Images, Photographs or pictures?

On Jul 31, 10:39 am, Willarojo wrote:
"dmac" vehemently accused :

BTW. The Picture For The Day (POD) project is still going
strong. Sorry to disappoint you and your sheep, you had no
success in getting rid of me there either.

Doug

As I recall, you packed up your POS, oops, "POD" (more properly,
per Douggie himself, it should be PFTD... where'd the "O" come
from??), project yourself. Of course, you blamed your various,
self-inflicted enemies for ending your project.

And I quote:





My Photo For The day [sic] started on 22nd May.
It will end on 22 [sic] June. One month.

I thought it might attract some interest in Photography [sic] but
all it's
done is provide more opportunity for the bullies to cast
aspersions
and distract me from it's [sic] original purpose. [sic]
Photographic discussions.

Thanks to those who posted positive or constructive replies. An
early
death wish to the idiots and morons who decided to use it as a
another
reason to bully me.

I imagine Aus. Photo in particular but the rec group too, will
slow to
a trickle again as the bullies crawl back under their rocks and
wait
for their next victim.

Douglas

Quoting Douggie leaves me sic [sic] to my stomach.

Please note, 1-for-2 on proper use of "it's/its" in the quote
above, pretty good score for Douggie.


- Show quoted text -

Actually your reading and comprehension skills match your social
skills Willa.
Where in that message did it say I would not continue my project off
the groups?

The difference between you and me Willa is more than cultural. One day
when you have no choice but to continue with something you start -
regardless of the personal or financial cost, you'll discover (or not
as the case may be) that starting anything you don't have the
fortitude to keep going is a really bad idea.

Regardless of how good or bad your 10D photos are/were. You should
look closely at why on earth you thought you could keep up with a
picture every day in the first place. If I gave up just because a few
anal retentive idiots thought I was a dud photographer, I'd never be
in business and never have reached the finals of the "Small Business
Achiever's awards".

I recognize some of my daily images are less than stellar but the
important point is that I remain true to myself and stick with the
plan. The seeds I sow in the minds of others provide me with feedback
on what other photographers expect a picture to be.

Last year I discovered more about why people buy my calendars than the
sheep will ever know. I discovered the pictures I liked best - which
proved for the rest of the year to be significant sellers as large
canvas wall prints, were the very ones the sheep passed negative
comments about.

The only time I have an issue with anything anyone says is when it a
personal comment. No one in these groups has ever met me, ever dined
with me or ever been a client of mine. Because of this, none of you
have any right to make personal and often insulting remarks about me
or my business interests. When you do, I'll pay out on you in
retaliation.

So why don't you end your personal insults now and we'll get along?
Keep them going and you'll just end up a nasty fool following in the
footsteps of mongrels like the couple who are doing their best to
destroy what they came to enjoy.

Off topic.

On Jul 31, 8:58 am, wrote:
Sorry, who is this now?

Just as an after thought... Have you ever bothered to read the index
to Photo Of The Day Mark?
Clear instructions in English are there... Every two months the images
will be archived.
If you intend to take me on, at least get it right or you'll continue
to make a fool out of yourself while providing more evidence of your
stalking.http://www.ryadia.com/POD/index.htm

So post a simple link to the image I mentioned above. Read my lips,
you moron - you CHANGED THE LINK, so anyone reading the old threads
won't see the evidence of your incompetence.

And then I notice that when you 're-archived' them, you also managed
to largely fix the posterisation problem (bravo!) -- but I don't
understand, you said there wasn't any...(funny how it was worth
altering later). What a slimeball. Would you like me to post the
before and after shots? - for sarcasm, natch..

By the way, I can't help but note that you are still batting ZERO for
supporters (well deserved effort), you now admit that none of your
calendars can be found anywhere, and of course you lied about your
photo of the day discontinuance as Willa pointed out. The smell
remains.

PS

On Jul 31, 8:46 am, "dmac" wrote:
Compressing a 32 megabyte image down to a 720 pixel wide will often cause
clear steps in graduated areas of an image. Nothing to do with monitors...
But you'd never comprehend that, would you?

That's because it isn't true, you moron. Given a decent
(unposterised) original, problems will *only* occur if you are
*incompetent* at your post processing.

.... Which explains it perfectly.

wrote in message
oups.com...

By the way, I can't help but note that you are still batting ZERO for
supporters (well deserved effort), you now admit that none of your
calendars can be found anywhere, and of course you lied about your
photo of the day discontinuance as Willa pointed out. The smell
remains.


There's the difference. You seek support, I don't need any.

dmac wrote:

I believe you'd rather bash up on the image poster before admitting that old
CRT screen of yours is no match for basic (much less decent) LCD screens
like we use.

What? What on earth makes you think an LCD is a match for a CRT?

Hell, I use LCDs exclusively these days, but serious digital labs and design
studios use CRTs.

wrote in message
oups.com...
PS

On Jul 31, 8:46 am, "dmac" wrote:
Compressing a 32 megabyte image down to a 720 pixel wide will often cause
clear steps in graduated areas of an image. Nothing to do with
monitors...
But you'd never comprehend that, would you?

That's because it isn't true, you moron. Given a decent
(unposterised) original, problems will *only* occur if you are
*incompetent* at your post processing.

... Which explains it perfectly.


There is one idiot in this thread who cuts and pastes his photographic
knowledge in hope no one will notice. His name used to be Charles Stevens.
He posted his original lies and personal vilification from a government
computer in SA.

Now he's really ****ed off because Marty over at Usenet.com.au black listed
him from using the service to stalk me so he's resorted to his old trick of
personal vilification in an attempt to conceal his own stupidity for not
reading what is in plain English and unaltered since the site was created.

I'd wager he's even more ****ed off I created the archive in "Flash" and he
can't figure out how to use a single image in it to get his jollies
knocking. Congratulation Markie boy. You mum would have been proud of you. I
recon being as predictable as you are would be a real disadvantage in a
marriage. That probably answers why you get so agro with your keyboard. Go
on Markie, tap it harder, it won't bit back. Sent me your address to get the
calendars yet?

Doug

UC wrote:
On Jul 30, 5:15 am, Julian wrote:
Yesterday I overheard someone describe the items they were selling
(framed pictures with poems superimposed) as "Images". I have always
considered an "Image" as the facsimile of a 3D scene which you see
when you look at a computer monitor and a Photograph as a positive
print of a scene. A picture as a rather loose description of anything
resembling - well, a picture.

As photography becomes more closely entwined with binary data files, I
thought a discussion as to the correct descriptions for the pictures
we take might be timely.

Many people posting to the "photo" groups have claimed in recent times
to have "seen" my photos. Presuming "photos" is an abbreviation of
Photograph, they have not. All they've seen is 640 pixel wide images
and these as we all know, can look vastly different from one monitor
to another. Is there any interest in this matter?

JA


A 'picture' is a painting, and not an optical image.


There are two fundamental problems with this definition:

1) A painting is an optical image, and

2) It's wrong.

I recommended Doug get himself a dictionary. Perhaps you ought to also.

"Richard Polhill" wrote in message
. ..
dmac wrote:

I believe you'd rather bash up on the image poster before admitting that
old CRT screen of yours is no match for basic (much less decent) LCD
screens like we use.

What? What on earth makes you think an LCD is a match for a CRT?

Hell, I use LCDs exclusively these days, but serious digital labs and
design studios use CRTs.

What planet are you living on Richard?
Sony stoped making CRT screens years ago.
The days when Trinatron ruled the graphics desktop are long gone.

"dmac" wrote in message
...

"Richard Polhill" wrote in message
. ..
dmac wrote:

I believe you'd rather bash up on the image poster before admitting that
old CRT screen of yours is no match for basic (much less decent) LCD
screens like we use.

What? What on earth makes you think an LCD is a match for a CRT?

Hell, I use LCDs exclusively these days, but serious digital labs and
design studios use CRTs.

What planet are you living on Richard?
Sony stoped making CRT screens years ago.
The days when Trinatron ruled the graphics desktop are long gone.
You do realise don't you that there are screen manufacturers other than
Sony?
Frankly, I'd put most budget CRT's a long way ahead of high end TFT for
photo work. Even the high end Sony monitors, that are roughly thrice the
price of the consumer brands, can't match it with a budget CRT for true
blacks, and consistent colours. Ever noticed that a TFT changes contrast
depending on angle of view? How is that supposed to deliver accurate photo
editing when the colours will change if you move your chair by 3 inches?

On Jul 30, 9:50 pm, Julian wrote:

If I gave up just because a few
anal retentive idiots thought I was a dud photographer, I'd never be
in business and never have reached the finals of the "Small Business
Achiever's awards".

Look, he's D-Mac ... no wait, he's Julian, again!
Sanity takes a holiday.

We can all agree that you should get an award for being a Small
Achiever. Also, you've proven to be the biggest liar on Usenet so
maybe you should get an award for that as well.


I recognize some of my daily images are less than stellar but the
important point is that I remain true to myself and stick with the
plan.

"Less than Stellar" .... that should be your next screen name.
It's about the only truthful thing you've said this week.

You first said you were going to take and post a photo every day.
Then you started posting archived images. Then you said you were
going to quit the POTD and had some death wishes for all your
"bullies."
Now you say the POTD is still going strong.
Hell, D-Mac, you can't even keep up with your own lies.