Landscape

On 6/26/2013 6:00 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , peternew
wrote:

He might even say "no" if you were on the right road.

This, on the other hand, seems false to me. nospam may be *wrong* at
times, and perhaps he's even too proud/stubborn to admit it, but as far
as I can tell, he's not outright lying about things to begin with.

As you hang around you may change your conclusion.

Well, I've been in this group since 1998... How much longer will it
take?

That's a lot longer than I've been here.
I don't recall nospam even try to make a practical solution, make a
positive comment, or even show an image.

Neither of which amounts to him actually lying, which is what I was in
reference to above.

If I insist that black is white, when I know the opposite to be true,
that is lying.

that has nothing to do with anything i've done.


Oh!

--
PeterN

On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 19:13:34 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:29:00 -0400, peternew

I have a quick and dirty way to get rid of color casts.

Create a new layer

Filter! blur ! average

levels layer Center dropper, turns the average neutal gray. Delete the
blurred layer.

Make other adjustments from there.

I don't get it. You are adding a layer, doing something to that
layer, and then deleting the layer. That does nothing to the layer
under the added layer. What's missing?


Actually, Peter's method does sort of work, to get rid of color casts.
This is what I did in Photoshop 5:

1. Open Image
2. Create duplicate layer
3. Filter / Gaussian Blur 100% on duplicate layer
(PS5 doesn't seem to have an average function in
any of the blurs, at least I couldn't find it, so I did the
above 100% Gaussian Blur as a kludge)
4. Adjustment layer, Levels. Click on centre dropper.
5. Click dropper on blurred layer. This turns blurred layer neutral grey.
6. Delete duplicate layer.
7. Hey presto! Clicking eyedropper on blurred layer seems to have
acted on hidden background original image layer as well - its not
blurred, but colour cast has gone.

In Levels and Curves dialogues, there are 3 eyedropper icons
towards the bottom right. Clicking on the right hand icon gives you
an eyedropper which you can click on part of the image which you
think should be pure white, centre icon for an eyedropper for part
of the image which you think should be neutral grey, and left icon
for an area you think should be black.

In Dudley's Landscape.jpg image, neither the white or black area
eyedroppers worked very well when clicked on the
basic image (without all the duplicate layer/blurring palaver
above), but clicking the centre neutral grey eyedropper on the
left-hand wall of the building extreme right on the horizon
worked quite well, so that was even quicker than Peter's method
in this instance. Obviously it depends on the particular image.

On 6/27/2013 1:19 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

But the main point you missed is that it was an error
and unintended, not a purposeful attempt at being
difficult to understand.

Well, it was not my purposeful attempt to not convey sarcasm. It
seemed bog-obvious to me.

Yet, what is "bog-obvious" to you can't be explained with words. You
would rather keep making posts not explaining it rather than just
explain it and be done with it.

Weird behavior. Well, I guess the running explanation is that I'm "too
dumb" to understand the words you would have to use to explain what part
of your text that was ironic.



At this point I would have quoted/paraphrased, Einstein
Anyone who can't explain the solution to a six year old, doesn't really
understand it himself ;-)

--
PeterN

On 6/27/2013 2:43 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

How do you know when you're supposed to laugh when you read a humorous
book?

Wouldn't a more apt question be - how would one know when a sentence in
a book is ironic when it contains no irony?

I think irony is all too often confused with sarcasm.

Irony, in the classical Greek sense usually refers to an undesirable
situation that is caused by an attempt to avoid the undesirable situation.

However, the word has somehow morphed to refer to words that are
intended to mean the opposite of their literal meaning. e.g Your
unmarried teen aged daughter announces she is pregnant. You reply
"That's just great."


--
PeterN

On 6/27/2013 6:54 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

It's hard to tell exactly what causes your errors, Floyd. The broken
sentence can be repaired by adding a word or by making it two
sentences and adding words. As is, it's a run-on sentence.

yet you don't say a thing about peter's numerous typos and other
errors. in fact, his writing is so bad that it's sometimes difficult to
figure out what he's trying to say.

I just posted a comment about that within the last week ("fat
fingers") You think I should do a recap of all previous posts and
comments in each post?

the difference here is you're trying to discredit floyd by saying he
can't write.

You are the one who whines continually about "this subject is
about..." when anyone drifts off what aspect *you* want to discuss.
Yet, you want me to bring in Peter's typos in a reply to Floyd on a
subject that has nothing to do with Peter?

if you're going to bitch about floyd making a minor mistake, you have
to also bitch about peter's horrible typing.


If my typing creates an ambiguity, a rational person would simply ask
for clarification. But, ou prefer to attack.
I find it strange that you refuse to conform to conventions, by not
using capital letters to clarify meanings, would complain about obvious
typos.


--
PeterN

On 6/28/2013 1:32 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

paraphrased
PeterN: process for removing color cast
nospam: there are easier and better ways to remove a cast
PeterN: Then use it, my method works for me.
nospam: your way is just one of many
PeterN: I have not seen one from you
nospam: You're not interested in it.
/paraphrased

PeterN: Oh. It's a secret process

The last line is clearly putting words into nospam's mouth. And nospam
aptly responds with:

nospam: twist twist twis

Which I agree with. nospam never said the process was secret, just that
PeterN wasn't interested in it (which he may be, so nospam could at
worst have been mistaken).

Your comment shows that your sarcasm meter has lost someting in the
translation from english to Swedish.

Why? I am perfectly able to identify the sarcasm you used when you
twisted nospam's words. I am not talking about whether you were being
sarcastic or not (you clearly were), but whether or not you were
twisting nospam's words, which you absolutely were.



How is it twisting, when he commented that there are better ways, which
there well may be. And I asked him to give us a better way. His response
was a non-e reply, to which I made my sarcastic comment.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It's hard to tell exactly what causes your errors, Floyd. The broken
sentence can be repaired by adding a word or by making it two
sentences and adding words. As is, it's a run-on sentence.

yet you don't say a thing about peter's numerous typos and other
errors. in fact, his writing is so bad that it's sometimes difficult to
figure out what he's trying to say.

I just posted a comment about that within the last week ("fat
fingers") You think I should do a recap of all previous posts and
comments in each post?

the difference here is you're trying to discredit floyd by saying he
can't write.

You are the one who whines continually about "this subject is
about..." when anyone drifts off what aspect *you* want to discuss.
Yet, you want me to bring in Peter's typos in a reply to Floyd on a
subject that has nothing to do with Peter?

if you're going to bitch about floyd making a minor mistake, you have
to also bitch about peter's horrible typing.

If my typing creates an ambiguity, a rational person would simply ask
for clarification. But, ou prefer to attack.

except i wasn't attacking you on your typing. more lies.

I find it strange that you refuse to conform to conventions, by not
using capital letters to clarify meanings, would complain about obvious
typos.

as you say, "a rational person would simply ask for clarification. But,
ou [sic] prefer to attack."

In article , PeterN
wrote:

paraphrased
PeterN: process for removing color cast
nospam: there are easier and better ways to remove a cast
PeterN: Then use it, my method works for me.
nospam: your way is just one of many
PeterN: I have not seen one from you
nospam: You're not interested in it.
/paraphrased

PeterN: Oh. It's a secret process

The last line is clearly putting words into nospam's mouth. And nospam
aptly responds with:

nospam: twist twist twis

Which I agree with. nospam never said the process was secret, just that
PeterN wasn't interested in it (which he may be, so nospam could at
worst have been mistaken).

Your comment shows that your sarcasm meter has lost someting in the
translation from english to Swedish.

Why? I am perfectly able to identify the sarcasm you used when you
twisted nospam's words. I am not talking about whether you were being
sarcastic or not (you clearly were), but whether or not you were
twisting nospam's words, which you absolutely were.


How is it twisting, when he commented that there are better ways, which
there well may be. And I asked him to give us a better way. His response
was a non-e reply, to which I made my sarcastic comment.

you never asked.

once again, caught in your web of lies.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I have a quick and dirty way to get rid of color casts.

Create a new layer

Filter! blur ! average

levels layer Center dropper, turns the average neutal gray. Delete the
blurred layer.

Make other adjustments from there.

I don't get it. You are adding a layer, doing something to that
layer, and then deleting the layer. That does nothing to the layer
under the added layer. What's missing?

Actually, Peter's method does sort of work, to get rid of color casts.
This is what I did in Photoshop 5:

1. Open Image
2. Create duplicate layer
3. Filter / Gaussian Blur 100% on duplicate layer
(PS5 doesn't seem to have an average function in
any of the blurs, at least I couldn't find it, so I did the
above 100% Gaussian Blur as a kludge)
4. Adjustment layer, Levels. Click on centre dropper.
5. Click dropper on blurred layer. This turns blurred layer neutral grey.
6. Delete duplicate layer.
7. Hey presto! Clicking eyedropper on blurred layer seems to have
acted on hidden background original image layer as well - its not
blurred, but colour cast has gone.

In Levels and Curves dialogues, there are 3 eyedropper icons
towards the bottom right. Clicking on the right hand icon gives you
an eyedropper which you can click on part of the image which you
think should be pure white, centre icon for an eyedropper for part
of the image which you think should be neutral grey, and left icon
for an area you think should be black.

I'll take your word for it. I didn't have an image with color cast on
which to try it, so I couldn't see any effect.

add one, then see how well it removes it.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

It's hard to tell exactly what causes your errors, Floyd. The broken
sentence can be repaired by adding a word or by making it two
sentences and adding words. As is, it's a run-on sentence.

yet you don't say a thing about peter's numerous typos and other
errors. in fact, his writing is so bad that it's sometimes difficult to
figure out what he's trying to say.

I just posted a comment about that within the last week ("fat
fingers") You think I should do a recap of all previous posts and
comments in each post?

the difference here is you're trying to discredit floyd by saying he
can't write.

Floyd needs no help from me*.

true. he's a lot smarter than you are.

Really, though, pointing out that someone isn't writing coherent
sentences isn't discrediting them in a photography newsgroup. We all
know that Floyd has some strong expertise in certain matters
photographic, and - if you've checked his website - has some talent as
a photographer. I strongly disagree with his classification of a
photograph of a truck in the distance as "street", but I also think
it's a good photograph.

stay on topic.

you mentioned his writing because that's all you could do to refute
what he was saying. you know he's correct but you had to fight back
with *something* so you went after a writing mistake.

Don't ever think that I mix my personal opinions about the personas we
see here in rec.photo.digital with my regard for their ability as a
photographer. I don't like you, but I'd never bad-mouth one of your
images (if you had balls enough to link to them) because of that
dislike.

you expect me to believe that?? i'm quite certain you'd bash it as you
do anything else i say.

furthermore, i show my photos to people of my choosing or those who pay
for them. you are neither, so you lose out.

There are some posters here that I either like or feel
somewhat favorable about that I don't think have shown particularly
strong photographic talent.

photographic talent has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
discussing facts.

You are the one who whines continually about "this subject is
about..." when anyone drifts off what aspect *you* want to discuss.
Yet, you want me to bring in Peter's typos in a reply to Floyd on a
subject that has nothing to do with Peter?

if you're going to bitch about floyd making a minor mistake, you have
to also bitch about peter's horrible typing.

Well, I didn't "bitch", but I did comment...just not in the same post.
I didn't bitch, in that post, about your shift key disability, either.
I don't "have" to do anything, though.

you still don't get it, do you.

I can "figure out" Peter's meaning in every post he makes. It seems,
by your comments here, that you are the one having problems. The
conclusion to be drawn, then, is that you've been caught holding the
petard too long.

twist twist twist. i never said i couldn't figure it out, nor do you
have any idea how many people have trouble with what he writes.

Jesus H. Christ! What a whining little child you are. Anytime your
own words are thrown back at you, you start whimpering about your
meaning becoming twisted.

nonsense.

you're describing yourself. had i said something similar, you'd have
immediately jumped on my survey methods or that 'nobody' or 'everyone'
is not absolute, just as you did the other day.