Is this over sharpened?

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:13:49 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

Because I know from long experience here that it would almost certainly
be a waste of time, no matter what the result, leading to nothing more
than another difference of opinion and insults. Minds are already made
up. You are after all the Mark Thomas, right?

I'm not sure why opinions are a problem when they are backed up, [SNIP]

Don't be disingenuous, and cut out the childish goading.

Explain how that is disingenuous. I offered samples to show FM was most
likely a waste of time and money in this situation. You have offered
nothing to contradict it - ergo, it would appear to be correct.

And 'childish'? - a clear insult. You seem to have trouble walking the
path you set for others.

I expressed my opinion, with citations to back it up.
You expressed your opinion, with specifics.
Let's leave it at that. I will at least.
Have the last word if you must.

Done, and here's the snip put back:

Which is the best of these images?:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/contest/..._13/essay.html
Do you think the FM one (8) is best? If not, why don't you post a
better one? And I'll post a USM version with details (although I've
already conceded I can't beat image 7).

Another challenge (a really easy one) avoided by Mr Navas.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:01:15 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

Don't be disingenuous, and cut out the childish goading.

Explain how that is disingenuous. I offered samples to show FM was most
likely a waste of time and money in this situation. You have offered
nothing to contradict it - ergo, it would appear to be correct.

Thanks for proving my point.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong (only) in rec.photo.marketplace.digital]

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:01:15 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote in
:

Don't be disingenuous, and cut out the childish goading.
Explain how that is disingenuous. I offered samples to show FM was most
likely a waste of time and money in this situation. You have offered
nothing to contradict it - ergo, it would appear to be correct.

Thanks for proving my point.
Avoidance noted. AGAIN.

And it was just a post ago you said:
John Navas wrote:
.. Let's leave it at that. I will at least.
...

So we have at least established you frequently do not speak the truth.

And here's that snip again:

Which is the best of these images?:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/contest/..._13/essay.html
Do you think the FM one (8) is best? If not, why don't you post a
better one? And I'll post a USM version with details (although I've
already conceded I can't beat image 7).

Another challenge (a really easy one) avoided by Mr Navas.

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:01:15 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

Don't be disingenuous, and cut out the childish goading.

Explain how that is disingenuous. I offered samples to show FM was most
likely a waste of time and money in this situation. You have offered
nothing to contradict it - ergo, it would appear to be correct.

Thanks for proving my point.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong (only) in rec.photo.marketplace.digital]

You picked a good one to try and communicate with here John. I'm surprised
the aussie troll hasn't accused you of being me!
John, you might have real world experience with someting but Mark Thomas
always has more.

Did you know he was once a wedding photographer for a well regarded studion
in Australia? Yep, true... According to him. But like most of his retoric
and bull****, he can't produce any proof of his claims. Keep in mind too, he
discovers all his knowledge from the Internet.

When I used to publish information about my digital enlargement algorythm,
he at first announced I was a liar (his favourite word) and slowly as he
discovered I wasn't, he began spouting crap he'd pulled stright from the
'net. He still tries to maintain that because I declined to provide a
mathematician with access to my formula, I was a liar, that I couldn't meet
my claims.

Five years ago since I started making very large digital enlargements from
very small images and watch his response to this post! ROTFL.
http://www.d-mac.info/digi-enlarge.htm

Give up even thinking you can hold a discussion with this troll, John. You
are genuinely wasting yout time with the idiot.

D-Mac.
visit D-Mac.info for a chuckle.

Please mark such posts as OT, there's a good lad, Douglas.

D-Mac wrote:
When I used to publish information about my digital enlargement algorythm
Apart from being unable to spell it, that's the 'algorythm' he couldn't
back up with any evidence:
http://hannemyr.com/photo/interpolation.html
Scroll down. 'Ryadia' is Douglas (aka D-Mac, Jurgen, and over one
hundred other identities..)

And seeing I am collating this information for another project, here are
just a couple of examples of Douglas' false claims about that 'algorythm':
From:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/au...844b72477fecdf
Woon: You didn't "enlarge" the crop.. you shrunk the crop

From:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/re...251efcf54a561c
Gisle: the crop displayed on the webpage is not "full size" (as
Gisle: claimed) but /downsampled/
Paul: I pointed that out before..
Paul: the small rectangle encloses less than 1/4...
Crownfield: this story is a fairy tale

In other words, Douglas frequently *falsely* claimed enlargements, when
he actually showed downsamples. You'll note it wasn't just *me*
pointing out the lies, and it happened several times.

Then there was this *classic*:
http://www.barratt.com.au/discuss/au...sharpness.html
where Douglas sent out an example of his enlarging prowess on what was
purportedly a single 20D file, but then forgot about it and later
proudly boasted that it was in fact a ten-image stitch. Talk about foot
in mouth...

He has also lied about me allegedly stealing stuff from him - and that
is something he will regret.

Mr Navas hasn't stooped that low, but Douglas will look for anyone who
he thinks might be an ally.

So, Douglas, butt out unless you are adding something to the thread. I
note that your effort contains absolutely NOTHING that is relevant or
helpful.

Maybe "Jurgen" will come back and do better?

Mark Thomas wrote:
Please mark such posts as OT, there's a good lad, Douglas.

D-Mac wrote:
When I used to publish information about my digital enlargement algorythm
Apart from being unable to spell it, that's the 'algorythm' he couldn't
back up with any evidence:
http://hannemyr.com/photo/interpolation.html
Scroll down. 'Ryadia' is Douglas (aka D-Mac, Jurgen, and over one
hundred other identities..)

And seeing I am collating this information for another project, here are
just a couple of examples of Douglas' false claims about that 'algorythm':
From:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/au...844b72477fecdf

Woon: You didn't "enlarge" the crop.. you shrunk the crop

From:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/re...251efcf54a561c

Gisle: the crop displayed on the webpage is not "full size" (as
Gisle: claimed) but /downsampled/
Paul: I pointed that out before..
Paul: the small rectangle encloses less than 1/4...
Crownfield: this story is a fairy tale

In other words, Douglas frequently *falsely* claimed enlargements, when
he actually showed downsamples. You'll note it wasn't just *me*
pointing out the lies, and it happened several times.

Then there was this *classic*:
http://www.barratt.com.au/discuss/au...sharpness.html

where Douglas sent out an example of his enlarging prowess on what was
purportedly a single 20D file, but then forgot about it and later
proudly boasted that it was in fact a ten-image stitch. Talk about foot
in mouth...

He has also lied about me allegedly stealing stuff from him - and that
is something he will regret.

Mr Navas hasn't stooped that low, but Douglas will look for anyone who
he thinks might be an ally.

So, Douglas, butt out unless you are adding something to the thread. I
note that your effort contains absolutely NOTHING that is relevant or
helpful.

Maybe "Jurgen" will come back and do better?

What do I have to do with you trolling? Grow up child.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:19:31 +1000, Jurgen wrote
in :

Mark Thomas wrote:
Please mark such posts as OT, there's a good lad, Douglas.

Maybe "Jurgen" will come back and do better?

What do I have to do with you trolling? Grow up child.

Unlikely, I fear.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong (only) in rec.photo.marketplace.digital]

Jurgen wrote:
Maybe "Jurgen" will come back and do better?

What do I have to do with you trolling? Grow up child.
Geez, short memory? Just a day ago, you said this:

The sharpening method you are all discussing is historic.
It has little value in producing well sharpened images today,
other than to put image faults and flaws where there were none before.

Yet you didn't name your preferred method, nor did you have the balls to
actually demonstrate how it would improve this image (lest you too be
shown up by a simple USM, perhaps ?). Nor did you specify what faults
and flaws you were referring to. Please feel free to do so now,
including coordinates to show exactly what you mean, and then show how
your futuristic method does much better.

Otherwise, your posts on this thread are a complete waste of bits, and
clearly you are all talk, no images.

Maybe if you thought about the actual TOPIC, instead of troll games, you
might actually contribute something useful?

JT's Keeper wrote:
In article ,
Jurgen wrote:
What do I have to do with you trolling? Grow up child.


Why is it that you seem to think Mark is trolling?

And why is it that a guy (You) claiming to be posting from somewhere in
Tennessee has a posting time stamp the same, as say posters (Mark
Thomas, D-Mac) from Australia? You might want to think about this one,
because other posters that DO live in North America (using your Usenet
provider) do not have this problem. Any thoughts as to how *I* could be
wrong about this? *I* know... you're just "trolling" the froup looking
for posters making claims that you and D-Mac are one and the same...
right?


- JT
got a chuckle a week or so back when you Jurgen replied for D-Mac

(grin) Shhh! He thinks no-one knows.

My personal favorite was his list of ailments posted recently - a
*perfect* match for D-Mac. What with all that, the same attitude,
hardware and software, why, they could almost be twins...

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:13:49 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:42:17 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote in
:

Also, if you read a bit deeper, here's what he actually says about final
image sharpening (my capitalisation):
"Focus Magic with its much more complex methods, SOMETIMES produced
results that looked better -after- the resizing. The sharpening at this
stage is quite light (say 25% in Focus Magic)..."

I think that's pretty much what I said.

p.s. I'm not going to get into a silly contest over this.

Why is asking for real world examples and posting comparisons, a "silly
contest"?

Because I know from long experience here that it would almost certainly
be a waste of time, no matter what the result, leading to nothing more
than another difference of opinion and insults. Minds are already made
up. You are after all the Mark Thomas, right?
I'm not sure why opinions are a problem when they are backed up, and I
didn't post anything that could be construed as a insult. If you say
different, then QUOTE it.

I posted information, links and my opinion, which you refuse to debate.
Be brave, don't snip it again - it's completely ontopic - *which is
the best of these images?*:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/contest/..._13/essay.html
Do you think the FM one (8) is best? If not, why don't you post a
better one? And I'll post a USM version with details (although I've
already conceded I can't beat image 7).

YOU brought up Focus Magic in this context. If all you can do is post a
program's name and then not back it up, then so be it. Others can look
at the links and decide for themselves if you wish to play no further part.

Some people who know how to use deconvolving software appropriately always get
better results than using unsharp mask techniques. Those that are too stupid or
untalented to know how to use software like Focus Magic in the correct manner
will always find the opposite to be true.