Aus. photo news groups
kosh
have been in and out of this group for years.... back and possibly
beyond the Miro days.
sometimes I sit back and read... sometimes contribute.. and have had the
odd battle!
first and foremost I look for
- intersting opinions
- feedback on products/prices in the AUSTRALIAN market
- Ameteurs looking for help
- general photo/equipment discussions
referneces to the "Once Great" aus.photo newsgroup.... while possibly..
over the top, are right in suggesting this groups usefullness is
massivley dimminished of late. 80% slanging match, 20% photogrpahy....
one ongoing thread of abuse is superseeded by another.....
I am looking for suggestions on an australian news group (not 100%
equipment focussed). While slanging matches happen.... hopefully it is a
group not dominated by it.
suggestions ?
kosh
ch...@go.com
a group rolling, if not this one. It seems to me (as part of the
problem, grin) that the best way to fix it, is to ask everyone to chip
in and help increase the signal to noise ratio. Ie, c'mon folks - do
you have a question, observation, issue? POST it!!! Don't sit back
watching the group flounder, get brave and say something interesting,
or ask a question or answer it. It seems to me that the angst appears
when folks pretend they are something they are not or post ridiculous
claims - without naming names, those posters possibly deserve what they
get... But I'll try to keep my sarcasm under control... (O:
If you are in a photography club, tell them about the group and its
problems and ask for help. If you are a photography teacher (I'll be
going back to do some of that shortly), get your class involved. If
you have a website, post a link to it (one of these days I'll get my
*real* one back online..).
Now, I'm going off to think of some questions.. (O:
Joe
failure... I switch it on and the lil green led flashes, but the lcd screen
doesn't light up. I can't get any response Taking the memory card out stops
the led flashing but still no other response. I see Nikon have a note about
a failure that has occured which sounds very close to what I have. Of course
this occured just at the start of the christmas break, so i lose the use of
it over the holidays...
I wonder if anyone else has had this problem.
I'm a long time reader but very occassional poster, I'm pleased that the
1600 asa boys are making up. It is the season of goodwill, after all. :-)
Joe
<ch...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1136001585.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
anonomous individual
The possibility of actually achieving your aim is slim at the best.
Moderation certainly stops it but history shows that moderated groups
are sparsely populated and poorly supported because that peculiar breed
of individual who can't resist putting shit on someone else from a
distance ...for offering subjects of photography to discuss, demand the
right to carry on with such behavior regardless of the damage it does.
Just look at my last half dozen posts.
Trying to start a discussion about alternative photography. My pet troll
Ch...@go.com just couldn't make a post without a personal and totally
false attack on me. He's been doing it for so long, I might just pay him
a visit personally if he puts up his address. He certainly doing a good
job of hiding it - and his real name.
Am I at fault for responding with evidence to refute him? What do you
think Kosh? Just let him slander and defame me to keep the peace in the
group? Not in my lifetime mate.
Then there was the Hi ISO producing horrible noise thing. Chandler
couldn't resist probing me until I put up some pages about alternative
means to achieve a picture in low light. The fact he has never offered
any web pages or concrete evidence to support his view goes un noticed
in the ruckus. He's worse than your everyday, garden variety troll.
He and Mr look-at-how-good-I-am who is yet to offer a single
constructive post to this group that doesn't have his bent and distorted
sarcasm to it, or go to the trouble of putting up one single web page
about anything except himself or how good he is at humor, couldn't hold
back, could they?
A 12 megapixel Canon file compared to a 5 megapixel point and shoot.
Sure there had to be a resolution difference but hey, not $6000 worth of
difference and did it deserve the pasting from these turkeys in pointing
that out?
What of the poor consumers who fell for the bullshit and shell out
thousands of bucks thinking they could shoot without a flash and still
get perfect pictures? That part is lost in the Testerone battles of the
mouse jockeys. Should I also keep my mouth shut there? Private mail
suggests not. At least a couple of people in this group thought it a
good idea too.
And then there is the latest post demonstrating the sharpness of a Sigma
lens. Couldn't possible be right. I must have stuck some plastic legs up
the arse of the seagull or worse, created an illusion in Photoshop.
What happens then Kosh? Do you suppose the herd mentality so rife in
Australia prompted that comment and if the pricks in question had not
set about earlier to attack me personally, would the poster have made
such a comment?
Are you saying here I should not retaliate against the wanker who made
the stupid post or just shut up and let the rumors spread that Doug is
forging pictures in Photoshop and claiming they came directly from the
camera?
Now we have a Professional web developer putting up his "selected"
pictures for critical review -big deal! ...and using the exercise to
harvest information from those who look. Worse, he doesn't have a
privacy statement or bothers to tell anyone he's harvesting information.
This is not some pics one of you lot put up on Pbase I'm talking about.
It's a professional web site of a web developer who is thumbing his nose
at all of you while he merrily harvests your data for his own reasons
and not bothering to tell you.
So I'm the bad guy for pointing this out? If this were a different
country, he'd be breaking the law in what he's done. It's not as if his
site is new or he doesn't know precisely what he's doing. It's not that
he couldn't turn off the "feature" in his gallery either.
Not a single post from any of the knocker about the craft of Photography
nor a web page to support their views which may or may not be
alternative to mine, just personal attacks on me for having the gall to
have posted some information people might be interested in if they are
contemplating a move to DSLRs or buying an overpriced Canon lens or
think the bullshit about Canon's High ISO performance actually means
they can expect to use it in low light too.
Who amongst you does not have 12 near perfect pictures to show? I dare
say my 7 year old grand daughter could muster just as many, just as good.
Do we get any help or discussion about photography from this joker?
Google on POTD mate. He's just a troll masquerading as some sort of
expert who's only qualification is he bought a camera.
Just like that total loser from go.com dogging my every post and if you
think I'm going to stop my Internet activities because 3 wankers are
dogging me, you are entirely wrong, kosh. This is not Miro here, it's me
and I'm here for the duration. You'll have better success getting them
to moderate their behavior... As if they would. They'd need to scrape
the semen off their keyboards first.
My new year resolution:
Never, ever let anyone post a personal attack against me without
retaliating and putting a watch on them to give them back in spades when
they trip ...and sooner or later they all do.
The single best defense is attack. Expect to hear more of me next year
and as long as the bastards think they can use me for their own personal
entertainment, this group will never be about photography.
--
POTD.com.au
"anonomous individual" <only....@to.group> wrote in message
news:5wptf.146144$V7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Doug you are simply not worth the effort and I would happily ignore your
pathetic rants for the rest of my life, but when you resort to posting total
BS!! about me, you leave me with no choice but to respond the personal
attacks.... as for your future rants... like I said, it's not worth it!
I have made many constructive posts to this group in my time here.... pure
and simple! Those who have been in the group for any length of time would
know this.
> A 12 megapixel Canon file compared to a 5 megapixel point and shoot. Sure
> there had to be a resolution difference but hey, not $6000 worth of
> difference and did it deserve the pasting from these turkeys in pointing
> that out?
>
> What of the poor consumers who fell for the bullshit and shell out
> thousands of bucks thinking they could shoot without a flash and still get
> perfect pictures? That part is lost in the Testerone battles of the mouse
> jockeys. Should I also keep my mouth shut there? Private mail suggests
> not. At least a couple of people in this group thought it a good idea too.
> And then there is the latest post demonstrating the sharpness of a Sigma
> lens. Couldn't possible be right. I must have stuck some plastic legs up
> the arse of the seagull or worse, created an illusion in Photoshop.
>
> What happens then Kosh? Do you suppose the herd mentality so rife in
> Australia prompted that comment and if the pricks in question had not set
> about earlier to attack me personally, would the poster have made such a
> comment?
>
> Are you saying here I should not retaliate against the wanker who made the
> stupid post or just shut up and let the rumors spread that Doug is forging
> pictures in Photoshop and claiming they came directly from the camera?
>
> Now we have a Professional web developer putting up his "selected"
> pictures for critical review -big deal! ...and using the exercise to
> harvest information from those who look. Worse, he doesn't have a privacy
> statement or bothers to tell anyone he's harvesting information.
It is NOT an offence to have a web site without a privacy statement. MUTE
POINT!!
I am NOT harvesting information about my visitors..... Coppermine needs a
cookie, go complain to the Coppermine Dev Team!!
>
> This is not some pics one of you lot put up on Pbase I'm talking about.
> It's a professional web site of a web developer
I am not a professional web developer.... shit, if I was I would have a much
better web site than I have now. I am a photographer who has simply used an
OUT OF THE BOX solution to display my pix.
> who is thumbing his nose at all of you while he merrily harvests your data
> for his own reasons and not bothering to tell you.
again I AM NOT harvesting data for some of my "own" reasons.... Coppermine
needs a cookie, go complain to the Coppermine Dev Team!!
> So I'm the bad guy for pointing this out? If this were a different
> country, he'd be breaking the law in what he's done.
Last time I looked under my feet I saw AUSTRALIA!!!! You know, in some
countries it is illegal to drive on the left hand side of the road.... man
you must have a nightmare when you need to pop out for some milk!!
> It's not as if his site is new or he doesn't know precisely what he's
> doing. It's not that he couldn't turn off the "feature" in his gallery
> either.
again... please tell ALL OF US where this feature is, as I have been unable
to find it.
>
> Not a single post from any of the knocker about the craft of Photography
> nor a web page to support their views which may or may not be alternative
> to mine, just personal attacks on me for having the gall to have posted
> some information people might be interested in if they are contemplating a
> move to DSLRs or buying an overpriced Canon lens or think the bullshit
> about Canon's High ISO performance actually means they can expect to use
> it in low light too.
You are the king of personal attacks and these are normally in response to
VALID points raised that YOU have no answer for.... it's your standard MO.
>
> Who amongst you does not have 12 near perfect pictures to show? I dare say
> my 7 year old grand daughter could muster just as many, just as good.
Only 12??
>
> Do we get any help or discussion about photography from this joker?
See above!
> Google on POTD mate.
Please tell us what "troll" responses you get from Google.... I would sure
like to know. Heck, seeing that you are defaming me and my website here in
a public forum, how about having the balls to tell us all.
> He's just a troll masquerading as some sort of expert who's only
> qualification is he bought a camera.
I actually have qualifications from Queensland College Of Art in
Photography. Since college I worked with other Brisbane based
photographers, before moving to the coast and operating as freelance
commercial up to about 5 years ago.
kosh
tuned out at this point.... more of the same stuff.... I am trying to
move on to other topics.... do you actually have an answer to the question?
kosh
Poxy
> And then there is the latest post demonstrating the sharpness of a
> Sigma lens. Couldn't possible be right. I must have stuck some
> plastic legs up the arse of the seagull or worse, created an illusion
> in Photoshop.
Hey, I was impressed with the Sigma 24-70 shot, and I was joking about the
Plastic Legz Plugin you nut.
> Who amongst you does not have 12 near perfect pictures to show? I dare
> say my 7 year old grand daughter could muster just as many, just as
> good.
I'd rather see someones best 12 shots that 1,000 of their crap ones. I see
waaaaaaaay too many bad photos - the most depressing are when they're from
professional photographers.
> My new year resolution:
> Never, ever let anyone post a personal attack against me without
> retaliating and putting a watch on them to give them back in spades
> when they trip ...and sooner or later they all do.
>
> The single best defense is attack. Expect to hear more of me next year
> and as long as the bastards think they can use me for their own
> personal entertainment, this group will never be about photography.
You're sounding like a bit of a paranoid loon. But Happy New Year all the
same:)
kosh
>
> It is NOT an offence to have a web site without a privacy statement. MUTE
> POINT!!
> I am NOT harvesting information about my visitors..... Coppermine needs a
> cookie, go complain to the Coppermine Dev Team!!
and hence why browser have cookie controls!
anonomous individual
>
>
> I actually have qualifications from Queensland College Of Art in
> Photography. Since college I worked with other Brisbane based
> photographers, before moving to the coast and operating as freelance
> commercial up to about 5 years ago.
>
>
Totally different story to the one you gave out last year. You were an
ISP for "years" in that one. Now you claim not to own a Professional web
site at all? Which one do we believe Russell?
Incidently... Not a single word of defamation in my post. My daughter,
a paralegal, read it before I posted it.
Since the day you first called me a fool, I've been watching your posts
and recording your claims which change to suit your argument of the time.
Let's talk about Indy, mate.
You (or a "mate") uses a 70 -200 f/2.8 lens track side at Indy and
filled it with unburnt race car fuel pumping it back and forth in it's
zoom range (or so your story went) and later after having it cleaned ("I
don't want to spend any more on it than I have to, I'll going to sell
it"...) " I guess he owes me a pizza for that one".
Show you the job card if you like.
You advertised and sold it as "just serviced" lens in immaculate
condition without warning the buyer of irreparable future damage
hydrocarbon deposits left in the barrel would eventually do to the lens.
I'd say right about now, the seals will be showing signs of perishing
and the circuit, starting to develop de lamination but why should you
care, eh? you got a good price for it before that happened.
Not defamation mate - plain truth from your own mouth and in Queensland
a valid defense is that is really is in the public interest to repeat it.
Here's more...
"You don't know what you're talking about Doug, when I was an ISP..."
from your own mouth too. Now this does get interesting because seemingly
- from today's story, you ran a successful ISP for several years but
also worked for a number of Photographers? Full time study at the arts
college too perhaps?
Given that the technology to provide connection to the Internet for dial
up users did not become accessible in Australia for small business until
1997 - actually Powerup started to provide access on 16 lines from under
a house in Canon Hill in '96 ...But they already had BBS gear.
Sometime in the following 3 years, you've managed to run a "successful"
(your words again) ISP business, which had to have lasted more than a
year to be successful - right? And get your "qualifications" at the
college of art. Quite a feat even for a workaholic like me and work for
several photographers in Brisbane while doing all this. How am I doing
here, Russell? Sound about right to you?
You must have been a pretty busy boy then? It took me 5 years as an
apprentice and 2 years as an junior cameraman to get my qualifications
and association recognition... Maybe I'm a just slow learner? Nah, it's
you, superman who can do things fast?
Now where is the defamation there Russell?
You also claimed to have taken your server to a co-host location in the
USA in the same year you bought a replacement 70-200 F2.8 but with IS
this time. Why would you do that if it wasn't a professional server you
have? You know the old politician's saying that things must *seem* to be
done is pretty close here.
So do you actually run a professional web site? Selling advertising
under the guise of "Digital Photo of the day" or is it just "Photo Of
The Day" -POTD) now, in the same vein as a magazine publisher or not?
Maybe I've got a different critter here? Maybe you get all those prizes
to give away for free in your "competitions" because you are such a nice
bloke and don't run a professional web business at all? Hey guys...
Russell found a way to get all the freebies he needs!
Right from the start Russell, you have given out several version of your
story. The story seems to change to suit your argument. You can't
blame anyone for thinking there is a dead rat somewhere in the wood
pile. You come across as one thing last year, a different one the year
before and this year, a "Qualified" Professional Photographer. Welcome
to the ranks mate. Send me your APPA number and I'll put you in my
Christmas card list.
As for your willingness to ignore me... Yeah mate. This post is totally
ignoring me, isn't it? We are both of the same species Russell. Our base
instinct is to defend ourselves. When you attacked me, I defended by
attacking you, way back in 2002, you made the first attack and I
defended myself.
Ever since it's been full on between you and me ...why? Because you
couldn't keep from personal insults then and can't hold of with the
absurd sarcasm now. Don't blame me for getting nasty in retaliation.
If you don't want this shit to continue. *SHUT UP*. Not too simple a
concept for you, is it? While you're at it, get the other two wankers to
shut up too and the group will go peaceful again... 'Till next time.
Andrew Hennell
> Totally different story to the one you gave out last year. You were an
> ISP for "years" in that one. Now you claim not to own a Professional web
> site at all? Which one do we believe Russell?
uhmm - who gives a rat's arse? I mean, if you have an issue with him -
please take it up directly with him, or get a room if you prefer. I
don't believe anything I read here, so I couldn't care what he
is/was/wasn't. I take everything read on the net with the proverbial
grain of salt, and back it up with my own experiences and learning.
> Incidently... Not a single word of defamation in my post. My daughter, a
> paralegal, read it before I posted it.
Nor mine - My dog, a Labrador, read it before I posted it.
>
> Since the day you first called me a fool, I've been watching your posts
> and recording your claims which change to suit your argument of the time.
<snip>
> If you don't want this shit to continue. *SHUT UP*. Not too simple a
> concept for you, is it? While you're at it, get the other two wankers to
> shut up too and the group will go peaceful again... 'Till next time.
Perhaps you ALL could follow this advice, and just get back to
photography? Play the ball, not the man... for once.
ch...@go.com
I know some wonderful paranoid loons who are *deeply insulted* by that
comparison...
It seems Douglas is now close to breaking point, and would like
everyone he doesn't approve of, to leave. Which means there will just
be him left.. (O:
Happy New Year to all.
And Douglas, my new years resolution to you is that I will restrain my
sarcasm towards you. However, if at any time:
1. You again post as a sockpuppet to try to talk up your business
OR
2. You again post incorrect or misleading information
..I will be there to point it out. As I expect others to do likewise,
and as I do to *anyone* who does the same.
PS - I'm still giggling about how seriously he took the 'Plastic Legz'
plugin - nice one... (O;
POTD.com.au
"anonomous individual" <only....@to.group> wrote in message
> POTD.com.au wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I actually have qualifications from Queensland College Of Art in
>> Photography. Since college I worked with other Brisbane based
>> photographers, before moving to the coast and operating as freelance
>> commercial up to about 5 years ago.
>
> Totally different story to the one you gave out last year. You were an ISP
> for "years" in that one. Now you claim not to own a Professional web site
> at all? Which one do we believe Russell?
>
Yes I did own an ISP. So once a photographer only ever a photographer????
What planet are you from??
Didn't you have a Linux shop or computer repair shop at some stage? Yet you
have a print shop now? But wait, you are also a photographer? Which one do
we believe?? Could they possibly be all true? Nah! Not possible, because I
can't have qualifications in photography and have worked as a freelance
commercial photographer, whilst ALSO owning an ISP... it's simply not
possible!!
You are nothing but a mindless troll and the people here see you for who you
really are, so why not give up on your dribble!
> Incidently... Not a single word of defamation in my post. My daughter, a
> paralegal, read it before I posted it.
Yeah, just like your 7 year old grand daughter posts images on your site
when they are not up to par to support your claims. Phht!
>
> Since the day you first called me a fool, I've been watching your posts
> and recording your claims which change to suit your argument of the time.
>
> Let's talk about Indy, mate.
Oh yes please!!
> You (or a "mate") uses a 70 -200 f/2.8 lens track side at Indy and filled
> it with unburnt race car fuel pumping it back and forth in it's zoom range
> (or so your story went)
Fuel vapour in fact..... as just like the stuff you stick in your Vespa,
race fuel is a liquid..... and the lens and my "mate" did not go swimming.
> and later after having it cleaned ("I don't want to spend any more on it
> than I have to, I'll going to sell it"...) " I guess he owes me a pizza
> for that one".
>
"I don't want to spend any more on it than I have to, I'll going to sell
it"... Huh??? Please provide a link to this one... I have just been
through the Google archive and read the indy lens threads and can't find
where I said that??
> Show you the job card if you like.
What job card?
>
> You advertised and sold it as "just serviced" lens in immaculate condition
> without warning the buyer of irreparable future damage hydrocarbon
> deposits left in the barrel would eventually do to the lens.
Good god.... like I said in previous threads... WERE YOU THERE? WERE YOU
THE BUYER? You have no knowledge of what information was given or not given
about the lens to the buyer.
Make whatever claims you want, but the FACT is you know NOTHING!
> I'd say right about now, the seals will be showing signs of perishing and
> the circuit, starting to develop de lamination but why should you care,
> eh? you got a good price for it before that happened.
> > Not defamation mate - plain truth from your own mouth and in Queensland
> a valid defense is that is really is in the public interest to repeat it.
> Here's more...
> "You don't know what you're talking about Doug, when I was an ISP..." from
> your own mouth too.
The truth....
> Now this does get interesting because seemingly - from today's story, you
> ran a successful ISP for several years but also worked for a number of
> Photographers?
Yep... 20+ years is a long time and I "just" managed to fit a thing or two!
> Full time study at the arts college too perhaps?
Yep... again 20+ plus years is a long time and just perhaps I did full time
college when I first left school? You seem to be the spy expert here and
love sticking your nose into other people's personal details.... why don't
you look it up? It is on public record.... Qld College Of Art - Photography
CN508 - 1981-1982
> Given that the technology to provide connection to the Internet for dial
> up users did not become accessible in Australia for small business until
> 1997 - actually Powerup started to provide access on 16 lines from under a
> house in Canon Hill in '96 ...But they already had BBS gear.
>
> Sometime in the following 3 years, you've managed to run a "successful"
> (your words again) ISP business, which had to have lasted more than a year
> to be successful - right? And get your "qualifications" at the college of
> art.
Have you no concept of time? Did I only begin to exist for a limited time
frame to suit your pathetic rant???
> Quite a feat even for a workaholic like me and work for several
> photographers in Brisbane while doing all this. How am I doing here,
> Russell? Sound about right to you?
You are so off the mark....
>
> You must have been a pretty busy boy then? It took me 5 years as an
> apprentice and 2 years as an junior cameraman to get my qualifications and
> association recognition... Maybe I'm a just slow learner? Nah, it's you,
> superman who can do things fast?
More pathetic rant based in La La Land!
>
> Now where is the defamation there Russell?
So now I accused you of defamation in a previous thread, for something you
say in this (a future) thread???? ...more La La Land stuff!
>
> You also claimed to have taken your server to a co-host location in the
> USA in the same year you bought a replacement 70-200 F2.8 but with IS this
> time. Why would you do that if it wasn't a professional server you have?
> You know the old politician's saying that things must *seem* to be done is
> pretty close here.
Again you have no idea what you are talking about..... POTD was always
hosted in the US and my ISP was sold long before the period you are talking
about.
>
> So do you actually run a professional web site? Selling advertising under
> the guise of "Digital Photo of the day" or is it just "Photo Of The
> Day" -POTD) now, in the same vein as a magazine publisher or not?
I don't sell advertising.
>
> Maybe I've got a different critter here? Maybe you get all those prizes to
> give away for free in your "competitions" because you are such a nice
> bloke and don't run a professional web business at all? Hey guys...
> Russell found a way to get all the freebies he needs!
They donate the prizes and give them direct to the winners..... in return, I
give them a banner. So we are talking about a very limited number of
"sponsers" as I don't have that many prizes to give away... and no
advertising is sold to the general business public. It's hardly a thriving
business model.
>
> Right from the start Russell, you have given out several version of your
> story. The story seems to change to suit your argument.
No I have only ever given ONE version... it is you who have created several
others and as normal, these are all based in La La Land!
>You can't blame anyone for thinking there is a dead rat somewhere in the
>wood pile. You come across as one thing last year, a different one the year
>before and this year, a "Qualified" Professional Photographer. Welcome to
>the ranks mate.
Again you have no concept of time and refuse to accept the fact that we can
do many things over time.... You claim to have done "5 years as an
apprentice and 2 years as an junior cameraman to get my qualifications and
association recognition..." But how can this be?? How can you fit those 2
years of one thing, INSIDE the 5 years of the other???
Oooohhh! Now I get it, you didn't do them at the same time..... Der!!
> Send me your APPA number and I'll put you in my Christmas card list.
Like you need to be a member the APPA to be a photographer??
>
> As for your willingness to ignore me... Yeah mate. This post is totally
> ignoring me, isn't it? We are both of the same species Russell. Our base
> instinct is to defend ourselves. When you attacked me, I defended by
> attacking you, way back in 2002, you made the first attack and I defended
> myself.
Bollocks! I remember the first thread very well (it was about in-camera
sharpening) and I was commended by many here for keeping my cool for so long
with you. It was you who established your MO very early and from that point
I lost all respect for you.... so you now get as good as you give!
> > Ever since it's been full on between you and me ...why? Because you
> couldn't keep from personal insults then and can't hold of with the absurd
> sarcasm now. Don't blame me for getting nasty in retaliation.
Oh Christ! It is you who deliver the personal insults.... what was that
about YOU telling me to stick my head up my arse and fart?? You sit there
and whinge about personal insults and how you retaliate, when YOU, YES YOU,
attack a vast number of members on this board regularly.... GET OF LA LA
LAND MAN AND STEP INTO REALITY!!!!!
>
> If you don't want this shit to continue. *SHUT UP*. Not too simple a
> concept for you, is it? While you're at it, get the other two wankers to
> shut up too and the group will go peaceful again... 'Till next time.
I will *SHUT UP* and not respond to any or your worthless dribble, nonsense,
not based in fact photography posts.... I will happily do that, but I will
defend myself and POTD when needed!
BTW... Still waiting for the Google troll proof.... but I guess we will
never see it, as like all your bullshit claims you can never back them up
and you just ignore it. Standard MO yet again!
That's it from me now... you are not worth it!
POTD.com.au
"Andrew Hennell" <and...@hennell.com.au.com> wrote in message
news:43b7071c$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> anonomous individual wrote:
>
>> If you don't want this shit to continue. *SHUT UP*. Not too simple a
>> concept for you, is it? While you're at it, get the other two wankers to
>> shut up too and the group will go peaceful again... 'Till next time.
>
> Perhaps you ALL could follow this advice, and just get back to
> photography? Play the ball, not the man... for once.
>
Yep... that's it for me. I'm done! Please accept my apologies.
kosh
so I was saying.... as this board is turning to an abuse fest.... and
this subject of "where is a decent newsgroup" has also decended into
said abuse... anyone got an answer... or are you all just going to take
stabs at each other.....
a thread complaining about abuse asking about other newsgroups to avoid
such abuse... has descended into abuse..... is it just me... or is this
kinda funny... and sad at the same time.
kosh
NZ
"anonomous individual" <only....@to.group> wrote in message
> Who amongst you does not have 12 near perfect pictures to show? I dare say
> my 7 year old grand daughter could muster just as many, just as good.
Well she has certainly surpassed your capability!!
eye for an eye...
ch...@go.com
>eye for an eye...
(O:
For those who wish to judge Douglas' (AKA 'anonomous (sic) individual')
talent, to see if it matches his pontifications here.. herewith are
photos he is currently using to promote himself:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/kissonpier.htm
My alternative title:
"The one-legged (?!) groom in awkward pose with frozen kiss plus
multiple distractions and leading lines out of the image, shot in
landscape when it should have been portrait" (Ooops, I was going to
restrain my sarcasm, but how can one *not* be sarcastic when confronted
with this, which is presumably the best of the series..? Anyway, I'm
commenting on the image, not the 'photographer'...(O:)
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/gallery/nichole/slides/crystal_20a.html
Nice photo, cropping could be a little better..but could highlights
*possibly* be blown worse than this? There are several like this in
the gallery.
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/kiss.htm
Another posed, frozen, unnatural kiss - but check out the guy's arm!!
Is it dislocated or broken, is he desperately trying to get away, or is
there some other reason why this sort of posing error appears in so
many images? A lack of sharpness, poor cropping and a bit more of the
now trademark burnt highlights..
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/couch.htm
Yes, more of those blown highlights.. And with just a tiny change in
shooting angle, we would have missed out on seeing the doorframe and
picture, but they add so much charm... (O:
I wonder if these are his twelve 'near-perfects'?
Andrew Hennell
>>Well she has certainly surpassed your capability!!
Whilst I tend to agree with the points you raise, care to post some of
your work for comparison? glass houses & all that.
Jeff R
<ch...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1136155673.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >Well she has certainly surpassed your capability!!
> >eye for an eye...
>
> (O:
> For those who wish to judge Douglas' (AKA 'anonomous (sic) individual')
> talent, to see if it matches his pontifications here.. herewith are
> photos he is currently using to promote himself:
<URLs snipped>
Is it just me, or is anyone else uncomfortable with the commercial use of
such a personal and private occasion(s)?
Does the photographer have a model release, correctly notified, for each of
the subjects, *especially* the children?
I'm not sure I'd approve of *my* wedding party being exposed to the denizens
of the 'net - for whatever purpose.
The _copyright_ may well be vested with the photographer, but _privacy_
rights are not dismissed with the press of a button - surely!
Not flaming, just enquiring.
--
Jeff R.
(who runs an eight-year-old 850+ page site with 2300+ images, with *each and
every* portrait covered by a release.)
ch...@go.com
rather than advertise my own stuff. Further, my own 'real' site has
been down for renovation for some months and I simply do not have the
time or motivation right now to get it in a state I am happy to
repost..
But seeing you ask (and at the risk of criticism for repeatedly posting
this link to horrible webshots!) here is a small gallery of shots I
took in one afternoon to evaluate the performance of a prosumer:
http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm
And there are a couple of portraity ones here, but they were posted for
demonstration purposes, rather than artistic or technical merit.
http://community.webshots.com/album/262782767hrxRfS
And yes, some of these shots contain some blown highlights too! But
read the album/image notes please.. One in particular shows, IMO,
'correct' blown highlights that don't take away from the image.
I am always happy to post examples of my stuff if I have time - if you
have a particular style of shot you would like to see, just say the
word, and if I have one, I'll post it. But if you really want to see
some of my 'best-of', I'll have to dig around a bit, and there may be a
delay. A lot of my stuff is on unscanned film - I'll get to it
eventually. Oh, and I *don't* remove images that get a bad reception.
I want to keep learning, and I listen to criticism.
I did (really, truly) shoot weddings for a large studio for a few
years, but that was many years ago. I mostly just shoot for fun
nowadays. But I *do* know how to pose people, I believe I have a
pretty good grasp of digital imaging (I teach it!) and I think I still
know bad wedding photography from good. I know that the majority of
the shots by Douglas do not back up his claims of high ground as an
artist and technician, and in fact his own images often show his claims
to be false, eg the recent posts surrounding this page of his (about
his FZ20 being much better than his DSLR in low-light):
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/ISO-myth.htm
This has been thrashed to death elsewhere, but it shows the sort of
stuff that Douglas promotes as 'fact'. I would reiterate that his
'comparison' shows the FZ20 at 1/4 second (Canon 1/40!), and ISO 200
(Canon 1600!). And the FZ20 image is awful anyway! It is this type of
misinformation that I object to, and Douglas seems to be a never-ending
source of it.
ch...@go.com
>but _privacy_ rights are not dismissed with the press of a button - surely!
It's a good point Jeff, and perhaps I should have thought about this
before posting those links, knowing Mr MacDonald's general approach to
business ethics! But I think anyone's work on the web is fair game,
and these were all found (within two clicks) off the front page of his
public webpage, www.photosbydouglas.com
In case you are wondering, my stuff (linked above) is all covered by
releases where appropriate. (But I have to admit some of the anchors
and boat accessories refused to sign, so there may be trouble for me
later..)
Jeff R
<ch...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1136178181.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> It's a good point Jeff, and perhaps I should have thought about this
> before posting those links, knowing Mr MacDonald's general approach to
> business ethics! But I think anyone's work on the web is fair game,
> and these were all found (within two clicks) off the front page of his
> public webpage, www.photosbydouglas.com
My point 'zactly.
On the web is terrible, terrible public.
(It'd be OK if all the *rest* of the web was there for purely innocent
purposes...)
>
> In case you are wondering, my stuff (linked above) is all covered by
> releases where appropriate. (But I have to admit some of the anchors
> and boat accessories refused to sign, so there may be trouble for me
> later..)
I have the same trouble with seagulls.
--
Jeff R.
Poxy
> I feel immodest doing so, and I generally only respond to stuff
> posted, rather than advertise my own stuff. Further, my own 'real'
> site has been down for renovation for some months and I simply do not
> have the time or motivation right now to get it in a state I am happy
> to repost..
>
> But seeing you ask (and at the risk of criticism for repeatedly
> posting this link to horrible webshots!) here is a small gallery of
> shots I took in one afternoon to evaluate the performance of a
> prosumer:
>
> http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm
Heh, reminds me of a bunch of flower/nursery/orchard shots I did for a
brochure during Spring - the designer said they all looked like stock
photography. I wasn't sure if that was a compliment tho.
I think your shots look even more "stock photo" because of the saturation,
or maybe just the framing? I dunno. Good shots but :)
> And there are a couple of portraity ones here, but they were posted
> for demonstration purposes, rather than artistic or technical merit.
>
> http://community.webshots.com/album/262782767hrxRfS
>
> And yes, some of these shots contain some blown highlights too! But
> read the album/image notes please.. One in particular shows, IMO,
> 'correct' blown highlights that don't take away from the image.
Hey, who needs correctly exposed sky? We all know it's there. Nice shots of
the mum+kid.
Andrew Hennell
> I feel immodest doing so, and I generally only respond to stuff posted,
> rather than advertise my own stuff.
Much appreciated, and I enjoyed your photographs. thanks :)
Andrew Hennell
> The _copyright_ may well be vested with the photographer, but _privacy_
> rights are not dismissed with the press of a button - surely!
This is a very good point, and is hopefully covered in any agreement
between the subjects and the photographer.
ch...@go.com
I choose to accept the 'stock photography' comment as a *compliment*,
and so should you.. (O:
The image I was referring to with the 'justified' burnt highlights was
actually the little tacker with the blown t-shirt ("Happiness is..")...
I almost feel guilty taking credit for those mum and toddler shots -
how could you *not* make good images of two people who are that cute?
ch...@go.com
The problem with such agreements is that in most cases they are hidden
away in the fine print at the bottom of a contract, signed at a time
when the people concerned are just interested in getting their
wedding/event/portrait session organised. Model releases are better,
but I see little evidence of them getting used much by the lower end of
town.. The clients will almost certainly have no idea that the
photographer may be a ranting loonie on the internet, and probably
didn't think for a moment that their images may be presented on a
public website, and may therefore be targetted in this way. From my
point of view, I don't think this sort of thing ever reflects badly on
the *subjects*, but by the same token, I guess I would be a bit miffed
if photographs of my loved ones were being posted extensively to
advertise a website without my direct consent or knowledge, which could
then lead to them appearing in all sorts of odd places..
For the record, 2 out of 3 of the images I posted were on the *front*
page of his website - there was no hunting around for those. (The
third was thumbnailed on the first page of a gallery linked off the
front page).
In this case, it probably won't last long, as Douglas is notorious for
rapidly pulling images that get criticised (of which, strangely, there
have been a LOT, and I can assure you it is not just me!). He will, if
history is any guide, claim that these images were never meant to be
seen by the public, and that his web-developers (ie him) made an error,
and... (O: Just try visiting any old links of his under the 'Ryadia'
name to see what I mean - this has been going on for *years*...
Narelle
> Hi all,
>
> have been in and out of this group for years.... back and possibly
> beyond the Miro days.
>
> sometimes I sit back and read... sometimes contribute.. and have had the
> odd battle!
>
> first and foremost I look for
>
> - intersting opinions
> - feedback on products/prices in the AUSTRALIAN market
> - Ameteurs looking for help
> - general photo/equipment discussions
>
> referneces to the "Once Great" aus.photo newsgroup.... while possibly..
> over the top, are right in suggesting this groups usefullness is
> massivley dimminished of late. 80% slanging match, 20% photogrpahy....
> one ongoing thread of abuse is superseeded by another.....
>
> I am looking for suggestions on an australian news group (not 100%
> equipment focussed). While slanging matches happen.... hopefully it is a
> group not dominated by it.
>
> suggestions ?
>
>
> kosh
No suggestions, but I don't think this problem is exclusive to
aus.photo. Many newsgroups with a cosy "history" seem to be nostalgic
for "the good ol' days" and bemoaning the demise of Usenet. Perhaps it
is due google.groups growing popularity; perhaps to easier access to
cable internet; perhaps to a preference to blogging. Lots of posters
don't even seem to realise that they are posting to usenet, or
understand usenet netiquette, as evidenced (for eg) by the complete
snippage of who/what they are replying to and the use of the word
"forum". Either way, the collective Usenet IQ has definitely dropped,
but life goes on and maybe we have to make adjustments to the way it is
now.
Aus.photo has definitely changed it's flavour, and although I read, I
really can't be bothered contributing any more. I know that there are
other "old" a.p posters who are now just lurkers also. To me, amateurs
are not really welcomed here anymore, and film techniques and users are
a rarity. Personal criticisms and "mineisbigger/betterthanyours" posts
are more the norm now. And I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable going
on an a.p excursion anymore either.
I can't see that creating a new ng would really work, particularly in
the aus. hierarchy. What were you thinking?
N
kosh
I agree.. nice shots. Much like what I shoot... get in REAL close...
almost minimalist... looking at smaller compositions in a much larger
scene.. giving hints of the local, but not dependant on it! ie.. the
floats on a boat but not showing the boat.
kosh
kosh
new group.. no... existing prefferably.... it seems as though some of
the guff has passed for the moment however.... but I agree.. I also see
less ameteur posts... probably scared of making a typo!
kosh
Jasen
"POTD.com.au" <ma...@potdREMOVETHIS.com.au> wrote in message
news:qeqtf.146994$V7.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "anonomous individual" <only....@to.group> wrote in message
> news:5wptf.146144$V7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Hi all,
snipped
> I have made many constructive posts to this group in my time here.... pure
> and simple! Those who have been in the group for any length of time would
> know this.
I agree, POTD.com.au has indeed helped me constructively in the past, so
attacks on him are not valid if Doug believes he does not do this.
Jasen
"kosh" <ako...@spamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JbHtf.159058$V7.9...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I find it amazing that people think that to stop abuse they have to front up
to it, which I think Doug said he will do, and make equally amusing attacks
in return. The best defense of abuse from anyone is to simply ignore
it......otherwise you are just feeding them with a response. Heck, I'm
guilty of it at times.
I agree, get back to photography. Respect the fact that some will say dumb
things from time to time and maybe post inaccurate information that you may
take exception to....so either leave it alone or just reply saying it in a
respectful way that it is indeed inaccurate if it is not actually abuse
towards you.
Respect the fact that some like Canon and some love Nikon.....and the others
who were left behind, like me, love Minolta. Some like plastic, others
adore metal. We're all different you know, unless you hadn't checked in the
mirror lately.
Yes, it is sad that this thread has denegrated in infantile abuse, AGAIN. It
is equally funny in a warped sense too. I never really take anything to
heart and as someone said, always with a grain of salt. The rest is up to
me if I take any advice from here. Being a serious amateur, I can't but
watch and read with awe sometimes at the seasoned pros provide advice and at
times, more often than not, entertainment.
SO please, do not forget that this a public forum and does go on record for
a time (although not sure how long this stuff gets stored for?) and we're
all here because we all share the same love.....taking images of the world
as we see it....whether it be a crap image or a brilliant one, does it
matter so long as we can learn from it and do so honestly with our dignity,
integrity and confidence intact?
Jasen
<ch...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1136177463....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nice shots. Love the water reflections and eucalypt dream.
kevinpower
kosh Wrote:
> Hi all, I am looking for suggestions on an australian news group (not
> 100%
> equipment focussed). While slanging matches happen.... hopefully it is
> a
> group not dominated by it.
>
> suggestions ?
>
>
> kosh
Can I suggest you have a look at www.PassionForPixels.com an
Australian-based digital photography and image editing group that I
admin.
Has equipment and technique forums, a variety of galleries including
reworked images, competitions, and a comprehensive range of links for
techniques, etc. Very active with almost 5000 members.
--
kevinpower
ch...@go.com
>nice shots. Much like what I shoot... get in REAL close...
Jasen:
>Nice shots. Love the water reflections and eucalypt dream.
Thanks, Jasen and kosh..
That Eucalypt Dream one is my favorite image from my own collection
(who said I was modest..).
But I'm embarrassed to admit it was just a chance
'I-wonder-how-this-will-turn-out' shot, taken many years ago on
Kodachrome 64 on an old but beloved Minolta X700. I shot up into a gum
tree in the Flinders Ranges in broad (bloody hot) daylight, slightly
underexposing (even though I knew the meter was shutting it way down
anyway from the glare) just to see what would happen.
When I got the slide back it was pin-sharp, the blue sky was
beautifully saturated - (it genuinely looks just like that, no
photoshopping) and I was pretty pleased to put it mildly! It looks
amazing when projected, and makes a nice 13" x 19" poster even though
I've only scanned it at 4000 dpi.. One of these days I'll get a drum
scan done...
Oh, and no, I'm not trying to sell it! Don't have time for that sort
of stuff at the moment. But it's nice to get compliments.. (O:
I think I saw you have a gallery up too, Jasen? but it's Friday and I'm
too shagged to go have a proper look just now - I'll drop by later.
Have a geat weekend folks - see you at the Thomas the Tank Engine
display with my grandson maybe, if you're a Brisbanite.. (O:
Jasen
<ch...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1137154839.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> kosh:
>>nice shots. Much like what I shoot... get in REAL close...
>
> Jasen:
>>Nice shots. Love the water reflections and eucalypt dream.
>
> Thanks, Jasen and kosh..
>
> That Eucalypt Dream one is my favorite image from my own collection
> (who said I was modest..).
>
> But I'm embarrassed to admit it was just a chance
> 'I-wonder-how-this-will-turn-out' shot, taken many years ago on
> Kodachrome 64 on an old but beloved Minolta X700. I shot up into a gum
> tree in the Flinders Ranges in broad (bloody hot) daylight, slightly
> underexposing (even though I knew the meter was shutting it way down
> anyway from the glare) just to see what would happen.
Funny that, some of my best shots are ones that I either quickly snapped or
took by experimenting and then had them stored in the cupboard until only
recently to come back out again.
>
> When I got the slide back it was pin-sharp, the blue sky was
> beautifully saturated - (it genuinely looks just like that, no
> photoshopping) and I was pretty pleased to put it mildly! It looks
> amazing when projected, and makes a nice 13" x 19" poster even though
> I've only scanned it at 4000 dpi.. One of these days I'll get a drum
> scan done...
>
> Oh, and no, I'm not trying to sell it! Don't have time for that sort
> of stuff at the moment. But it's nice to get compliments.. (O:
Well, you probably could sell it. I reminded me of a shot I saw in a
gallery once that was going for about $300 or $400. I couldn't tell you
where though as it was a while ago.
>
> I think I saw you have a gallery up too, Jasen? but it's Friday and I'm
> too shagged to go have a proper look just now - I'll drop by later.
I do have a gallery of sorts, but not anything too flash. Just a few pics
on
http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=1601 and in
www.photographersplace.com
I am yet to put together my own basic site, when I find time.
ch...@go.com
>I do have a gallery of sorts, but not anything too flash. Just a few pics on
>http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=1601
Just had a quick look - great work - I *love* the knifeblade sand
thing, the butterfly, and the cabbage palm (forgive wrong titles!).
Must find out where knifeblade is - looks like my kinda place!
Jasen
<ch...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1137159189.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hey Chrlz!
Knifeblade sandblow is on Fraser Island. I has probably changed a bit as
that was taken about 11 years ago.
The place is still as dramatic as that, however, the tourists wreck the
atmosphere more than ever.
I go to Moreton now. Much less traffic and people, at the right times of
course, and the tourists stick to the resort and the limited tours.
Glad you like my images. Hope to start doing more now that I have the new
digital SLR. Haven't gone semi-pro but thinking of how to do that and keep
my day job. Gotta pay for all the other stuff I want now too!!
cheers
Jasen