but here's what
happened. *Helen was having trouble with her Google account the other
day. *I told her I'd try to help. *I logged into her Google account
from work. *This was last week sometime. *Today I made that post from
work and I was inadvertently still logged in as Helen. *That explains
why only one of my groups was showing up in the Group List. *I about
went crazy lookin for alt.binaries.pics.anal.asians.

Glad I could provide some excitement into your otherwise dull
existence.

Anyway, back to my niece's pic. *I have removed the shiny picture
frame in the background and tried to clean up the light reflection
under her chin.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/92448513

A much better portrait. Less distracting the background, the better to
view the subject. Nice looking lady, Bret. I'll bet that she asked you
to never shoot her again. My niece does all the time until she wants
another.hehe

Well done Bret.



Draco

JimKramer wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:59 pm, John McWilliams wrote:
JimKramer wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:50 pm, PixelPix wrote:
On Feb 5, 3:33 am, Helen wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:55 am, wrote:
In this case, I would
take a wild guess that the mirror, or some *other* light source has
caused this problem. A diffuser will simply soften the edge a little.
You are correct. It was caused by a large mirror on the side wall
reflecting the omnidirectional light from the Gary Fong. I wasn't too
concerned about it since these were just quick family grab shots
destined only for my niece's MySpace account.
What the....!
Is anyone here who they say they are? .... or am I not really me?
Now I am worried, what if it turns out that "I" am a D-Mac sock!!!
Or even worse, perhaps everyone here is me and I have been talking to
myself the whole time!! ......Oh the stress of it all!!!
I always assumed that this was just the maniacal work of one mind and
we are all just arguing with ourselves. To be sure everyone go and
take their picture in a mirror and post. That will remove all
doubt. :-)(-:
aus.photo- joinked.

Yes, it would seem that you, now posting as JK, are 48 others, not
including socks! So, it's just you and me, Jim. Full Power, cap'n!!

Almost logical!

Sometimes comical!

Death of usenet: Film at eleven.

--
John McWilliams- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why is it they always wait to film until eleven? ;-)

'Cause eveything is digital until near the midnight hour......