Lying in wait.. for James Bond fans only?

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:35:49 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:14:50 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:

I'll concede one out of two..

tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:04:19 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:

Why do you (and your sockpuppet) both call printers 'devises'?

The printer is a device, and is called a device in many computer
manuals and references. And in your "Device Manager" if you use
Windows. The "devise" spelling is sometimes used in the UK
??? Can you provide a cite for this? The only definitions I can find,
or have ever heard used, indicate that "devise" is only used as a verb..
"We will devise a clever plan."
or (very rarely and only in legal documents) as a noun meaning a gift of
property via a will.

Besides, my point was simply to show that D-Mac and his 'daughter'
(2squid), who both used the term identically, were one and the same person.

Well, my daughter has picked up many terms and phrases from me, and I
assure you that I really have a daughter.

I don't see it spelled this way very often, but it's not rare.

I beg to differ - like I said, cites?

I went to Google.UK and typed in "printer devise". First result up:
http://www.myofficemonkey.co.uk/id4.html Second result up:
http://www.art4all.co.uk/collectprint2.htm (right column under
"Digital Printing Process". Enuf? You won't find it using Google
unless you specify Google.UK and UK pages.

I brought up Google.aus and specified Australian pages only. First
two hits use the "devise" spelling for "device". Many more for
"device", but I'm looking for some, not most.

To find this variation in a dictionary you would have to use a
dictionary that lists UK spellings as the primary spelling. The
online dictionaries are US-centric. I don't have access to the OED,
but I'd expect that it's at least listed as a variation there.


Not in my copy of the Concise OED, same goes for advice vs advise.

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
So, show us a shot in a similar vein *where flash has been used*,

Have a look at almost any car sales brochure for example.

tell us how you would get a realistic effect that didn't overlight the
front of the car?

Did I say a single on camera flash?
Maybe you should learn by your mistakes rather than defending them.

Feel free to use google images.

Feel free to do your own research and try to learn something in the process.

Also, have you checked your monitor gamma lately?

Yep, have you?

You have my permission to tweak it as you wish in PS and re-post it -
show us how you would do it. There is plenty of detail in the shadows
to play with, and the fact it will go a bit noisy should not be a
problem for the effect you want.

If it was mine I wouldn't waste time on it. Since it's not, I'm even less
inclined.
If you want to learn something, try it yourself, if not, no skin off my
nose.

MrT.

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...
The shot is evocative and very compelling just as it is.

If you think so, fine by me.

Why don't you bore us with how it doesn't comply perfectly with the rule
of
thirds?

Never have, is it something you have a fixation about?

Photography isn't paint-by-numbers.

Who said it was?

You actually have to apply judgement,
not work to some brainless formula designed to keep idiots from stuffing
up.

No, the brainless idiots are happy with whatever crap they produce. And
wouldn't understand a formula in any case.

How's it working for you, BTW?

Fine thanks, let me know how much money THAT picture makes :-)

MrT.

Mr.T wrote:
"Jeff R." wrote in message
...
The shot is evocative and very compelling just as it is.

If you think so, fine by me.

Why don't you bore us with how it doesn't comply perfectly with the rule
of
thirds?

Never have, is it something you have a fixation about?

Photography isn't paint-by-numbers.

Who said it was?

You actually have to apply judgement,
not work to some brainless formula designed to keep idiots from stuffing
up.

No, the brainless idiots are happy with whatever crap they produce. And
wouldn't understand a formula in any case.

How's it working for you, BTW?

Fine thanks, let me know how much money THAT picture makes :-)
Is that the only judge of the quality of a photo, how much
money it makes?
There are many many fine photographs taken every day, that
will never make a cent, and never be seen by anyone other
than the family of the person that took it. Does that mean
they are all crap because they don't make money?
If a photo is taken for the purpose of being sold, then yes,
by all means strive for technical excellence. Striving for
technical excellence is also something that should be done
while practising the craft. But when you are taking a quick
grab so you can remember an event / person / place etc, then
technical excellence can be pushed aside a little and still
result in a decent picture. Yeah Mark's photo isn't going to
grace the covers of a magazine - but snapshots taken of a
car parked at an event never do. I'm sure that had Mark's
intent been to get a cover-photo, he would have consulted
with the owner of the vehicle, and got it postitioned in
better light, set up additional flashguns etc. Such a shoot
would have been done over the course of hours, perhaps days,
not in the couple of minutes he'd have had to do this shot.

Mr.T wrote:
"Jeff R." wrote in message
...
The shot is evocative and very compelling just as it is.

If you think so, fine by me.

Good.
I'm tired of point-by-point ****ing contests, so feel free to fill your own
pocket.

--
Jeff R.

Doug Jewell wrote:
Mr.T wrote:
"Jeff R." wrote in message
...
The shot is evocative and very compelling just as it is.

If you think so, fine by me.

Why don't you bore us with how it doesn't comply perfectly with the rule
of
thirds?

Never have, is it something you have a fixation about?

Photography isn't paint-by-numbers.

Who said it was?

You actually have to apply judgement,
not work to some brainless formula designed to keep idiots from stuffing
up.

No, the brainless idiots are happy with whatever crap they produce. And
wouldn't understand a formula in any case.

How's it working for you, BTW?

Fine thanks, let me know how much money THAT picture makes :-)
Is that the only judge of the quality of a photo, how much money it makes?
There are many many fine photographs taken every day, that will never
make a cent, and never be seen by anyone other than the family of the
person that took it. Does that mean they are all crap because they don't
make money?
If a photo is taken for the purpose of being sold, then yes, by all
means strive for technical excellence. Striving for technical excellence
is also something that should be done while practising the craft. But
when you are taking a quick grab so you can remember an event / person /
place etc, then technical excellence can be pushed aside a little and
still result in a decent picture. Yeah Mark's photo isn't going to grace
the covers of a magazine - but snapshots taken of a car parked at an
event never do. I'm sure that had Mark's intent been to get a
cover-photo, he would have consulted with the owner of the vehicle, and
got it postitioned in better light, set up additional flashguns etc.
Such a shoot would have been done over the course of hours, perhaps
days, not in the couple of minutes he'd have had to do this shot.

Yay! At last a post that supports the
"non-professional" photographer. My photos may not
be that good, but the people I show them to think
they're ok. I ask stupid questions here from time
to time, in the hope that I can learn & get
better, but have been taken to task by
B.A.Baraccus for asking such questions! I
sometimes think that "use-net" is a waste of
Clubber Langs time, & everyone should stop posting
offensive questions/posts!

Maybe he should stop his jibber-jabbering, get
some nuts, & show everyone how this whole
photography thing is done!

P.S. Sorry Mark for not responding to your
original post, I thought your pic was cool!


--
M.J.Wyllie.

Doug Jewell wrote:
Mr.T wrote:
"Jeff R." wrote in message
...
The shot is evocative and very compelling just as it is.

If you think so, fine by me.

Why don't you bore us with how it doesn't comply perfectly with the rule
of
thirds?

Never have, is it something you have a fixation about?

Photography isn't paint-by-numbers.

Who said it was?

You actually have to apply judgement,
not work to some brainless formula designed to keep idiots from stuffing
up.

No, the brainless idiots are happy with whatever crap they produce. And
wouldn't understand a formula in any case.

How's it working for you, BTW?

Fine thanks, let me know how much money THAT picture makes :-)

Is that the only judge of the quality of a photo, how much money it makes?
There are many many fine photographs taken every day, that will never
make a cent, and never be seen by anyone other than the family of the
person that took it. Does that mean they are all crap because they don't
make money?

If a photo is taken for the purpose of being sold, then yes, by all
means strive for technical excellence. Striving for technical excellence
is also something that should be done while practising the craft. But
when you are taking a quick grab so you can remember an event / person /
place etc, then technical excellence can be pushed aside a little and
still result in a decent picture. Yeah Mark's photo isn't going to grace
the covers of a magazine - but snapshots taken of a car parked at an
event never do. I'm sure that had Mark's intent been to get a
cover-photo, he would have consulted with the owner of the vehicle, and
got it postitioned in better light, set up additional flashguns etc.
Such a shoot would have been done over the course of hours, perhaps
days, not in the couple of minutes he'd have had to do this shot.

Photos of rare or historically significant vehicles taken at places like
Ormiston House are definitely saleable either outright to a print maker
or as LE "royalty" prints through print galleries.

Someone with foresight could have assembled a very nice collection on
the day suitable for a coffee table book and for an investment of less
than a grand (including the hire of a D3 or 1D), produced half a dozen
or so LE books that had the potential to sell for anything up to $500 each.

Without the glaring defects and taken with a high resolution camera,
that shot had the potential to sell as an LE canvas print maybe 4 or 5
times a year and actually pay for the camera that took it many times over.

A less expensive exercise is screen savers. It takes about 20 minutes to
make a screen saver collection that people like the Atheist spend money
on. My "automotive portrait collections" - posters I made as far back as
2000 still produce income, 8 years after I took the photos.
http://www.d_mac.info/example1 for a look at one of them.

What I don't understand is why Mark whines about his inability to
"afford" a decent outfit and spends a lot of time excusing the poor
quality of the images he posts when, with a tiny bit of advise from
those he manages to alienate, he could actually pay for top flight gear
by using it to do what I just described.

You can all pick **** at me as much as you like but since 1994, I've
made a rewarding income from selling photographs. If I can do it, anyone
can. Anyone that is ...with enough humility to admit they need help and
not bugger it all up by trying to make out they are some sort of God of
imagery and can't produces any evidence that might suggest that could be
true.


Doug.
--

visit www.D-Mac.info
to relieve the tension...
Usenet is after all Usenet!

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:46:28 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

Yes, you got me on this one. My bad.
????
Advise and advice are two different words. Both pertain to giving
information, and suggestions, but one is the verb form and the other is
the noun form, and our British cousins would spell 'advise' as 'advize'.
At least they would if they were consistent. But who can expect that
from the English language....?? After all, they put bonnets on lories!

Ron,
We are consistent. The bonnet is the cover over the engine compartment of
any front engined vehicle whether car, lorry, bus etc. If the vehicle has
the engine in an alternative place then other names will usually be found.

--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:35:49 -0400, tony cooper wrote:


I went to Google.UK and typed in "printer devise". First result up:
http://www.myofficemonkey.co.uk/id4.html Second result up:
http://www.art4all.co.uk/collectprint2.htm (right column under "Digital
Printing Process". Enuf? You won't find it using Google unless you
specify Google.UK and UK pages.

I brought up Google.aus and specified Australian pages only. First two
hits use the "devise" spelling for "device". Many more for "device",
but I'm looking for some, not most.

To find this variation in a dictionary you would have to use a
dictionary that lists UK spellings as the primary spelling. The online
dictionaries are US-centric. I don't have access to the OED, but I'd
expect that it's at least listed as a variation there.

Before we say that someone is wrong, it's best to see what might be
right for them that is wrong for us.

You can't trust the web for anything and modern magazines and newspapers
are just as bad when it comes to spelling.

--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:52:34 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

Although, I believe that it's rather incautious to rely on The Bard for
exact spellings.
He apparently couldn't even decide on how to spell "Shakespear", there
are several different spellings from different signatures which I've
seen reproduced photographically in textbooks.

In his day and for a century plus afterwards spelling was variable and
the educated man was rated by the number of different ways he could spell
words, good manners entailed using a different spelling each time a word
was used in (for example) a letter or essay.

--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851