D-MAC = GEORGE PREDDY !

Long-time readers of these groups will remember George Preddy, the
troll who always used to tout Sigma cameras until he was finally run
off in shame. Well, it turns out that Preddy has remained here all
along in the form of one Douglas St. James MacDonald. I suspected it
for a long time, but when Doug posted the pic of his butt-ugly cat the
other day I remembered the infamous Preddy Cat.

http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/POD/06-09-07.htm

Done in by a pussy. Ain't the first time that's ever happened.
Still got the old SD-9, Douggie?

I forgot to mention what tipped me off. Usually, when someone busts D-
Mac's ass on something he goes ape**** and comes back frothing at the
mouth and attacking that person. This is a pattern that anyone paying
attention has probably noticed.

Well ever since the other day after I mentioned that D-Mac's cat
looked like the Preddy Cat, he's come out firing at me with both
barrels, even threatening to re-post his Annika1980.com site with my
pics that he stole from me. He's even dragged my name out in posts
that had nothing to do with me.

As Mike Vick says, "The bit dog barks the loudest."

D-Mac, you are nothing if not predictable.

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:29:00 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

I forgot to mention what tipped me off. Usually, when someone busts D-
Mac's ass on something he goes ape**** and comes back frothing at the
mouth and attacking that person. This is a pattern that anyone paying
attention has probably noticed.

Well ever since the other day after I mentioned that D-Mac's cat
looked like the Preddy Cat, he's come out firing at me with both
barrels, even threatening to re-post his Annika1980.com site with my
pics that he stole from me. He's even dragged my name out in posts
that had nothing to do with me.

As Mike Vick says, "The bit dog barks the loudest."

D-Mac, you are nothing if not predictable.




Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
it's going totally off topic.

The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

Try to eat some more red-herring, it's still not going to make you a
photographer worth mentioning to anyone.

On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin wrote:

Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
it's going totally off topic.

The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!

Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:26:49 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin wrote:

Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
it's going totally off topic.

The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!

Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:


I'd go look, but I don't have the time to waste on some useless attention whore,
so I'll just do what I normally do when replying to all doing the same as you,

worthless URL snipped

I've already seen your photography in the past. None of it has ever shown any
signs of why I should waste my time on any new ones from you. From what I read
from others your new photos haven't improved in the least, probably even became
worse, so there's no reason to bother on anything you've posted since then. Con
some other sucker who doesn't know anything about photography into trying to
praise your crap. You're barking up the wrong tree. I know what qualifies for
decent photography. Yours isn't it.

On Oct 6, 12:26 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin wrote:



Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
it's going totally off topic.

The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!

Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original


I truly hope you don't listen to such rubbish that comes from people
who are jealous "armchair quarterbacks". I urge these critics to
compare your work with some of the top wildlife photographers on
National Georgraphic. But then these naysayers wear blinders and
refuse to see. Bret you have grown so much over the past years into a
professional. It is astounding, and I am not alone with this fact.
Helen

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:11:53 -0700, wrote:

On Oct 6, 12:26 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin wrote:



Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
it's going totally off topic.

The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!

Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original


I truly hope you don't listen to such rubbish that comes from people
who are jealous "armchair quarterbacks". I urge these critics to
compare your work with some of the top wildlife photographers on
National Georgraphic. But then these naysayers wear blinders and
refuse to see. Bret you have grown so much over the past years into a
professional. It is astounding, and I am not alone with this fact.
Helen

Ah good, you found one. Just as I said:

"Con some other sucker who doesn't know anything about photography into trying
to praise your crap."

On Oct 6, 1:22 am, nelson_franklin wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:11:53 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 6, 12:26 am, Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin wrote:

Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
it's going totally off topic.

The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!

Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original

I truly hope you don't listen to such rubbish that comes from people
who are jealous "armchair quarterbacks". I urge these critics to
compare your work with some of the top wildlife photographers on
National Georgraphic. But then these naysayers wear blinders and
refuse to see. Bret you have grown so much over the past years into a
professional. It is astounding, and I am not alone with this fact.
Helen

Ah good, you found one. Just as I said:

"Con some other sucker who doesn't know anything about photography into trying
to praise your crap."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I haven't had the opportunity to see your work. How about posting
some of your images?
Helen

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:26:49 -0700, Annika1980
wrote:

Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original

I can take that picture with a point and shoot:

http://i21.tinypic.com/2eyb6kk.jpg (114 KB)

Just as good as yours. Actually, it's a bit dark. Fortunately the P&S
can take care of that:

http://i24.tinypic.com/16jectw.jpg (54 KB)

There you a a picture many point and shoot users would be proud to
have taken.

(Note: the curvature is in the lens, not the subject. Point and shoots
rule: I had to pay £499 to get a non-rectilinear lens on my FSLR.)

--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 10:17:01 +0100, Matthew Winn wrote:

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:26:49 -0700, Annika1980
wrote:

Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original

I can take that picture with a point and shoot:

http://i21.tinypic.com/2eyb6kk.jpg (114 KB)

Just as good as yours. Actually, it's a bit dark. Fortunately the P&S
can take care of that:

http://i24.tinypic.com/16jectw.jpg (54 KB)

There you a a picture many point and shoot users would be proud to
have taken.

(Note: the curvature is in the lens, not the subject. Point and shoots
rule: I had to pay £499 to get a non-rectilinear lens on my FSLR.)

Most anyone who owns a Sony P&S camera can take much better photos than that,
without having to cannibalize their camera to do so too. IR mode is built in as
part of a normal function of the camera. You can take IR photos hand-held with a
Sony P&S camera, day or night, even in total darkness it matters not. No need to
even put it on a tripod for long shutter speeds like most every other camera
requires. I have a ton of IR photography. At least my IR photography show some
semblance of composition, something of interest. This reminds me of those idiots
that think if they turn their meaningless snapshots into B&W it'll be a work of
art. The same is true of some that think an IR capable camera will make their
lousy photography into something work looking at. Quite frankly I don't know any
respectable photographer that would offer an image like Annika just did and
expect to be praised for it. A snapshot like that is used for testing the
camera, maybe, but as something worth displaying publicly? They know they'd be
laughed at for something like Annika just posted.

I was just looking at some of my IR photography yesterday, some test shots I was
doing when comparing different filters to use with the Sony. You have to cut
down the IR levels in daylight otherwise there's too much and easily overexposes
the image. This is what makes doing hand-held IR photography so easy with the
Sony P&S. The photos are nothing special, just test shots of foliage and dark
skies against glaring white clouds. At least my test shots show some pleasing
composition compared to what he just posted.

This photo of his was just a joke, right? It's got to be. I can't think of any
other reason someone would bother posting a photo like that than to waste
everyone's time.

Fess-up Annika, this was a joke, right?