![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Douglas wrote:
Drop in to one of my print centres if you ever come to Queensland and see first hand which ones are the cheapest to run... Use my measuring gear to check the prints scientifically too. Will Douglas give an address, or even just the name in which they can be found in the phone book??? (The 'famous' 'TechnoAussie' print franchises never existed, except in Douglas' head.) Or do we have to look for his market stall..? .....is typical of every American I have ever met... Rest of stupid rant snipped. Douglas attacks the messenger when he loses the plot/debate. Just ignore him, Wayne. Or for a chuckle, look up his postings on enlargements (his have 'added detail' and he claims he can achieve a sharp 36x24 from a 6x4...), perspective (he thinks it is all about lens focal length, and not about distance from subject), depth of field calculations (he just gets it wrong), or Panasonic FZ20's that match medium format quality... Here's some of his expertise: http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Galle...20(Small).html (like I said, he seems to have problems with controlling d-o-f) http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Galle...20(Small).html (How could a 250Kb jpg be that bad??? And did he really focus on the tree?) Any questions? (O: |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
Just ignore him, Wayne. Or for a chuckle, look up his postings on enlargements (his have 'added detail' and he claims he can achieve a sharp 36x24 from a 6x4...), perspective (he thinks it is all about lens focal length, and not about distance from subject), depth of field calculations (he just gets it wrong), or Panasonic FZ20's that match medium format quality... I try not to take anything about my articles personally. Used to but I hope I have grown up ![]() so I fixed them. That's good as it makes them clearer, which is what I want. Then if people get something useful out of them, that is excellent. Cheers, Wayne -- Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]() : : Here's some of his expertise: : http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Galle...20(Small).html : (like I said, he seems to have problems with controlling d-o-f) : http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Galle...20(Small).html : (How could a 250Kb jpg be that bad??? And did he really focus on the : tree?) : : Wow... -Nothing like taking your subjects out in WHITE t-shirts...under : MID-DAY SUN(!!!) : That's about as poorly-planned as it gets... : ![]() : : -- Here you go again, pathetic moron... Tell me which professional photographer you know who does not deliberately post such pics to prevent the client (or fools like you) downloading his/her quality images without paying? Somehow you seem to think I should post my proofs without compression and in final edit form so it conforms to your idea of perfect. Unlike you, I have a vested interest in NOT posting final edit images. When you actually do grow up. You'll get to understand that not all English is spelt in the American mangled version of the language and pointing out spelling mistakes (one of your other moronic traits) is pretty obnoxious stuff, just as attempting to belittle someone who derives a living from an industry you don't have the balls to be in. Get a life child... The one you lead now is absolutely pathetic if trolling the newsgroups for someone to flame is the highlight of your day. Next time you decide to hijack someone else's thread... Keep in mind you are behaving in the classic mould of a troll because that's all you are. -- Australian Wedding Photography between Kempsy, NSW and Sunshine Coast. http://www.photosbydouglas.com Digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Douglas wrote:
Here's some of his expertise: http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Galle...20(Small).html (like I said, he seems to have problems with controlling d-o-f) http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Galle...20(Small).html (How could a 250Kb jpg be that bad??? And did he really focus on the tree?) Wow... -Nothing like taking your subjects out in WHITE t-shirts...under MID-DAY SUN(!!!) That's about as poorly-planned as it gets... ![]() -- Here you go again, pathetic moron... Tell me which professional photographer you know who does not deliberately post such pics to prevent the client (or fools like you) downloading his/her quality images without paying? So you're saying that you post your crappy photos on purpose? Why? That's about as convincing as the kid who trips on his way down the stairs, and then insists that he "meant to do that..." Somehow you seem to think I should post my proofs without compression and in final edit form so it conforms to your idea of perfect. Unlike you, I have a vested interest in NOT posting final edit images. Compression has NOTHING to do with lighting, planning, mid-day sun, and white t-shirts. Any photog worth his salt knows that you don't take clients out in mid-day, cloudless sun and shoot portraits--expecially not in white t-shirts. Now what part of that is trolling? When you actually do grow up. You'll get to understand that not all English is spelt in the American mangled version of the language and pointing out spelling mistakes (one of your other moronic traits) is pretty obnoxious stuff, just as attempting to belittle someone who derives a living from an industry you don't have the balls to be in. You must have me mixed up with someone else, Douglas. I don't point out spelling mistakes. Maybe never. There are many Marks here, but only one me. I don't use any other screen names (unlike yourself). You have this bad habit of assuming you know who you're talking to (someone else), attaching all sorts of actions and posts to me that I haven't made. Get a life child... The one you lead now is absolutely pathetic if trolling the newsgroups for someone to flame is the highlight of your day. Next time you decide to hijack someone else's thread... Keep in mind you are behaving in the classic mould of a troll because that's all you are. Again... You seem to have me mixed up with someone else. You've done this at least twice before. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I actually take you seriously Mark, about not being able to follow a thread
properly unless it was bottom posted.. Not just more absurd crap from the master of verbal drivel but a frank admission of his inability to read proper English. No where in the world is there more quasi "standards" than on the Internet. Everyone here has a perception of how it has to be and not a single one has a clue how to make it that way. If the largest manufacturer of software in the world defaults their news reader to top posting, that's good enough for me. "Stick your request for comments" in the same mail box you use to receive all the other spam. One day you and a couple of other militant morons will discover you have no right to even attempt to impose your ideas of correctness on anyone else and (hopefully) stop the practice... Although that might actually be asking too much from those with such feeble powers of deduction as you have Mark. -- Australian Wedding Photography between Kempsy, NSW and Sunshine Coast. http://www.photosbydouglas.com Digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com ----------------- It's not about scrolling. It's simply about knowing exactly what a person's comments are responding to. This becomes especially important in conversations between several people, where there are many comments about portions of other posts. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Douglas wrote:
I actually take you seriously Mark, about not being able to follow a thread properly unless it was bottom posted.. What's funny about your comment there is that you can't even keep track of who PEOPLE are, Douglas! I've NEVER flamed anyone for top-posting. Not just more absurd crap from the master of verbal drivel but a frank admission of his inability to read proper English. No where in the world is there more quasi "standards" than on the Internet. Everyone here has a perception of how it has to be and not a single one has a clue how to make it that way. If the largest manufacturer of software in the world defaults their news reader to top posting, that's good enough for me. "Stick your request for comments" in the same mail box you use to receive all the other spam. One day you and a couple of other militant morons will discover you have no right to even attempt to impose your ideas of correctness on anyone else and (hopefully) stop the practice... Although that might actually be asking too much from those with such feeble powers of deduction as you have Mark. Once again, Douglas, you have me confused with someone else, as you've done many times. I have never...NEVER...jumped on someone for top-posting. Not one SINGLE time. In this instance, I merely explained why it can be helpful. If you really think you're talking to someone (me) who has flamed people for top-posting, then I officially challenge you to find a post from me where I do so. I haven't. It's not about scrolling. It's simply about knowing exactly what a person's comments are responding to. This becomes especially important in conversations between several people, where there are many comments about portions of other posts. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Off topic.
Douglas wrote: http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Galle...20(Small).html : (How could a 250Kb jpg be that bad??? And did he really focus on the : tree?) : : Wow... -Nothing like taking your subjects out in WHITE t-shirts...under : MID-DAY SUN(!!!) : That's about as poorly-planned as it gets... : ![]() : : -- Here you go again, pathetic moron... Tell me which professional photographer you know who does not deliberately post such pics to prevent the client (or fools like you) downloading his/her quality images without paying? All of them. It's only Douglas that believes: - anyone is even remotely interested in downloading and using dead-set boring and poorly executed family portraits - that you can somehow usefully enlarge an image that is only .. wait for it.. 640 x 430 pixels. To Douglas of course, that would easily enlarge to 36" x 24", with 'added detail' from his magical, still untested algorithm. (see at the bottom of this page: http://hannemyr.com/photo/interpolation.html) - that he can best display his work by deliberately (haha!) damaging it. Somehow, I'm more inclined to believe it is more about lack of experience. Example, here, he uses a fairly good jpg as his title image (at top of page). http://www.photosbydouglas.com/example-index.htm Yet here - ON HIS TITLE PAGE!!!, he uses a GIF version (!!!), with dithering, blown highlights, etc. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/ ????? Yes, he's fiendishly clever, is Douglas. Somehow you seem to think I should post my proofs without compression and in final edit form so it conforms to your idea of perfect. 'Final edit form' is 640 x 430 pixels, is it? I'd choose slightly higher resolution originals, if I was him... Unlike you, I have a vested interest in NOT posting final edit images. Yep, because Sooo Many people would want to take those gooooorgeous images and use them as their desktop wallpapers, or sell them on the black market... (O: When you actually do grow up. You'll get to understand that not all English is spelt in the American mangled version of the language and pointing out spelling mistakes (one of your other moronic traits) is pretty obnoxious stuff, just as attempting to belittle someone who derives a living from an industry you don't have the balls to be in. (rant snipped) As usual, he attacks the person rather than the facts. Anyway, I'm off comet chasing!! Bye. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
Off topic. Douglas wrote: http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Galle...20(Small).html (How could a 250Kb jpg be that bad??? And did he really focus on the tree?) Wow... -Nothing like taking your subjects out in WHITE t-shirts...under MID-DAY SUN(!!!) That's about as poorly-planned as it gets... ![]() -- Here you go again, pathetic moron... Tell me which professional photographer you know who does not deliberately post such pics to prevent the client (or fools like you) downloading his/her quality images without paying? All of them. It's only Douglas that believes: - anyone is even remotely interested in downloading and using dead-set boring and poorly executed family portraits - that you can somehow usefully enlarge an image that is only .. wait for it.. 640 x 430 pixels. To Douglas of course, that would easily enlarge to 36" x 24", with 'added detail' from his magical, still untested algorithm. (see at the bottom of this page: http://hannemyr.com/photo/interpolation.html) - that he can best display his work by deliberately (haha!) damaging it. Somehow, I'm more inclined to believe it is more about lack of experience. Example, here, he uses a fairly good jpg as his title image (at top of page). http://www.photosbydouglas.com/example-index.htm Yet here - ON HIS TITLE PAGE!!!, he uses a GIF version (!!!), with dithering, blown highlights, etc. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/ ????? Yes, he's fiendishly clever, is Douglas. Somehow you seem to think I should post my proofs without compression and in final edit form so it conforms to your idea of perfect. 'Final edit form' is 640 x 430 pixels, is it? I'd choose slightly higher resolution originals, if I was him... Unlike you, I have a vested interest in NOT posting final edit images. Yep, because Sooo Many people would want to take those gooooorgeous images and use them as their desktop wallpapers, or sell them on the black market... (O: When you actually do grow up. You'll get to understand that not all English is spelt in the American mangled version of the language and pointing out spelling mistakes (one of your other moronic traits) is pretty obnoxious stuff, just as attempting to belittle someone who derives a living from an industry you don't have the balls to be in. (rant snipped) As usual, he attacks the person rather than the facts. Anyway, I'm off comet chasing!! Bye. Now Douglas... (since you're surely reading this)...I would like to simply point out that is NOT me. I hate to break it to you, but Mark is a rather common name, and there are many many Marks in the world. Not just one. I'm MarkČ...ONLY MarkČ...and ONLY post as MarkČ. So...if you want to rail away at Mark Thomas, then have at it. Just do yourself a favor, and stop assuming that all people in the world named Mark are one person. -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Epson 3800 and HP Z3100 printer reviews | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital Photography | 52 | January 22nd 07 09:34 PM |
epson 3800 panorama limitation | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | November 20th 06 02:11 PM |
Epson 3800 Large Format printer formally announced | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital Photography | 59 | November 18th 06 09:44 AM |
Latest Epson reviews | wayne | Digital Photography | 0 | March 19th 06 09:16 AM |
Epson 960 printer | ppdavid | Digital Photography | 2 | July 29th 04 03:21 AM |