TROLLING WITH THE 40D !

On Oct 5, 9:09 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:

Fantastic photo? Not a photo at all.
Here's a few quotes from the man himself:
"I just call my stuff pics"

I agree. It was just a quick grab shot with the 40D. Probably better
than anything you've ever taken with your crappy Crapasonic, of
course, but nothing to write home about. I mean, you don't seriously
expect me to post my good stuff, do ya?

D-Mac wrote:
Why doncha ask him for the original?
It seems to me he needed the resolution of his new toy to get enough
to crop.

Did it make your brown eyes green?

"D-Mac" wrote in message
...

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
If you throw out enough stinky bait, every once in awhile
you get a nice catch:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86705587/original


Not a bad shot but I did wonder if a tiny touch less sharpening might
improve the pic.

Cheers.

Pete
Congratulations... The first post you've made any sense with in weeks.

Doug


That would put me at least a couple up on you then? Good for me. ;-)

"Marutchi" BarbaraH*REMOVE wrote in message
...
D-Mac wrote:
Why doncha ask him for the original?
It seems to me he needed the resolution of his new toy to get enough
to crop.

Did it make your brown eyes green?


Red I think!!

On Oct 6, 11:10 am, "D-Mac" wrote:
Congratulations... The first post you've made any sense with in weeks.

Doug

The irony (on two levels) of this Yoda-esque post was not lost on me.

Funny you are, Doug!

Off topic, just questioning some of Douglas' statements.

On Oct 6, 11:09 am, "D-Mac" wrote:
I' (sic) have 2, loan 40Ds on the desk in front of me. The proposition is that
we'll shoot today's weddings (all three of them) with these cameras...

Apart from the obvious question of whether this is another of Douglas
(Magoo) MacDonald's made up stories, you have got to 'admire' someone
with a business model like this... (cough) He is going to shoot 3
weddings using *loan* cameras (!!) that he/his photographers have not
tested and are unfamiliar with. Mm. Good move. Just curious, I
wonder what their *backup* cameras are?

Judging from this morning's dawn beach wedding I doubt they'll make the
grade.... if the best from these critters is as good as it gets...

!!!! Well, I'm sure Doug's clients will be MOST pleased that they
were guinea pigs.

Let's not forget either, you are seeking to judge a "PIC" at 92 pixels...

This shows Doug's remarkable mathematical prowess. The image was 877
x 660. Oh well, that's pretty close to 92 pixels..

Yep, this would be the same 'pro' who one minute says he is abandoning
film for digital, then later abandoned digital for film, then turned
again and told us that his Panasonic FZ20 wonder camera (a 5Mp
prosumer) was better than MF... I notice he has now moved 'up' to an
FZ50 (the same FZ50 that reviews show to be, if anything, a step
*down* in quality...) Even his own testpages show what you get from a
camera competing well out of its league:
http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/FZ50-Panasonic.htm
Note the ringing around the text, typical of most (but not all)
prosumers.
http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/Full-res-Panasonic.jpg
You'll only have to see the first inch or so to realise what a mess
Panasonic's noise processing makes - it looks like a pointillist
painting, and still has bucketloads of noise.
http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/FZ50-Panasonic-image.htm
Look at the petal in the crop - again note the watercolour effect and
oversharpening halos *even though he inanely points out it isn't a
full-res crop*...
http://weddingsnportraits.com/POD/07-09-07.htm
!!! Just a few q's he
- how could a 'pro' screw up the settings so badly that he needed
shutter speeds of 1/90 and 1/140 for those images?
- why is the FZ50 image content bigger (just bigger enough that you
can begin to read the oversharpened text - why, what a coincidence!)
- what the heck is that huge dark area above the FZ50 fuselage? Some
sort of reverse blooming, or has he (badly) applied HDR (see next Q)?
Or could it be a lens flare problem - surely not, from that Leitz
masterpiece??
- how on earth could you get such high contrast in the Canon image,
and so little in the FZ50? Anyone who has used these cameras knows
that is not a realistic outcome - the FZ50 looks manipulated (not that
Doug would cheat, of course - he never has before .. (chortle..)
Maybe one could deliberate choose settings to exaggerate the point you
wish to make... but nah, of course not..
- does anyone seriously prefer the oversharpened mess of the lower
image?
- how could you possibly end up with noise in the sky, given the image
is reduced about 7x and was taken in bright daylight? Even the FZ50
isn't that bad. But some folks ability to resize *is*.

Sigh.

vehemently accused in
ups.com:

Off topic, just questioning some of Douglas' statements.
of its league: http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/FZ50-Panasonic.htm
Note the ringing around the text, typical of most (but not all)
prosumers.
http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/Full-res-Panasonic.jpg
You'll only have to see the first inch or so to realise what a
mess Panasonic's noise processing makes - it looks like a
pointillist painting, and still has bucketloads of noise.
http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/FZ50-Panasonic-image.htm
Look at the petal in the crop - again note the watercolour
effect and oversharpening halos *even though he inanely points
out it isn't a full-res crop*...
http://weddingsnportraits.com/POD/07-09-07.htm


Too late Mark, the ryadia pages are gone. Shocker, ain't it?

Willa
--
http://www.pbase.com/willarojo

“I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to
live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.”
Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

“We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from
Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing
important to communicate.”
Thoreau, Walden
******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

wrote in message
ups.com...
Off topic, just questioning some of Douglas' statements.

On Oct 6, 11:09 am, "D-Mac" wrote:
I' (sic) have 2, loan 40Ds on the desk in front of me. The proposition is
that
we'll shoot today's weddings (all three of them) with these cameras...

Apart from the obvious question of whether this is another of Douglas
(Magoo) MacDonald's made up stories, you have got to 'admire' someone
with a business model like this... (cough) He is going to shoot 3
weddings using *loan* cameras (!!) that he/his photographers have not
tested and are unfamiliar with. Mm. Good move. Just curious, I
wonder what their *backup* cameras are?

Judging from this morning's dawn beach wedding I doubt they'll make the
grade.... if the best from these critters is as good as it gets...

!!!! Well, I'm sure Doug's clients will be MOST pleased that they
were guinea pigs.

Let's not forget either, you are seeking to judge a "PIC" at 92 pixels...

This shows Doug's remarkable mathematical prowess. The image was 877
x 660. Oh well, that's pretty close to 92 pixels..

Yep, this would be the same 'pro' who one minute says he is abandoning
film for digital, then later abandoned digital for film, then turned
again and told us that his Panasonic FZ20 wonder camera (a 5Mp
prosumer) was better than MF... I notice he has now moved 'up' to an
FZ50 (the same FZ50 that reviews show to be, if anything, a step
*down* in quality...) Even his own testpages show what you get from a
camera competing well out of its league:
http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/FZ50-Panasonic.htm
Note the ringing around the text, typical of most (but not all)
prosumers.
http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/Full-res-Panasonic.jpg
You'll only have to see the first inch or so to realise what a mess
Panasonic's noise processing makes - it looks like a pointillist
painting, and still has bucketloads of noise.
http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/FZ50-Panasonic-image.htm
Look at the petal in the crop - again note the watercolour effect and
oversharpening halos *even though he inanely points out it isn't a
full-res crop*...
http://weddingsnportraits.com/POD/07-09-07.htm
!!! Just a few q's he
- how could a 'pro' screw up the settings so badly that he needed
shutter speeds of 1/90 and 1/140 for those images?
- why is the FZ50 image content bigger (just bigger enough that you
can begin to read the oversharpened text - why, what a coincidence!)
- what the heck is that huge dark area above the FZ50 fuselage? Some
sort of reverse blooming, or has he (badly) applied HDR (see next Q)?
Or could it be a lens flare problem - surely not, from that Leitz
masterpiece??
- how on earth could you get such high contrast in the Canon image,
and so little in the FZ50? Anyone who has used these cameras knows
that is not a realistic outcome - the FZ50 looks manipulated (not that
Doug would cheat, of course - he never has before .. (chortle..)
Maybe one could deliberate choose settings to exaggerate the point you
wish to make... but nah, of course not..
- does anyone seriously prefer the oversharpened mess of the lower
image?
- how could you possibly end up with noise in the sky, given the image
is reduced about 7x and was taken in bright daylight? Even the FZ50
isn't that bad. But some folks ability to resize *is*.

Sigh.




looks like http://www.ryadia.com is parked, I wonder why that
is.............
look for the new, improves Douggie boy web site, coming from a troll near
you :-)

It should be easy to recognise as Douggie only has one template :-)

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

D'oh
Improved, not improves..................

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

On Oct 7, 2:37 pm, Willarojo wrote:

Too late Mark, the ryadia pages are gone. Shocker, ain't it?

Willa
******http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

Well, golly gee, who woulda guessed?

heheheh!! They were there when I posted it, only a coupla hours ago.
Guess I have a lot more power over Doug than he would care to admit.

But I'm sure it was just a coincidence..

(O;