GONE FISHIN' WITH THE FAB 5D2 !
Annika1980
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297914/original
The competition was fierce. It seemed like every time I spotted a
good fish, someone else got there first.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297913/original
You shoulda seen the feathers fly when this guy ran outta line.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297915/original
Such a lovely day deserves at least one 3-shot 180-degree pano.
(Tripods are for wimps!)
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297916/original
wizofoz2k
Annika1980
> On Jan 19, 5:18 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
Ah, you still care!
Fuckwit.
NUNO SOUTO SUCKS COCK!
Annika1980
Nothing worthwhile.
BTW, fuckwit, if you want to start slamming me again don't be
surprised when complaints are lodged with your ISP and your employer.
In fact, I would even consider legal action against you and we both
know I'd win.
wizofoz2k
Anytime, dickhead. Demonstrations of your "courage" against children
have been kept in a safe place,
ready to show someone with responsibility.
Please, do try to take me to court: it will be the last time you post.
Annika1980
More dickless threats.
wizofoz2k
> On Jan 19, 1:49 am, wizofoz2k <dc...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> More dickless threats.
don't start something you are too afraid to finish
J. Clarke
Killfiling posts to this group which contain "dick", due to overuse of
the word by dickheads.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Noons
> wizofoz2k wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 6:00 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 19, 1:49 am, wizofoz2k <dc...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> More dickless threats.
>> don't start something you are too afraid to finish
>
> Killfiling posts to this group which contain "dick", due to overuse of
> the word by dickheads.
>
There are at least three newsgroups in that
message, why do you call it "this group" ?
Are you on of those people who think that
plural is the same as singular?
Focus
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5e88dbd7-dcfa-4c2e...@r13g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Too dark. You need a 5D mII for this?
--
Focus
Annika1980
This link may help you.
Helen
It's a damn shame that no matter what topic of photography is posted,
N.S. has to ruin it for everybody. I've KF him.........he's not worth
it. I only see his garbage when someone replies.
I've got a properly calibrated monitor and I don't see them being dark
at all. Exposure is spot on. This one is outstanding:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297913/original
John McWilliams
Dolt! In John's context, it makes 0 diff how many NGs are in the Headers.
Drunken sod.
--
lsmft
Annika1980
>
> I've got a properly calibrated monitor and I don't see them being dark
> at all. Exposure is spot on. This one is outstanding:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297913/original
So ...... National Geographic stuff, you think?
I agree about Noons. One thing I've learned here is that no matter
what you try to do good, someone is waiting to crap all over it. And
it's usually Noons.
He and the other Aussie inbred must lead miserable lives.
Sad.
George Kerby
On 1/19/09 7:26 AM, in article P46dnXzuwLY44unU...@novis.pt,
"Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
You need to adjust your monitor, I'm afraid.
George Kerby
On 1/19/09 9:50 AM, in article
5015d1a9-c809-41db...@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
Hey Brett, have you tried the HD video? I hear that there is quite a
controversy as to it's quality.
Helen
Of course, but then you don't need me to keep telling you that.
Annika1980
>
> Hey Brett, have you tried the HD video? I hear that there is quite a
> controversy as to it's quality.
Not much controversy. It's great if you can focus properly.
However, it's almost impossible to focus on anything moving.
It's also a bear to edit, especially on an older computer.
Alan Browne
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297913/original
Cool shot.
--
-- 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.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
George Kerby
On 1/19/09 3:22 PM, in article
f50b6aa0-b0d0-4dc2...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
I was asking because I just discovered that my wife's P&S Canon SD1100 has
exceptional low noise level when shooting with normal room lighting. Nothing
professional, of course, but I was impressed and am considering getting my
hands on a 5D II based on your and others' feedback. So the autofocus is a
problem with teles, or with all? And do you use the viewfinder, or the LCD
screen in the video mode? TIA!
Focus
http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/MONCAL/CALIBRATE.HTM
Had that for a year now. Maybe it's your turn to get one?
George Kerby
On 1/19/09 6:24 PM, in article fc2dne8JXNZHhOjU...@novis.pt,
"Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
Maybe it's your turn to use it - correctly?!?
Annika1980
>
> I was asking because I just discovered that my wife's P&S Canon SD1100 has
> exceptional low noise level when shooting with normal room lighting. Nothing
> professional, of course, but I was impressed and am considering getting my
> hands on a 5D II based on your and others' feedback. So the autofocus is a
> problem with teles, or with all? And do you use the viewfinder, or the LCD
> screen in the video mode? TIA!
The autofocus works fine with stills. The problem is that the
viewfinder blanks out in video mode (when the mirror is up) so you
have to use the LCD to compose and focus. Don't get me wrong, it's a
fine LCD but there is just no way to do critical focusing by looking
at a 3" screen.
For stills you can use the LCD in Live Mode and zoom in up to 10x so
critical focusing is a breeze. But for video the zoom feature doesn't
work so all you can see is the full image across that beautiful 3"
screen.
Pros with unlimited budgets, like Vincent Laforet, use external HD
screens to do their focusing and special rigs like those from Redrock
Micro to hold the camera and focus smoothly.
The whole buzz about the Fab 5D2's video mode is that it works great
in low light and it allows you to use all your lenses so you can use,
say a f/1.2L lens for very shallow DOF which looks strikingly better
than a consumer camcorder with it's large DOF. The problem is that in
order to get a shallow DOF in broad daylight you'll need some ND
filters on the lens. And good luck with the focusing. By the time
you spring for the external HD monitor and the Redrock Micro rig for
smooth holding and focusing, you could've bought a dedicated HD
camcorder and an adapter for the EF lenses. But then you still
wouldn't get the Fab 5D2's outstanding low-light performance. Life is
full of tradeoffs.
Mr.T
"> Annika1980 wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297913/original
Are those two huge dust spots near the bottom already? :-)
Would look much better if you got rid of them IMO.
MrT.
Karl Hawkins
wrote:
I don't think that NG would pay for blurred-wing photos of underexposed pink
seagulls hovering above underexposed waters. Without the peripheral visual cues
of what time of day those photos are taken then at least the whites should have
been corrected. The close-up shot might have worked if the wings were frozen
completely (and the exposure and whites were corrected). Motion blur just does
not work in that one and makes it look bad, especially with the pink on
dark-gray distraction. Three-strikes and it's out.
Someone sorely needs to learn how to use a curve tool in their editor. Dark-gray
waters also clearly show that the photographer doesn't know how to adjust their
camera properly to override its suggested idiot's-(auto)-exposure settings and
instead is always relying on point & shoot tactics like any vacationing
snapshooter would do. A waste of a good camera on someone that is clearly
showing that they don't know how to use one.
Boring compositions of amateur snapshots created by a total amateur with camera
and editing tools that doesn't know how to properly use any. Nothing more than
that.
For someone to suggest National Geographic in this thread, it is at least worth
an embarrassed laugh. The same kind of distressed chuckle that you'd hear at a
comedy show where the comedian is failing miserably. Making the whole audience
feel like they'd like to hide their faces for ever having been there. The only
one having a good time is the emotionally-blinded mother in the back feeling
proud that her autistic offspring performer ever got this far at all in life. At
least she has that. But the rest of the audience is only left wishing that she'd
have had her tubes tied long ago or learned about birth control and abortions.
A fitting analogy to this thread.
Noons
Mark Thomas
> (pomposity removed)
Oh look, it's Keoeeit, the anti-dslr troll!
Still think "B" stands for FlashBulb"?
Focus
"Karl Hawkins" <karlh...@keepyourmail.net> wrote in message
news:jutan4lsd277dpmcm...@4ax.com...
I guess now you need a screen calibration too?
Maybe we all need a special Bret calibration, so we can see his pictures
thru his pink glasses ;-)
--
Focus
Helen
wrote:
Thanks Mark. No profile and no other posts made me very suspicious,
and when he started his personal attacks, that was a dead give-away.
His compassion for the disabled is disgraceful, shameful and immoral.
Reminds me of Hitler actually.
Focus
"Helen" <helensi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b9795e3-ecd6-4110...@s24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Obviously you're clueless: the pictures are too dark. If you look at the
exif, you'll see they're all under exposed by 2/3 of a stop. Do you know
what that means? Either the 5D mII is a piece of crap or Bret doesn't have a
clue what he's doing.
I'm guessing both.
More proof of your cluelessness: you're responding to my post and then go on
about someone called N.S.....
--
Focus
Focus
Mammamia! IS this all you can get out of the xpensive 5D2 ?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213370
Even with the flash on you can't see anything sharp except for the noise.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213128
Only one sharp eye, even with flash used. Do you know what DOF is?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213127
More noise with flash and no DOF.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213126
Except for a few hairs on the right, nothing is in focus here. With F/1.2 at
this distance, your DOF would be less then half an inch. What were you
thinking?
Have a look at this:
http://theaplus.jalbum.net/Probeersel/Beestjes/index.html
This woman just started taking pictures a few months ago. She only has a
Nikon D40, but heck: you can learn a lot from here: sharpness, DOF, etc.
It shows that you don't need and expensive camera to make good pictures...
--
Focus
Draco
> Despite chilling temperatures, it was crowded on the lake today.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297914/original
>
> The competition was fierce. It seemed like every time I spotted a
>
> You shoulda seen the feathers fly when this guy ran outta line.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297915/original
>
> Such a lovely day deserves at least one 3-shot 180-degree pano.
> (Tripods are for wimps!)http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297916/original
Well done captures, Bret. A bit over contrast for me, but then it
could be my monitor. A laptop always has a
more contrasty screen than a stand alone monitor.
As for images to NG, yes they could be. But they really don't show
anything that any one
couldn't see. NG is always looking for the unique for a short spread.
You just have to give up
all rights to the images, forever.
Keep shooting and showing Bret.
Draco
Annika1980
Those are water drops from the bird.
Allen
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:06:54 -0800 (PST), Helen <helensi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 19, 1:22 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 19, 10:54 am, Helen <helensilverb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've got a properly calibrated monitor and I don't see them being dark
>>>> at all. Exposure is spot on. This one is outstanding:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297913/original
>>> So ...... National Geographic stuff, you think?
>>>
>>> I agree about Noons. One thing I've learned here is that no matter
>>> what you try to do good, someone is waiting to crap all over it. And
>>> it's usually Noons.
>>> He and the other Aussie inbred must lead miserable lives.
>>> Sad.
>>
>> "So ...... National Geographic stuff, you think?"
>>
>> Of course, but then you don't need me to keep telling you that.
>
> I don't think that NG would pay for blurred-wing photos of underexposed pink
> seagulls hovering above underexposed waters. Without the peripheral visual cues
> of what time of day those photos are taken then at least the whites should have
> been corrected. The close-up shot might have worked if the wings were frozen
> completely (and the exposure and whites were corrected). Motion blur just does
> not work in that one and makes it look bad, especially with the pink on
> dark-gray distraction. Three-strikes and it's out.
>
Perhaps you should consider recalibrating your monitor.
Alln
George Kerby
On 1/20/09 8:54 AM, in article
494c566e-2425-425f...@v4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com,
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
Shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
Obvious to everyone but the oblivious.
John McWilliams
> Someone sorely needs to learn how to use a curve tool in their editor. Dark-gray
> waters also clearly show that the photographer doesn't know how to adjust their
> camera properly to override its suggested idiot's-(auto)-exposure settings and
> instead is always relying on point & shoot tactics like any vacationing
> snapshooter would do. A waste of a good camera on someone that is clearly
> showing that they don't know how to use one.
Your grammar is only slightly less atrocious than your wanton attacks on
a photographer's choices. Get over Bret! Learn English; it's not that
difficult.
Thanks, Bret; I like the image a lot, but without it coming into a nest
at 2,000 feet in a 150 foot tree, no NG on this one!
--
lsmft
Annika1980
>
> I guess now you need a screen calibration too?
> Maybe we all need a special Bret calibration, so we can see his pictures
> thru his pink glasses ;-)
Maybe the bird's momma got fucked by a flamingo?
Did you ever think of that, Einstein?
The bird does look a bit pink, now that you mention it.
Sometimes that can be due to reflections near the bird, but I don't
remember anything pink out there that day. Perhaps my old monitor is
due for a calibration as you suggest.
I don't believe the shot was underexposed, however. Any more exposure
would've blown the bird out to pure white.
===================
Note to D-Mac: See how easy it is to admit you f'd up?
Notice that I didn't blame it on JPG compression or color space
issues.
Annika1980
> Obviously you're clueless: the pictures are too dark. If you look at the
> exif, you'll see they're all under exposed by 2/3 of a stop. Do you know
> what that means? Either the 5D mII is a piece of crap or Bret doesn't have a
> clue what he's doing.
> I'm guessing both.
It means the birds are very white and not using EC would blow out the
highlights.
Perhaps you should take a course in the use of Exposure Compensation
to attain correct exposure?
What is the subject .... the bird or the water? Which should be
exposed correctly? (Hint: You can't choose both.)
Note that the bird pic ( http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297913 )
has 1/3 stop more exposure than the pic of the birds on the lake
( http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297914 ) and yet it looks
darker. Perhaps because I wanted it to.
Noons
> Reminds me of Hitler actually.
You don't have enough memory to be "reminded"...
Noons
> It's a damn shame that no matter what topic of photography is posted,
> N.S. has to ruin it for everybody. I've KF him.........he's not worth
Hey Helen:
FUCK YOU , you STUPID BITCH.
Got it?
Noons
> I agree about Noons. One thing I've learned here is that no matter
> what you try to do good, someone is waiting to crap all over it. And
> it's usually Noons.
> He and the other Aussie inbred must lead miserable lives.
> Sad.
>
Anytime, you miserable coward.
Alan Browne
These photos were taken at the end of the day in winter, eg: near
sunset, so colors are on the warmside. The shots are not underexposed,
the whites are close to saturation. The red channel is in the 250's on
several birds with the green channel close behind.
It appears that with the sun behind you the sky you were shooting
towards was darkening towards night. That's why the water has such a
dark blue to it. Certainly the grasses and sand on the far side look
like they should when sun lit.
Took this one this afternoon in the setting light:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Winter2008Misc_20090120_0003SMLCRP.jpg
with similar color fill.
As usual Noons is attacking without thinking. But I think "without
thinking" is pretty par for the course where Noons is concerned.
Exposure bias is exposure comp, not evidence of good or bad exposure.
I hope D.mac disease is not spreading throughout Australia. It
certainly appears that Noons is infected.
Gemini
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d530ab9f-a832-46cd...@q18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Can you not use spot metering with a 5D MkII ? If you metered for the whites
and pulled up the shadows there shouldn't be an issue with noise (according
to an earlier post of yours).
In fact that photo would benefit considerably from tone mapping. Ii would
not fix the colour problems it has but it would correct several exposure
(tonal) issues.
I've noticed with Canon cameras in general there is a tendency to
misrepresent white or in particularly bad cases with the APS size sensors,
create a red cast to the entire image. That may have something to do with
the density of the sensor and perhaps the issue is moving up-scale as the
larger sensors increase in density.
G
Bill Boyce
Hey, everyone, it's just a picture of a damn bird! Why all this over
analysis of what might have been? Like it makes any difference at all,
or if somebody could do anything on a grab shot like that. Just enjoy
the image for once instead of obsessing about the wingtips are blurred
or not, etc, etc. See the forest, not the tree. Sheesh! JPBill
Noons
> As usual Noons is attacking without thinking. But I think "without
When will it down on you, you imbecile piece of shit, that
I don't use multiple personas on the Usenet. Focus is not me.
Unlike you, imbecile, and the morons you frequent, I don't need
to hide to post.
> I hope D.mac disease is not spreading throughout Australia. It
> certainly appears that Noons is infected.
It certainly appears you do not have a CLUE.
Noons
>
> Hey, everyone, it's just a picture of a damn bird! Why all this over
> analysis of what might have been? Like it makes any difference at all,
> or if somebody could do anything on a grab shot like that. Just enjoy
> the image for once instead of obsessing about the wingtips are blurred
> or not, etc, etc. See the forest, not the tree. Sheesh! JPBill
Too right. I'd love to see all these pixel-peepers use the spot
meter and the histogram, checking for "blown highlights" and other
such crap, while the bird flies away. That would work real well
in real life, no missed shots anywhere...
George Kerby
On 1/20/09 5:02 PM, in article gl5kue$f0k$1...@news.motzarella.org, "Noons"
<wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 21/01/2009 8:55 AM:
>
>
>
>
>> As usual Noons is attacking without thinking. But I think "without
>
>
> When will it down on you, you imbecile piece of shit, that
> I don't use multiple personas on the Usenet. Focus is not me.
How come we haven't seen both of you in the same room, Bruce/Batman?
And that "alt.moron" thingy: You are the undisputed monarch there.
Congratulations!
Mr.T
"Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote in message
news:z6ydnbWktI1URujU...@novis.pt...
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213370
>
> Even with the flash on you can't see anything sharp except for the noise.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213128
>
> Only one sharp eye, even with flash used. Do you know what DOF is?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213127
>
> More noise with flash and no DOF.
Not great shots true, but how come you can't read the exif?
Doesn't "Flash Used - NO" actually mean without flash?
MrT
Mr.T
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C59B5014.1F428%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
> >> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297913/original
> >>
> >> Are those two huge dust spots near the bottom already? :-)
> >> Would look much better if you got rid of them IMO.
> >>
> >
> > Those are water drops from the bird.
> >
> Shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
>
> Obvious to everyone
So was the smiley I thought!!!!!
(apparently not to you though)
However they still add nothing to the photo.
A real water spray would however.
MrT.
Alan Browne
> Hey, everyone, it's just a picture of a damn bird! Why all this over
> analysis of what might have been? Like it makes any difference at all,
> or if somebody could do anything on a grab shot like that. Just enjoy
> the image for once instead of obsessing about the wingtips are blurred
> or not, etc, etc. See the forest, not the tree. Sheesh! JPBill
Ya don't get it.
Those who are pathologically jealous invent defects and point out niggly
details (imagined, mostly) for no other reason than to distract from the
fact that Bret is making photos, near daily, where they're just hot air
sources.
Regrettably Bret engages them.
Mark Thomas
> Can you not use spot metering with a 5D MkII ? If you metered for the
> whites and pulled up the shadows there shouldn't be an issue with noise
> (according to an earlier post of yours).
In an environment where the lighting was changing (eg late afternoon),
where you are shooting varied scenes, often with very small white birds
on a much larger backdrop, spot metering would likely be more difficult
than simply taking an educated guess at exposure comp as Bret quite
sensibly did. The results speak for themselves - he has kept the
highlights well under control, without going too dark.
> In fact that photo would benefit considerably from tone mapping. Ii
> would not fix the colour problems it has but it would correct several
> exposure (tonal) issues.
Matter of opinion. I think it looks fine, and tone mapping often ends
up looking like.. tone mapping.
By the way, you might want to fix your date, "Gemini"...
(O:
Annika1980
wrote:
>
> Those who are pathologically jealous invent defects and point out niggly
> details (imagined, mostly) for no other reason than to distract from the
> fact that Bret is making photos, near daily, where they're just hot air
> sources.
>
> Regrettably Bret engages them.
Giving meaning to their shitty little lives, I hope.
My personal sacrifice.
Noons
>>
>> More noise with flash and no DOF.
>
> Not great shots true, but how come you can't read the exif?
> Doesn't "Flash Used - NO" actually mean without flash?
You are kidding, right?
Did you miss the whole episode about Bret's claims
that he uses flash but pbase misses its exif?
Noons
> The bird does look a bit pink, now that you mention it.
"a bit"? Amazing...
> Sometimes that can be due to reflections near the bird, but I don't
> remember anything pink out there that day. Perhaps my old monitor is
> due for a calibration as you suggest.
Perhaps it needs a new monitor. Told you that months ago,
when you posted a fabricated sunset shot with horrible banding.
And then you proceeded to abuse everyone who said it was
no good.
> I don't believe the shot was underexposed, however. Any more exposure
> would've blown the bird out to pure white.
Which is probably its true colour? But truth and reality
have nothing to do with your deranged world, have they?
> Note to D-Mac: See how easy it is to admit you f'd up?
Abusing those who point it out and sending your pack of
imbecile trolls after them claiming he is someone else is
your concept of "easy to admit"?
Shewt, but you are specially thick today...
> Notice that I didn't blame it on JPG compression or color space
> issues.
Ah yes: it'd have been pbase's missing exif, no doubt...
Annika1980
> You are kidding, right?
> Did you miss the whole episode about Bret's claims
> that he uses flash but pbase misses its exif?
I take it as a compliment when someone has to look at the EXIF data to
see if a flash was used. A compliment to me and Gary Fong.
Noons
>> Regrettably Bret engages them.
>
> Giving meaning to their shitty little lives, I hope.
> My personal sacrifice.
Oh dear, cry me a river...
So, what happened to admitting you f'd-up?
And of course, that imbecile Alan Arse-Kisser
jumped in at the right moment to "defend"
your "admission"...
Noons
>> You are kidding, right?
>> Did you miss the whole episode about Bret's claims
>> that he uses flash but pbase misses its exif?
>
> I take it as a compliment when someone has to look at the EXIF data to
> see if a flash was used. A compliment to me and Gary Fong.
"Not great shots true, but how come you can't read the exif?
Doesn't "Flash Used - NO" actually mean without flash?
MrT"
Gemini
"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
news:gl5sba$adt$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
If I "fixed my date" you'd probably accuse me of being Noons.
If I leave it as it is, you will probably accuse me of being D-Mac. That's
fine. I'll sit back and enjoy the show.
G
Noons
>
> If I "fixed my date" you'd probably accuse me of being Noons.
> If I leave it as it is, you will probably accuse me of being D-Mac.
> That's fine. I'll sit back and enjoy the show.
Wait until he calls you the voices in his head...
Mark Thomas
> If I "fixed my date" you'd probably accuse me of being Noons.
> If I leave it as it is, you will probably accuse me of being D-Mac.
D-Mac? Who mentioned him? Oh, yes, you did - on your very first post.
Now that you bring him up...
You post from Australia.
So does D-Mac (and a few others of course).
Your date is set wrong, as the 22nd.
So is D-Mac's (nobody else).
Your timezone is set to -1100 (Samoa) and your time is set wrongly for
that location.
So is D-Mac's (and not many other folk claim to be in Samoa..)
The folks in Samoa know it is still the *20th* there, and it's still the
21st in Oz. May I suggest "you" (and Douglas) visit:
http://www.timeanddate.com - it has a nice simple interface.
And apart from those coincidences, these are your very first posts, and
you appeared on a thread having a go at Bret. It's a funny old world.
But no, I would NEVER accuse you of being Douglas "St James" Macdonald.
Others might, but no, not me.
> That's fine. I'll sit back and enjoy the show.
You do that, "Gemini", and so will we..
Jeff R.
> "Gemini" wrote:
>> If I leave it as it is, you will probably accuse me of being D-Mac.
>...But no, I would NEVER accuse you of being Douglas "St James"
> Macdonald. Others might, but no, not me.
I saw no obscenities.
No extreme vulgarities.
No spelling mistakes.
No gratuitous use of the salutation "mate"...
Either it isn't Doug, or the pills are working.
--
Jeff R.
(Glory Be!)
Paul Parker
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>Gemini (inv...@invalid.invalid) wrote:
>> Can you not use spot metering with a 5D MkII ? If you metered for the
>> whites and pulled up the shadows there shouldn't be an issue with noise
>> (according to an earlier post of yours).
>
>In an environment where the lighting was changing (eg late afternoon),
>where you are shooting varied scenes, often with very small white birds
>on a much larger backdrop, spot metering would likely be more difficult
>than simply taking an educated guess at exposure comp as Bret quite
>sensibly did. The results speak for themselves - he has kept the
>highlights well under control, without going too dark.
(How many people without a clue does this make now. Virtual-photographers always
reveal their lack of experience and only know how to mimic what they've read
from everyone else, never having owned any real cameras nor ever done any real
photography.)
>"... as Bret quite sensibly did. The results speak for themselves - ..."
?!? LOL
I agree with one thing, the results do speak for themselves. Here's what those
results say, loud and clear:
Turn off auto-everything. Spot-meter one bird. Set manual white-balance. Crank
up the EV to bring that to whites but watch the live-histogram (if your camera
has one) to prevent clipping. Lock in those settings. Time needed to do all this
should be well under one minute if you know your camera. In lieu of that set
your exposure by spot-metering the back of your hand held to the same light
source as your subject, as that is relatively close to the 18% value of a
gray-card (if your skin tone is typical Caucasian). Green grass also works very
well to set your exposure, except in low-level sunlight then the warmer
temperature of the sun makes the green grass darker than 18%. Then use a white
bird or white-card to set manual white-balance.
All birds are lit by the same light source. There will be no needed exposure nor
white-balance change from bird to bird, at least not at the vantage point from
which this idiot amateur was trying to frame them. Shoot any at will. Repeat the
exposure and white-balance sampling after another 8 or 10 minutes worth of shots
to compensate for the slowly changing light conditions.
You all rave about the needed speed of your idiot-proof auto-everything cameras,
forgetting that the most valued speed is the firing of the neurons between your
ears. An idiot-proof automatic feature on your camera can't really compensate
for a true idiot. They lied to you to get you to buy those cameras. Idiots
always fall for it.
>
>> In fact that photo would benefit considerably from tone mapping. Ii
>> would not fix the colour problems it has but it would correct several
>> exposure (tonal) issues.
>
>Matter of opinion. I think it looks fine, and tone mapping often ends
>up looking like.. tone mapping.
Tone-mapping has nothing to do with doing it right. He shouldn't have used the
camera settings that he did. If he knew the least bit about photography and
cameras he wouldn't have done so. The photos are self-evident proof of a
complete amateur snap-shooter hoping that an expensive camera will magically
bestow him with talent. "The results (do indeed) speak for themselves." If you
were going to include the late evening sun in the image or show the colored sky
in the photos then you could get away with leaving the seagulls as the color of
the source light. Without including those required visual cues of the
environment and time of day then the pink-seagull effect is distracting,
annoying, and just plain wrong.
The twit thought that the pink was from something reflecting near the birds?
What dolt doesn't even consider the ambient color temperature of the light
source. The amateur photographer that started this waste-of-everyone's-time
thread, that's who.
It was a simple matter to bring those photos up to almost-tolerable
tourist-snapshot quality using two quick adjustments in an editor. Removing the
distracting pink and adjusting exposure with a quick curves adjustment turned
the dark-gray waters back to realistic blues, the seagulls back into their
natural whites without losing any highlights. It still wouldn't help with the
blurred wings and the awfully boring compositions, nothing can help with that
after the fact.
Just what "National Geographic" needs and wants, correctly photographed or not,
another lame tourist's snapshot of common Ring-Billed Gulls in a boring roadside
scene (a panorama making that painful fact all the worse). For anyone to suggest
"National Geographic", or agree with it, they would have to be off in some
psychotic self-delusional la-la-land.
That camera is going to complete waste as long as those hands hold and own it.
There's nothing that will change that. You can't make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear.
Those demented "Cat-Lady" photos were priceless (thanks to whoever posted those
links). Those lame pet photos could have been shot better using any $25
bubble-pack P&S "Barbie" camera from the toy aisle in the local discount store.
Anyone trying to prove their photography prowess by posting things like this and
then bragging about it, well ...
What a total waste.
>
>
>By the way, you might want to fix your date, "Gemini"...
>
>(O:
A newsgroup of proven fools. Put your crown on Mark, you've been voted their
Queen.
Mark Thomas
the insults, as they reflect rather poorly on you. Now I'll just
address the misinformation.
"Paul Parker", pretending he isn't Keoeeit, wrote:
> Turn off auto-everything. Spot-meter one bird. Set manual white-balance. Crank
> up the EV to bring that to whites but watch the live-histogram (if your camera
> has one) to prevent clipping. Lock in those settings. Time needed to do all this
> should be well under one minute if you know your camera.
One minute?? I, and Bret obviously, would simply look at the scene and
recognise two important factors pointing to simple ev comp rather than
spot-metering, and that takes less than 5 seconds.
1. A fairly consistent background that should be exposed about .5 to 1
stop under, which will give the desired highlight control in the birds.
2. *Changing* light conditions in the late afternoon light (which would
mean you would have to redo the process you explained periodically)
Yes, you *could* use your method, but:
- you would have to take great care with the reading, watching for dark
feathers and shadows (a moving bird is not exactly the ideal spot subject)
- the whole process takes much longer
- you must NOT leave it on spot-metering unless you always have the bird
in 'spot'
- you need to recheck it as the light changes, as you admit later
> Repeat the
> exposure and white-balance sampling after another 8 or 10 minutes
Like I said, an awful lot of extra effort. For this suituation I would
either do one manual white balance, or more likely just leave it on
daylight and use/enjoy the changing colours. And using ev comp there is
no need to recheck, just keep a rough eye on the scene content which you
should be doing no matter what method you use.
The proof, as you agree, is in the images - and I don't see *anything*
from you. So that means...
> Tone-mapping has nothing to do with doing it right.
At least we agree there.
> He shouldn't have used the
> camera settings that he did.
So, show us better results, or be specific about where the exposure is
wrong.
> If you
> were going to include the late evening sun in the image or show the colored sky
> in the photos then you could get away with leaving the seagulls as the color of
> the source light.
It's worth noting that earlier you implied he should white balance off
the bird. I think that's a really bad idea, as you cannot guarantee
that the bird is pure white. And if shot raw, the white balance is
pretty immaterial. I trust you realise how easy it is to adjust
afterwards, especially if only slightly out? The cast being referred to
was very slight.
> ..the pink was from something reflecting near the birds?
So you don't think objects, other birds, clouds over water, etc can
reflect light and affect the image? That's a very strange assertion.
> It was a simple matter to bring those photos up .. in an editor.
So where are the results? And you just proved my point - "simple
matter" to fix, even from a small jpeg? They must be very close to
perfect then..
G'nite Keoeeit. See how easy it is to be helpful without insults?
Noons
>> ...But no, I would NEVER accuse you of being Douglas "St James"
>> Macdonald. Others might, but no, not me.
>
>
> I saw no obscenities.
> No extreme vulgarities.
> No spelling mistakes.
> No gratuitous use of the salutation "mate"...
>
> Either it isn't Doug, or the pills are working.
It doesn't matter, moron. When the chief imbecile
Mark says it is, you just follow sheepishly.
Capice?
Noons
> "Paul Parker", pretending he isn't Keoeeit, wrote:
>> Turn off auto-everything. Spot-meter one bird. Set manual
>> white-balance.
Apparently, a simple concept that anyone could grasp:
"turn off auto-everything".
OK, let's see what Wank-Mark-the-self-photo-expert makes of that:
> - you must NOT leave it on spot-metering unless you always have the bird
> in 'spot'
Amazing. After being told to turn off auto-everything, he concludes that
leaving the spot meter on will cause the camera to change its settings.
Unreal.
This so-called "expert" exceeds himself in stupidity with every single post.
> The proof, as you agree, is in the images - and I don't see *anything*
> from you. So that means...
Ah,OK: this means of course that seeing NOTHING from the self-appointed "expert"
we can safely conclude he is just another bumbling Usenet idiot masquerading as
an expert while using aggressive saturation posting techniques.
> G'nite Keoeeit. See how easy it is to be helpful without insults?
Then why don't you follow your own recipe?
Focus
Read the headers. I'm from Portugal...
--
Focus
Chris Malcolm
No, it means the camera didn't know about any flash being used. Many
cameras have at least one mode of use (such as Manual) in which a
flash trigger firing circuit is available if required, but the camera
doesn't know whether it was used.
Not to mention the possibility of the EXIF data being wrong.
--
Chris Malcolm
Focus
What part of:
"Mammamia! IS this all you can get out of the xpensive 5D2 ?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213370
Even with the flash on you can't see anything sharp except for the noise.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213128
Only one sharp eye, even with flash used. Do you know what DOF is?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213127
More noise with flash and no DOF.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213126
Except for a few hairs on the right, nothing is in focus here. With F/1.2 at
this distance, your DOF would be less then half an inch. What were you
thinking?
Have a look at this:
http://theaplus.jalbum.net/Probeersel/Beestjes/index.html
This woman just started taking pictures a few months ago. She only has a
Nikon D40, but heck: you can learn a lot from here: sharpness, DOF, etc.
It shows that you don't need and expensive camera to make good pictures..."
did you feel was a complement????
Somebody is in serious denial...
--
Focus
George Kerby
On 1/20/09 6:03 PM, in article
49766616$0$20620$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C59B5014.1F428%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108297913/original
>>>>
>>>> Are those two huge dust spots near the bottom already? :-)
>>>> Would look much better if you got rid of them IMO.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Those are water drops from the bird.
>>>
>> Shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
>>
>> Obvious to everyone
>
> So was the smiley I thought!!!!!
> (apparently not to you though)
>
As well as the O.P.
> However they still add nothing to the photo.
>
And you would have removed them? I guess that's artistic choice.
> MrT.
>
>
>
Annika1980
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213128
>
> Only one sharp eye, even with flash used. Do you know what DOF is?
>
Yes, do you? That's why you don't see the dresser in the background.
Stick to your little point and shit with it's infinite DOF and leave
the real cameras for us that know how to use them.
Annika1980
>
> The twit thought that the pink was from something reflecting near the birds?
Actually, I said just the opposite. Learn to read.
Annika1980
wrote:
> > He shouldn't have used the camera settings that he did.
>
> So, show us better results, or be specific about where the exposure is
> wrong.
I am curious as to what settings I should have used.
I guess I could've bumped up the exposure a bit and blown the birds
out to a white blur.
Listening to this idiot reminds me of a 100-shooter in golf trying to
give tips to Tiger Woods.
Alan Smithee
Why the personal attacks on Brett? Did he p*ss someone off in the past?
George Kerby
On 1/21/09 10:12 AM, in article o-edncBkkt7w1OrU...@pipex.net,
"Alan Smithee" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Camera envy.
Annika1980
> > Notice that I didn't blame it on JPG compression or color space
> > issues.
>
> Ah yes: it'd have been pbase's missing exif, no doubt...
It is a fact that Pbase misses some of the EXIF info such as whether
flash was used (especially off-camera flash). You've been schooled on
this a number of times. For a long time when a 40D pic was posted
Pbase would read the camera name as "Canon Canon EOS 40D."
I'm not sure whether this is a Pbase bug or the fact that Canon uses
nonstandard EXIF fields.
Also, Pbase doesn't pick up which lens was used so I have to add that
myself on every shot. You can thank me later.
I am migrating to SmugMug anyway, since they have a much better
interface and other features (like HD video). So I guess you'll have
to change your Pbase bashing to SmugMug bashing.
Focus
You have an expensive camera, but don't have a few dollars a year for your
own site???
--
Focus
Focus
Oh no: you much more modest....... Tiger...
--
Focus
Focus
You DO know how to use it? When did that happen?
Now all you have to learn is, that a cat is more than 1/4" thick....LOL!
--
Focus
Focus
Yeah, sure... I got 5 star ratings with a old Canon P&S, that makes better
pictures than what is shown there.
Let alone what I can do with my D300...
Ask him how they rated his photos on NG...
--
Focus
Alan Browne
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213128
>
> Only one sharp eye, even with flash used. Do you know what DOF is?
Both eyes are sharp, but the left (as we see it) is not illuminated as
the flash came from the right (as we see it).
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213127
>
> More noise with flash and no DOF.
How stupid can you be Focus? A single flash can't provide proper
illumination at two well separated distances (subject and deep background).
Where is it written that a photo must have deep DOF? Many portraits are
done with shallow DOF.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213126
>
> Except for a few hairs on the right, nothing is in focus here.
> With F/1.2 at this distance, your DOF would be less then half
> an inch. What were you thinking?
He was experimenting. Just like you do. Out of the dozens of photos
you post, only a few are worth commenting on. Most are boring crap.
Drop your petty attacks and focus on your own photography (which needs a
lot of work in any case).
--
-- 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.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Focus
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:qumdnQ6wZuzFCOrU...@giganews.com...
> Focus wrote:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213128
>>
>> Only one sharp eye, even with flash used. Do you know what DOF is?
>
> Both eyes are sharp, but the left (as we see it) is not illuminated as
> the flash came from the right (as we see it).
And the ears are both in focus too, right?
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213127
>>
>> More noise with flash and no DOF.
>
> How stupid can you be Focus? A single flash can't provide proper
> illumination at two well separated distances (subject and deep
> background).
Not as stupid as you, I hope.
What f***g background are you talking about? EVERYTHING except the part that
is in DOF, is filled with noise. Even the EARS!!! Are you LEGALLY BLIND???
> Where is it written that a photo must have deep DOF? Many portraits are
> done with shallow DOF.
Many portraits suck too. Is that an excuse?
Get some glasses (+10 I think) and stop wasting my time.
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213126
>>
>> Except for a few hairs on the right, nothing is in focus here.
>> With F/1.2 at this distance, your DOF would be less then half
>> an inch. What were you thinking?
>
> He was experimenting. Just like you do. Out of the dozens of photos
> you post, only a few are worth commenting on. Most are boring crap.
> Drop your petty attacks and focus on your own photography (which needs a
> lot of work in any case).
Better that you tell me this, then someone who's playing with a full deck...
and knows about photography.
What a moron....
--
Focus
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:qumdnQ6wZuzFCOrU...@giganews.com...
>> Focus wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213128
>>>
>>> Only one sharp eye, even with flash used. Do you know what DOF is?
>> Both eyes are sharp, but the left (as we see it) is not illuminated as
>> the flash came from the right (as we see it).
>
> And the ears are both in focus too, right?
I never said that. But why should they be in focus? Here you have a
lazy cat with soft fur almost dozing. It is a soft moment. Why should
everything be in focus?
>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213127
>>>
>>> More noise with flash and no DOF.
>> How stupid can you be Focus? A single flash can't provide proper
>> illumination at two well separated distances (subject and deep
>> background).
>
> Not as stupid as you, I hope.
> What f***g background are you talking about? EVERYTHING except the part that
> is in DOF, is filled with noise. Even the EARS!!! Are you LEGALLY BLIND???
They are also less lit. Are you incapable of any analysis? Or just
blind attacks?
>
>> Where is it written that a photo must have deep DOF? Many portraits are
>> done with shallow DOF.
>
> Many portraits suck too. Is that an excuse?
Mutually exclusive.
>
> Get some glasses (+10 I think) and stop wasting my time.
>
>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213126
>>>
>>> Except for a few hairs on the right, nothing is in focus here.
>>> With F/1.2 at this distance, your DOF would be less then half
>>> an inch. What were you thinking?
>> He was experimenting. Just like you do. Out of the dozens of photos
>> you post, only a few are worth commenting on. Most are boring crap.
>> Drop your petty attacks and focus on your own photography (which needs a
>> lot of work in any case).
>
> Better that you tell me this, then someone who's playing with a full deck...
> and knows about photography.
>
> What a moron....
*plonk*
You're incapable of rational discourse and wasting my time.
Mr.T
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:6toclcF...@mid.individual.net...
> > Doesn't "Flash Used - NO" actually mean without flash?
>
> No, it means the camera didn't know about any flash being used.
Fair point.
> Many
> cameras have at least one mode of use (such as Manual) in which a
> flash trigger firing circuit is available if required, but the camera
> doesn't know whether it was used.
Most will still show flash used in manual modes.
> Not to mention the possibility of the EXIF data being wrong.
And peoples claims on Usenet :-)
MrT.
Mr.T
> > However they still add nothing to the photo.
> And you would have removed them? I guess that's artistic choice.
Absolutely, and yes I agree.
MrT.
George Kerby
On 1/21/09 2:11 PM, in article n7idnQYA0LoaHOrU...@novis.pt,
"Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
Would you learn how to use quotes, Einstein? It makes it difficult where to
pick up your blathering when you don't identify the previous post.
George Kerby
On 1/21/09 4:47 PM, in article
qt2dnQowj5w3O-rU...@supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> Focus wrote:
>
>> You have an expensive camera, but don't have a few dollars a year for
>> your own site???
>
> That is totally irrelevant. Usenet charter dictates one must always use
> free web hosting sites when stimulating idiots.
>
<G!>
George Kerby
On 1/21/09 2:18 PM, in article lZudnasqBriRHurU...@novis.pt,
"Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
"Five star"? By Whom?
George Kerby
On 1/21/09 4:17 PM, in article dYydnZBqh8mdAurU...@novis.pt,
"Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>
> Get some glasses (+10 I think) and stop wasting my time.
>
You seem to being that pretty well all by yourself, boy-wonder...
George Kerby
On 1/21/09 4:46 PM, in article
qt2dnQswj5w3O-rU...@supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> Focus wrote:
>
>> You DO know how to use it? When did that happen?
>> Now all you have to learn is, that a cat is more than 1/4"
>> thick....LOL!
>
> Now that is funny! But seriously, sometimes a 1/4" of a cat is all you
> really need. No doubt you need Nikon lenses to get such superior Bokeh and
> DoF like this. Even Canon's equivalent lens can't even come close.
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Cat_eye.jpg>
>
Nice. Would have been nicer if you didn't put the center of focus in the
center of the composition, though...
tony cooper
I hate to be the spelling police, but did you mean "stimulating" or
"simulating"? It's very difficult to tell.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Paul Parker
Here you go, you lying amateur moron photographer (and all your brain-dead
talentless-hack supporters out there) ....
Message-ID: <f3238668-0d22-4297...@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:23:04 -0800 (PST), Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>The bird does look a bit pink, now that you mention it.
>Sometimes that can be due to reflections near the bird, but I don't
>remember anything pink out there that day. Perhaps my old monitor is
>due for a calibration as you suggest.
What? You don't even remember the color of the light during those shots? That's
evident from your photos you fuckingly useless newsgroup-troll and moron.
>
>I don't believe the shot was underexposed, however. Any more exposure
>would've blown the bird out to pure white.
Here's how you should have obtained it right from the camera, if you knew how to
use any camera correctly that is:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3435/3215921069_e1910713f1_o.jpg
The crappy color and badly needed exposure shift was fixed with a one-click
solution using ColorWasher. It's what I bother to use when I don't care to spend
valuable time on some worthless photo, when it's only being used as an example
to show some amateur and idiot that they don't know what they are doing with any
camera.
The flecks of drops were also quite annoying, those in the air and against the
bird's feathers (minus the one off the beak-tip), so I cloned those out too.
More time spent on that than the one-click color/exposure fix.
Nothing can help with the dreadfully boring composition and motion-blur though.
I'd have thrown this one of yours in the trash if I accidentally shot it. I
wouldn't have even bothered shooting such common birds in the first place, there
would be no need to discard it, I don't waste my own photography time on such
crap shots. You might as well have been photographing common sparrows and crows
... or house-cats, that's your style, isn't it.
Consider this a gift lesson. One that you will never be able to learn.
Talentless snapshooters are always like that. But at least others might learn
from your beginner's painfully obvious mistakes. That's why I bothered to use
you as an example, so others will never become like you.
No wonder you are so obsessed with cameras outside of your league. You'd do just
as well with a "Barbie" P&S camera. The content of your photos will never be
interesting enough to make use of better cameras, but at least you can say it
cost a lot. Keep looking for that "talent button" ... you'll never find it.
Phhht....
Focus
"Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:qt2dnQswj5w3O-rU...@supernews.com...
> Focus wrote:
>
>> You DO know how to use it? When did that happen?
>> Now all you have to learn is, that a cat is more than 1/4"
>> thick....LOL!
>
> really need. No doubt you need Nikon lenses to get such superior Bokeh
> and
> DoF like this. Even Canon's equivalent lens can't even come close.
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Cat_eye.jpg>
>
Now that's what I mean: no visible noise and still a reasonable amount of
cat in DoF. I guess you do need a Nikon for that ;-)
--
Focus
Mark Thomas
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3435/3215921069_e1910713f1_o.jpg
Looks washed out, with an insipid cyan background. Some areas of the
bird now show a hint of green. Keoeeit would appear to be colorblind
or have a badly calibrated screen..
> a one-click
> solution
And it *looks* like it.
> using ColorWasher.
I won't be bothering investigating that one, although if history is a
guide it is more likely to be the user at fault.
> so I cloned those out too.
> More time spent on that than the one-click color/exposure fix.
so.. you're a bit slow with the clone tool..?
Just for comparison - the following images are the work of the
'photographer' calling himself Paul Parker (formerly Karl Hawkins..),
who is of course Keoeeit, the anti-dslr-troll:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96582
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96597
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=99180
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=100233
They put Bret firmly in his place!
Mark Thomas
And when are you returning to the available light thread to apologise?
Atheist Chaplain
news:9ba2c556-4d34-41ec...@r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hey I'm a 100 shooter in golf (9 holes) and I can help improve everyone else
in the groups shots but myself :-)
but then I only play once or twice a year now :-)
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Paul Parker
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>Paul Parker (pretending he isn't Keoeeit) wrote:
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3435/3215921069_e1910713f1_o.jpg
>Looks washed out, with an insipid cyan background. Some areas of the
>bird now show a hint of green. Keoeeit would appear to be colorblind
>or have a badly calibrated screen..
>
>> a one-click
>> solution
>And it *looks* like it.
And yet, that one-click hack tool does a better job than Bret with a 5D2.
What's that say about your ability to discern any kind of photography quality at
all?
>
>> using ColorWasher.
>I won't be bothering investigating that one, although if history is a
>guide it is more likely to be the user at fault.
>
>> so I cloned those out too.
>> More time spent on that than the one-click color/exposure fix.
>so.. you're a bit slow with the clone tool..?
>
>Just for comparison - the following images are the work of the
>'photographer' calling himself Paul Parker (formerly Karl Hawkins..),
>who is of course Keoeeit, the anti-dslr-troll:
>
>http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685
>http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96582
>http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96597
>http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=99180
>http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=100233
>
>They put Bret firmly in his place!
And yet, not one of those was posted to show any photography expertise by the
poster, nor was that claim ever made about any of them by the poster, as proved
in the discussion threads that you found by your painstakingly (and mistakenly)
stalking someone that you desperately admire but can never have. I read those
threads that those photos were posted in, they were posted to only ask questions
about the subjects in them or to make an entertaining comment, nothing more.
Should I find some crap photos on the net and then post the links to them, then
also claim that those are yours? I too will be believed by as many newsgroup
morons as believe you. Get a clue you fuckingly useless net-stalking freak.
Try as you might, you'll never goad any pro into entertaining you with their
good photography for free. That's reserved for paying customers. Something that
you'll never have--enough money to enjoy them.
Have fun stalking your imaginary lovers that don't want you.
You are so easy to bait. :-)
Annika1980
> >> The twit thought that the pink was from something reflecting near the birds?
>
> >Actually, I said just the opposite. Learn to read.
>
> Here you go, you lying amateur moron photographer (and all your brain-dead
> talentless-hack supporters out there) ....
>
>
> >The bird does look a bit pink, now that you mention it.
> >Sometimes that can be due to reflections near the bird, but I don't
> >remember anything pink out there that day. Perhaps my old monitor is
> >due for a calibration as you suggest.
>
Thanks for proving me right, dipshit. Like I said, there was nothing
out there reflecting red or pink which is the exact opposite of what
you claimed I said, you lying sack of shit.
Mark Thomas
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:40:46 +1000, Mark Thomas
>> who is of course Keoeeit, the anti-dslr-troll:
>>
>> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96685
>> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96582
>> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=96597
>> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=99180
>> http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/attachment.php?id=100233
>>
> poster
That's a very strange way to start off, if you are denying they are
yours... Keoeeit, nobody is fooled. It takes a seriously deluded soul
to produce "Paul Parker", "Karl Hawkins" and the myriad of other
sockpuppets you need, to try to pretend you have support. But I guess
old habits die hard, hey X-man/Baumbadier?
And it takes just twenty seconds or so for *anyone* to follow your
hamfisted trail back to Keoeeit on Steve's Forums (who owns those
images), and Dave Ingols/Keoeeit at DPReview, then
X-Man/Baumbadier/Casiobear... Even without the giveaway posting errors
and obvious clues, your attitude follows you wherever you go, and you
deserve all the disrespect you get.
If you are going to be a pretender, you still need some basic skills not
to get caught out. Sadly, you don't have them, either in hiding behind
your sockpuppets, or in photography.