HDR and Stepping out a Panorama

"Alienjones" wrote in message
...

You don't seem to get the point Bret. Copyright. That's the word. The
photographer has a right to say what will and will not be done with his
work ands by whom.

That's not an absolute right, Doug.
Your assertion ignores:
* criticism,
* parody, and
* satire.

You can't take someone else's photo for any reason without them either
offering them to you or making it known you can have them.

That is simply not true.
See above.

...Ethics, I know is something that seems to have variable interpretations
amongst people who never started out with any. It's not too late now to
discover them and in all seriousness Bret, you will be a better liked
person if you have some.

Pretty rich coming from someone as vituperative as yourself, Doug.

What you need to do to appease Mike, is simply not try and grandstand your
photoshop skills at his expense. Step up to the plate and apologize. I'm
sure he is man enough to accept it.

"Step up to the plate and apologise."
Excellent advice Doug.
You should do so to AC, Mark and me (and others) for reasons already
elaborated at length.
Lying, for a start.
Name-calling for another.

To thine own self be true, Doug.

childish vulgarities snipped

--
Jeff R.

clandestin_écureuil wrote:
I wonder why he did it? It isn't hard to do a linear panorama, though
not with that background.

Hahah! Exactly. A superb summary - you put into two lines what I took
several pages to explain..!

I always wanted to do a panorama of a Carousel, keeping the camera
mounted in one place and rotating the carousel by one horse for each
shot. In close using a long lens with a close-up lens fitted for depth
of field etc., or maybe rig a "blue screen" system with clothesline and
bedsheets behind the horses. It would be an interesting image, all the
horses in a straight line.

That's a very cool idea, but as you said, the logistics would be
challenging.. Maybe if you owned your own carousel...

(O:

I appreciate the time and effort you put in to examine the links, by the
way.

cheers,

mt

My turn for a top post, but I think it is justified here...

As usual, your comments are right on the mark, Jeff, but I think you
missed one important bit. Did you notice that Douglas can't even
*spell* 'principles' or 'morals'..?

(O:

And then I wonder if all Doug's other American spellings (organize,
apologize) indicate that the Industry Accreditation he is claiming on
his Ebay auction is actually the Connecticut Professional Photographers
Association...

mt

Jeff R. wrote:
"Alienjones" wrote in message
...

You don't seem to get the point Bret. Copyright. That's the word. The
photographer has a right to say what will and will not be done with
his work ands by whom.

That's not an absolute right, Doug.
Your assertion ignores:
* criticism,
* parody, and
* satire.

You can't take someone else's photo for any reason without them either
offering them to you or making it known you can have them.

That is simply not true.
See above.

...Ethics, I know is something that seems to have variable
interpretations amongst people who never started out with any. It's
not too late now to discover them and in all seriousness Bret, you
will be a better liked person if you have some.

Pretty rich coming from someone as vituperative as yourself, Doug.

What you need to do to appease Mike, is simply not try and grandstand
your photoshop skills at his expense. Step up to the plate and
apologize. I'm sure he is man enough to accept it.

"Step up to the plate and apologise."
Excellent advice Doug.
You should do so to AC, Mark and me (and others) for reasons already
elaborated at length.
Lying, for a start.
Name-calling for another.

To thine own self be true, Doug.

childish vulgarities snipped

--
Jeff R.

"Alienjones" wrote in message
...

The curious part here is I offered to open a dialog with you to discuss
these things and you have done as the pair of idiots did and decided you
know everything there is to know about my photos from a couple of 600
pixel wide images. Assumptions are always hazardous at the best of times.

Sorry Doug, but those images you posted:
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html
are *plenty* wide enough to prove our point(s) and to show you up for a
liar.

It's sad for you, Doug, but the truth is more compelling than a pack of
lies.

Incidentally, Shooting a merry-go-round as it rotates is not a lineal
shot... But hey... I wonder why you said that?

"Lineal"? You been eating too many morels again, Doug?
Arguably it is indeed linear, considered frame-by-frame. The fact that the
sequence of horses makes a circle is irrelevant. Its like saying that my
often-proposed "stepped-out" pano of the houses at Bath is not linear,
because the roadway follows a semi-circular path. A disingenuous and, as I
said, irrelevant argument.

Kind of familiar, actually.

--
Jeff R.

Alienjones wrote:
(various dubious claims of taking the high ground..)

On the topic of honesty and appropriate behavior, I have a few
questions for you, Douglas MacDonald.. to make it easier I'll supply
most of the answers:

1. Did you post an e*bay item, "Wedding Photography package in Brisbane
and SEQ", number 170235232467 (anyone wishing to see the item can just
copy that number into the e*bay search box)

Answer - Yes, he did.

2. In that item did you claim you were a 'Qualified, Certified
Professional Photographer', with the "CPPA"?

Answer - Yes, he did, even supplying a 'license number'.

3. Is this site:
http://www.cppa.org.au
registered in your name?

4. Is 'certifying' *yourself* honest and appropriate behavior?


There is a fair bit more to this story, but that will suffice for now.


Cheers, Douglas.

Alienjones wrote:
(various dubious claims of taking the high ground..)

On the topic of honesty and appropriate behavior, I have a few questions
for you, Douglas MacDonald.. to make it easier I'll supply most of the
answers:

1. Did you post an e*bay item, "Wedding Photography package in Brisbane
and SEQ", number 170235232467 (anyone wishing to see the item can just
copy that number into the e*bay search box)

Answer - Yes, he did.

2. In that item did you claim you were a 'Qualified, Certified
Professional Photographer', with the "CPPA"?

Answer - Yes, he did, even supplying a 'license number'.

3. Is this site:
http://www.cppa.org.au
registered in your name?

4. Is 'certifying' *yourself* honest and appropriate behavior?


There is a fair bit more to this story, but that will suffice for now.


Cheers, Douglas.

busted, and to think Douggie was lecturing others on "Ethics"

--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...

"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...

busted, and to think Douggie was lecturing others on "Ethics"

No no no...
Doug was lecturing us on mushrooms.
Morels, to be precise.

Don't like 'em, personally. I reckon they taste like kerosene.
At the risk of having the shiitake put on me, I prefer common old
Agaricus bisporus.

But that's just me.

--
Jeff R.
(ask me about the phosphorescent ones)

Jeff R. wrote:

"Alienjones" wrote in message
...
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/HDRatdawn.htm

For the sheep bleating in the background... Baaaaah.


Your stepped out pano.
Are you ever going to acknowledge and respond to the many reasonable
criticisms of your example?

I should be the last person interested in defending Dougie and however
bad the example he posted actually is, I think the technique has some
merit and I hope to try it at some point soon.

It is very similar to airborne mapping photography which is careful to
use flat field lenses. While the lens axis is usually perpendicular to
the nominal ground (and usually stabilized in heading and sometimes in
pitch and roll in some aircraft ) it does not have to be if extensive
photogrametric processing is applied to the image (and p/r angles recorded).

A good flat field lens for this (that I own) would be the 120mm Makro.
However I don't want to go through a roll of 120, process and scan just
for this.

I will try it with my 50, 100 and 135mm lenses on digital when I get a
chance.

As to his HDR discussion I don't think it's worth much debate. There
are a variety of ways to skin that cat and some work better than others
depending on the situation.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Jeff R. wrote:

Don't like 'em, personally. I reckon they taste like kerosene.
At the risk of having the shiitake put on me, I prefer common old
Agaricus bisporus.

But that's just me.

You sound like a fun guy.....

mike



--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.

http://improve-usenet.org/

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Jeff R. wrote:

"Alienjones" wrote in message
...
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/HDRatdawn.htm

For the sheep bleating in the background... Baaaaah.


Your stepped out pano.
Are you ever going to acknowledge and respond to the many reasonable
criticisms of your example?

I should be the last person interested in defending Dougie and however bad
the example he posted actually is, I think the technique has some merit
and I hope to try it at some point soon.


Don't misunderstand the thrust of this debate, Alan.
I don't think anyone here has disputed the worth of linear panoramas - we
have even suggested some good subjects, just as you do here.

What we object to is Doug's deceit, self-aggrandisement and pomposity. (And
that's just for a start.)
The linear panorama process is just fine - so long as it's not done the way
that Doug suggests.

--
Jeff R.