Re: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!!

7 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Neil Harrington

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 5:53:15 PM2/18/08
to

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:13rjdil...@news.supernews.com...
> Since I don't alter a pic once it is posted I decided to post the one
> prior
> to the first hawk pic. A couple minutes in PS toned down the highlights a
> bit, but I'm not looking for perfection so it will have to do. It's
> amazing
> what high level of dynamic range the good old D3 has. I opted not to add
> any of the aggressive Tennessee bokeh we all see here, so don't be too
> disappointed Russell.
>
> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/hungry_hawk.htm>

Very nice shot. What's "Tennessee bokeh"?

Neil


Douglas

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 6:15:19 PM2/18/08
to
On Feb 19, 8:53 am, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote:
> "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote in message

"Tennessee" refers to where this groups biggest jackass lives. He just
happens to create his images with photoshop instead of a camera. Bokeh
is applied using photoshop's "blur tool" to produce a plastic replica
of a real photograph. I suspect this is why he calls his images "pics"
and not photos... Because he creates them in a computer from images
stolen from other photographers and occasionally ones taken with a
camera he claims was a gift from a stranger.

http://www.annika1980.com pretty much describes what this jackass gets
up to.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Mr. G D Geen

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 12:01:49 PM2/18/08
to
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> Since I don't alter a pic once it is posted I decided to post the one prior
> to the first hawk pic. A couple minutes in PS toned down the highlights a
> bit, but I'm not looking for perfection so it will have to do. It's
> amazing
> what high level of dynamic range the good old D3 has. I opted not to add
> any of the aggressive Tennessee bokeh we all see here, so don't be too
> disappointed Russell.
>
> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/hungry_hawk.htm>
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>
Beautiful. That is the reason that I want a 500mm as well. Leave it
alone. I love it! -G

Noons

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 7:27:37 PM2/18/08
to
On Feb 19, 11:06 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Photoshop trick to render lifeless blur in the background. No matter how
> hard they try they can't replace the wonderful signature bokeh of Nikkor.
>


Hehehe! You should see the bokeh I get from my Nikkor 500:
it's the mirror one.
;-)

George Kerby

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 7:43:54 PM2/18/08
to


On 2/18/08 4:53 PM, in article A_idneWhQdLblifa...@comcast.com,
"Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote:

Otherwise known as "Rita Moonshine".

Pudentame

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 7:49:02 PM2/18/08
to

It's a slam at Bret, aka Annika1980. Rita shoots Nikon, and Annika
shoots Canon. They're neck and neck in competition to see who can become
the most boring asshole in all of the usenet photography groups.

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 9:09:49 PM2/18/08
to
On Feb 18, 5:53 pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote:

>
> What's "Tennessee bokeh"?

It's the smoothness you see from the Forgotten 400 f/5.6L, and not
that scratchy Nikon crap. Maybe someday Rita will learn to take a
proper hawk shot without blowing the highlights or having a butt-ugly
background.

Here's an old one taken way back when with the Totally Digital D60:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24372096/original.jpg

Message has been deleted

Paul Furman

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 9:35:48 PM2/18/08
to
JT's Ghost wrote:
> Yep! Rita has a nice shot here... I like it, even with the slight
> touch-up in Photoshop.
>
> - JT
> only has a D70 w/ 70-200mm f2.8 VR

Slap a 1.4x on there & you've got 420mm f/4 (630mm equivalent on a D3).
The 1.4 teleconverter works well on the 70-200.

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 4:10:09 AM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 2:42 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
> Since I don't alter a pic once it is posted I decided to post the one prior
> to the first hawk pic. A couple minutes in PS toned down the highlights a
> bit, but I'm not looking for perfection so it will have to do. It's amazing
> what high level of dynamic range the good old D3 has. I opted not to add
> any of the aggressive Tennessee bokeh we all see here, so don't be too
> disappointed Russell.
>
> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/hungry_hawk.htm>
>
> Rita

A better shot. Apart from the control of the highlights, the off
centre composition, the twig and the direction of his look, all
balance it up better imwo.

However, one last thing I didn't mention before (I try to be kind, but
we are striving for perfection, aren't we?) I do think you need to
watch your colour balance - the blue shadows are rather noticeable.
Ah, takes me back to the original Provia...

Anyway, it's good to see you are listening and learning. Well done
Rita.

And it's ok, you really don't have to mention my name on your site.
After all, I'm just one of those idiots you are entertaining and not
taking any serious notice of...... (O:

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Ali

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 4:19:32 PM2/19/08
to
I am going to put a spanner in the works again bud. ;-) Ordinarily I
wouldn't post, but just because it's you...

You need to get closer.

The light is not good. Well actually terrible.

I haven't looked at the histogram, but I can see straight away that the
blacks aren't black. Well, maybe they are black, but the log under the
claws doesn't look right, as it's too light, the tail too. Looks like a
scan in fact.

Background, well, I don't know what to make of that, but it's not bad. Just
looks strange, but I wasn't there.

Noise/grain, I think that this was cropped or shot on film. Are you sure
this was taken on a D3? Not used a D3, but doesn't look right. My 20D
would blow this out of the water.

Looks too blue in the shadow areas.

Overall, there is something strange about this photo. I don't really care
to be honest, but for me I think that this was shot on 35mm film. Possibly
Fuji.


"Rita Berkowitz" <ritabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:13rjdil...@news.supernews.com...

Douglas

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 4:52:34 PM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 2:42 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
> Since I don't alter a pic once it is posted I decided to post the one prior
> to the first hawk pic. A couple minutes in PS toned down the highlights a
> bit, but I'm not looking for perfection so it will have to do. It's amazing
> what high level of dynamic range the good old D3 has. I opted not to add
> any of the aggressive Tennessee bokeh we all see here, so don't be too
> disappointed Russell.
>
> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/hungry_hawk.htm>
>
> Rita

No, no no Rita. You've got it all wrong (again). FF sake.
You were doing better with the Canon crap. Now you've even got the
master himself Mark/charles (call him markles, eh?) telling you it a
good shot. What ever were you thinking?

You ought to know by now that a negative from him is a sure award
winner. Getting positives from him is the curse of loonies - BIG
TIME!

If you keep going like this, you'll end up at the bottom of the ladder
again. Just when I was beginning to admire your skills and prowess,
you go and blow it all with this shot. Must be the poison of cross
posting down under!

Have you ever tried shooting with a different camera? The master
himself used a little Sony digicam he pinched from his boss. I'm sure
you'll get a lot better shots if you follow his lead. Only ever use
someone else's camera.

Look at this one from his highness... Weep and learn my friend. THIS
is photography at it's finest: http://www.marktphoto.com/portfolio/slides/estuary_fisher.jpg

See? You have used far too much of the picture. You should aim for at
least 1/3rd totally black or totally white. This is what the rule of
thirds is all about. ROTFL.

Enjoy your day mate,
Mine is filled with boredom. NOT!

Jon Pope

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 6:06:27 PM2/19/08
to
WHATS WITH THE FUCKING PIXELS LOL

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:13rjdil...@news.supernews.com...

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 7:29:12 PM2/19/08
to
"Jon Pope" <MRJO...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:NhJuj.15348$H05....@newsfe06.phx...

> WHATS WITH THE FUCKING PIXELS LOL
>

caps lock key broken ??

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 7:26:59 AM2/20/08
to
On Feb 20, 9:54 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:

> Douglas wrote:
> > You should aim for at
> > least 1/3rd totally black or totally white. This is what the rule of
> > thirds is all about. ROTFL.
>
> Well, Mark set the bar awfully high with this one. I'm not sure that
> there's a person alive that can top that one.
>
> Rita

Oh dear. Watch where you tread next time, as you never know what will
get stuck on your shoe. You neatly picked an image that is a good
test for monitor calibration... The fact that you *believe* that it
is over a third 'totally black' tells me two things:
1. Your screen gamma and/or blackpoint is wrongly set. You should be
able to *just* make out the two figures at left. Feel free to check
this on a properly calibrated screen. Maybe the kids next door might
have one?
2. Spotting subleties, and understanding of low-key images are yet to
be added to your repertoire. Let's just stick to snapshots for now.

But that's ok. We already have got to the point where you are
*listening* - you're on the high road, Rita. Just get that screen
adjusted - that may explain some of the problems in your postings, by
the way.

Douglas

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 6:27:13 PM2/20/08
to

Unbelievable!

Colin_D

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 6:52:54 PM2/20/08
to

Yep, I can see two figures in that image*, and the left one looks like
he is taking a leak.

* on my Dell laptop, no less!

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 21, 2008, 5:39:50 AM2/21/08
to
On Feb 21, 9:52 am, Colin_D <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You neatly picked an image that is a good
> > test for monitor calibration... The fact that you *believe* that it
> > is over a third 'totally black' tells me two things:
> > 1. Your screen gamma and/or blackpoint is wrongly set. You should be
> > able to *just* make out the two figures at left. Feel free to check
> > this on a properly calibrated screen. Maybe the kids next door might
> > have one?
> > 2. Spotting subleties, and understanding of low-key images are yet to
> > be added to your repertoire. Let's just stick to snapshots for now.
>...

> Yep, I can see two figures in that image*, and the left one looks like
> he is taking a leak.

Nice interpretation - yes, that *is* what he looks like, now you
mention it. I think it was just a bored Dad, watching his son try out
his new casting technique on that sandspit.

> * on my Dell laptop, no less!
>
> Colin D.

Well done Colin! Despite what some inexperienced folk think, a *lot*
of people actually do have quite well calibrated monitors. Here, we
found out about two that don't. (O; But they might learn something,
so it's worthwhile.

Douglas

unread,
Feb 21, 2008, 5:54:49 AM2/21/08
to

Here's a tip Mark...
When You had a go at the God awful prints your mate got back from
"Teds" (for 19¢ each) you let it be known how little you really know.

My Print Pro calibration system (which cost more than your computer
and camera combined) calibrates all my monitors and makes ICC profiles
for my printers just fine.
Why would I care what you had to say when the professionals I employ
and print for, come to me for their prints because they get back
exactly what was on their monitor when they edited them?

Now why do you think that is Mark?
Are all Professional Photographers wrong or is Mark Thomas (Charles
Stevens actually) the one who's wrong?

Anything less (in a photograph) than 10 10 10 is so far under exposed
as to be detail worthless... Just like your photos. Art is one thing
but art is not in your photography. Get your head out of your arse and
maybe you'll discover you really don't have sunnies on at all.

Douglas

unread,
Feb 21, 2008, 6:01:36 AM2/21/08
to
On Feb 21, 9:52 am, Colin_D <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Well Colin... You missed the third person but like I said... The Rule
of thirds! ROTFL It has a bloody great dust blob in it too!

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 21, 2008, 7:26:27 AM2/21/08
to
On Feb 21, 8:54 pm, Douglas <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anything less (in a photograph) than 10 10 10 is so far under exposed
More foot in mouth.

Doug's screen calibration is not only broken, but his eyedropper is
broken too.

Just to the right of the male silhouette left-of-centre, you can
easily check and see for yourself the readings are around 30 (in the
Red channel naturally). Thats THIRTY - three times 10.

Between the two silhouettes, it drops down to 20ish. And at the
extreme left edge, near the horizon it is still up over the 17's. In
other words, just visible... *as a low-key silhouette is meant to be*.

The idea of the image is pretty obvious really - I wanted those two
figures to be *almost*, but not quite, lost in the black. Achieved.
But perhaps invisible on a computer with an uncalibrated monitor.

I know the concept of silhouettes and low-key are both foreign to
Douglas, but here's how it works - the silhouettes themselves are
*meant* to be black, or if you like, under 10's or so. OK, so far?

Now, if you want those silhouettes to be just visible, they should be
surrounded by levels around 15-30. Oh look, that is *exactly* what is
in my image. Golly gosh.

So, it's now additionally clear that Douglas hasn't a clue what a
silhouette is, what low-key means, and he doesn't even know how to
correctly measure RGB values.

Otherwise, he's doing *very well*. (O: And I guess for Douglas'
stuff, this sort of discussion is irrelevant. He has never had much
luck controlling his blacks or whites on web-posted images, and then
he blames JPG instead of his own incompetence.

PS - it was pretty clear to me that Colin had spotted the two
*additional* figures.

PPS - it's also most amusing that Doug claims that my silhouettes were
below 10 and invisible, and yet he is now seeing the extra two figures
and admonishing anyone he thinks doesn't.

Funny!

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 21, 2008, 10:00:56 AM2/21/08
to
On Feb 21, 5:54 am, Douglas <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My Print Pro calibration system (which cost more than your computer
> and camera combined) calibrates all my monitors and makes ICC profiles
> for my printers just fine.

How about treating us to some photos of this system?

Ali

unread,
Feb 21, 2008, 1:57:35 PM2/21/08
to
Yeah, there is a third person sitting down.

I have only skimmed through the post, as it seems to have got a bit bitchy
(which was inevitable) ;-) But just one thing to add, it also depends on
what software you are viewing the photo with. For example, there can be a
difference between viewing a photo in Internet Explorer to viewing it in
Photoshop.


"Douglas" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6701719-d4cc-4e0d...@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Douglas

unread,
Feb 21, 2008, 5:31:11 PM2/21/08
to
On Feb 22, 4:57 am, "Ali" <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> Yeah, there is a third person sitting down.
>
> I have only skimmed through the post, as it seems to have got a bit bitchy
> (which was inevitable) ;-) But just one thing to add, it also depends on
> what software you are viewing the photo with. For example, there can be a
> difference between viewing a photo in Internet Explorer to viewing it in
> Photoshop.
>
> "Douglas" <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:f6701719-d4cc-4e0d...@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Well Colin... You missed the third person but like I said... The Rule
> > of thirds! ROTFL It has a bloody great dust blob in it too!

You're right Ali.
The whole issue of images for Internet viewing has to encompass the
2.2 gamma of a PC screen and the 1.8 gamma of a Mac screen and the
likelihood 80% of the screens they are seen on are straight out of the
box and not profiled. There is also the issue of whether or not to
include an embedded ICC profile (sRGB for example) or leave an image
without a profile and let the Operating system determine the colours.
Some browsers cannot read a colour profile anyway.

I suspect our friend Mark has no idea of presentation of images for a
wide audience. From his diatribe I'd say he works on the basis you
either do it his way or not at all. Usually not at all. There is
absolutely no detail whatsoever in the shapes in the darkness of his
picture. I suspect he puts these pictures up so he can launch his
spiel about how perfect his idea of calibration is. Whatever... It
doesn't work.

Douglas

unread,
Feb 21, 2008, 5:32:32 PM2/21/08
to

Like you could afford one... In your dreams Bret. You'll get SFA from
me.

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Feb 21, 2008, 7:14:05 PM2/21/08
to
"Douglas" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:839922ff-11ee-4170...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

translation from "Douggie" to English
"I don't have one so I cannot brag about it with photo's"
Hell Douggie you posted pics of just about everything else, why no photos of
your Printers ??
Its not like you have to worry about bandwidth like Rita does with the crap
Geocities hosting and I'm sure your good mate at Godaddy would let you go
over a bit if that's the issue :-)

Douglas

unread,
Feb 22, 2008, 1:55:40 AM2/22/08
to
On Feb 22, 10:14 am, "Atheist Chaplain" <ab...@cia.gov> wrote:
> "Douglas" <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote in message

For the jackass and his mates the Aussie idiots.
http://www.clocksnprints.com/4thejackasses.htm

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Feb 22, 2008, 8:42:28 AM2/22/08
to
"Douglas" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e44c210e-811e-49cb...@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

you see, that's all you had to do in the first place instead of being a dead
prick about it, now that wasn't hard was it ??

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


Annika1980

unread,
Feb 22, 2008, 1:23:24 PM2/22/08
to
On Feb 22, 1:55 am, Douglas <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For the jackass and his mates the Aussie idiots.http://www.clocksnprints.com/4thejackasses.htm

Wow, a photo of a printer. Why the tight crop?

Message has been deleted

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 22, 2008, 4:28:54 PM2/22/08
to
(sorry if this appears as a double post)

On Feb 22, 8:31 am, Douglas <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 4:57 am, "Ali" <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, there is a third person sitting down.
>
> > I have only skimmed through the post, as it seems to have got a bit bitchy
> > (which was inevitable) ;-) But just one thing to add, it also depends on
> > what software you are viewing the photo with. For example, there can be a
> > difference between viewing a photo in Internet Explorer to viewing it in
> > Photoshop.
> ...

> You're right Ali.
> The whole issue of images for Internet viewing has to encompass the
> 2.2 gamma of a PC screen and the 1.8 gamma of a Mac screen
> ...also the issue of whether or not to

> include an embedded ICC profile (sRGB for example)
> Some browsers cannot read a colour profile anyway.
>
> I suspect our friend Mark has no idea of presentation of images for a
> wide audience.

No, that would be you, Doug. *I* fully understand that a simple JPG
with a simple set of RGB values should be displayed in a certain way
by a properly calibrated system. As others have pointed out, there
was detail in this image that should be visible on a well-calibrated
system You missed it.

First, Doug missed the detail and said anything below 10 is useless
and invisible. At that time, he made no mention of profiles or Mac vs
PC. And he was essentially correct. He should have stopped there.

But then when it was pointed out to him that there is plenty of detail
there well above the 10's, he suddenly regains his vision, and has to
desperately try to turn it around to explain his gaffe. He now tries
to use the largely irrelevant mac/pc gamma issue, and tries to excuse
his error by claiming it's a profile issue. As anyone with a clue
would realise, if it's a profile issue, it's HIS issue.

So let's reduce it to the facts. *Ali* could see the third person
too. So that just leaves Doug and Rita. As I said, this image is a
great calibration test. Doug failed it. Possibly in his haste to
post it as an example of *my* incompetence - ironic really, isn't it?
(O:

The image has a large dark low-key area that has *easily measurable*
(non-profiled!) detail in the range around 17-30 (which even Doug says
should be visible). Those numbers are in terms of simple RGB values
in a 'straight' JPG file.

Now if Doug's 'calibration' and profiles have stuffed his setup so
badly that he can no longer see that detail, that's his problem. And
it explains why he thinks so many people have bad calibration. He
believes everyone has screwed their system up like his.

Nice one Doug. I think the hole has been dug so far it is now
collapsing on you. But keep going.

And you'll note I leave *my* images up and unchanged, you gutless
wonder.

Rob.

unread,
Feb 22, 2008, 9:10:02 PM2/22/08
to
Atheist Chaplain wrote:


>
> you see, that's all you had to do in the first place instead of being a
> dead prick about it, now that wasn't hard was it ??
>


Read the information on the print and see what you make of it!

Douglas

unread,
Feb 24, 2008, 2:17:52 AM2/24/08
to

No need to ponder.
It's one of my advertising posters. Just to kill any conjecture before
it starts.

Noons

unread,
Feb 24, 2008, 5:37:53 AM2/24/08
to
On Feb 19, 11:26 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Like Homer Simpson would say, "Mmmm DONUTS!!" Sometimes you can make those
> donuts work for you.

I certainly can:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/bartok-01-67948040

mind you: a little bit of Tennessee bokeh
used to mask a donut, but it worked.

Message has been deleted

Anonymous

unread,
Feb 25, 2008, 5:49:21 PM2/25/08
to
Annika1980 wrote:

> On Feb 18, 5:53=C2=A0pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>=20
> >
> > What's "Tennessee bokeh"?
>=20
> It's the smoothness you see from the Forgotten 400 f/5.6L, and not
> that scratchy Nikon crap. Maybe someday Rita will learn to take a
> proper hawk shot without blowing the highlights or having a butt-ugly
> background.
>=20
> Here's an old one taken way back when with the Totally Digital D60:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24372096/original.jpg

Anonymous

unread,
Feb 25, 2008, 7:26:25 PM2/25/08
to
Annika1980 wrote:

Holy shit... that pic has been molested in Photoshop so hard you can
actually see a ~2px brown border all the way around the subject, even
between the yellows in the legs and the green in the post. Hell, you
didn't even try and hide the fact you weaseled up your color palate,
according to the EXIF tags.

If that's your version of an "original"... wow...

Douglas

unread,
Feb 25, 2008, 11:06:57 PM2/25/08
to

I'm quite happy to give Bret a beating for his God awful composure and
plastic Photoshop skills. But at least I do it openly and he knows who
I am. You seem to think you need to hide like all the rest of the
swine in the sty to do it. WHY? What are you afraid of?

From: Anonymous <x...@hermetix.org>
Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address
above.
It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
remailer administrator at <ab...@hermetix.org>.
References: <353b1053-4e63-4f96-8b94-
f0cd51...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Making Plastic And Tennessee Bokeh!!
Message-ID: <b462b1912ac31a9f...@hermetix.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:26:25 -0500 (EST)

tony cooper

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 12:13:26 AM2/26/08
to

What is the difference between "Anonymous" and "Douglas" from gmail?


--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Pete D

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 1:04:34 AM2/26/08
to

"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ur77s39e310qtj73a...@4ax.com...

Come on mate thats not fair, really Dickless is a real person he said so.
;-)

Yeah, so am I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Noons

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 2:44:40 AM2/26/08
to
On Feb 26, 11:26 am, Anonymous <x...@hermetix.org> wrote:

> > Here's an old one taken way back when with the Totally Digital D60:
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24372096/original.jpg
>
> Holy shit... that pic has been molested in Photoshop so hard you can
> actually see a ~2px brown border all the way around the subject, even
> between the yellows in the legs and the green in the post. Hell, you
> didn't even try and hide the fact you weaseled up your color palate,
> according to the EXIF tags.
>
> If that's your version of an "original"... wow...

sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
or Brettless will challenge you with the "original RAW"!

Douglas

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 5:46:22 AM2/26/08
to

"Noons" <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:30284890-ee39-4970...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...


I think he's rubbed it RAW mate. ROTFL !


Message has been deleted

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 8:55:46 AM2/26/08
to
On Feb 26, 6:12 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:

> Bret must really like you guys?  Every time I called him to task to produce
> an original unedited RAW file met with the sound of crickets.  I'm sure Bret
> doesn't want to put out a RAW file as it will show he severely crops to the
> point of throwing away 90% of the image.
>

First off, idiot troll, I don't recall you ever asking me to post a
RAW file.
Secondly, some of my shots are crops especially bird shots taken at a
distance where it impossible to fill the frame. I also downsize them
for web viewing. So what? Do you expect me to show the whole picture
every time and waste bandwidth?

Let the record show that I have posted more than a few full-size shots
here. You have yet to post one, so you can kiss my ass way up in the
red.

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 8:56:30 AM2/26/08
to
On Feb 26, 2:44 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > If that's your version of an "original"... wow...
>
> sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> or Brettless will challenge you with the "original RAW"!

He'd just run away from the offer like you do, chickenshit.

Message has been deleted

George Kerby

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 9:53:09 AM2/26/08
to


On 2/26/08 7:55 AM, in article
ce9b3acb-0faa-4a77...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote:

"all the way up in the red"?!?

Must be a "Southern Thing"...

Douglas

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 5:47:04 PM2/26/08
to

"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ce9b3acb-0faa-4a77...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

-------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, hold on a just a second there buddy...

Who wrote this?

"Just assume all my shots are cropped".

Let's guess... Hmmm.
Lives in a ridge road with the name of a tree.
Has a white dog.
Claims to be married to an easily fooled woman.
Has a habit of impersonating a woman whenever he needs to conceal spending
money from his wife.
His caps lock frequently gets stuck when he hits the "subject" line.
He drives around in a funny little car with personalised plates.
He uses a pirate copy of Photoshop.
He's a broken down golf caddie who took up fast food for a living or was it
lifestyle?
He has a web site devoted to exposing his criminal activities.
Http://www.annika1980.com

Anyone guessed who it is yet?


Helen

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 6:19:16 PM2/26/08
to
On Feb 26, 5:47 pm, "Douglas" <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message


People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

How many female names have you come up with Douglas? The difference
between you and Bret is that his pseudynm is well known to be just
that....a pseudynm. He doesn't hide the fact that he uses the name of
a famous lady golfer. Unlike your hundreds of names, I am indeed a
real live woman and urge you to send me one of those calendars you
wanted to send me a while back. Email me and I'll give you my
address. Want further proof? Come to Toronto. Just let me know
ahead of time so I can give the owners of the dogs in the city a heads
up.

"He's a broken down golf caddie who took up fast food for a living or
was it
lifestyle?"

Now THAT'S funny!! You obviously have NO idea how many people envy
Bret's insight, experience and knowledge about the game of golf. You
know how much these caddies make Douglas? A sum you will never see.
As a player, he'd wax your ass in a heartbeat!
FTR I'd caddie for him anytime, if I had half his knowledge and
experience.

"Has a white dog"

You bet he does! The Mighty Jewel would be more than happy to meet
you too.
Helen

Douglas

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 8:07:29 PM2/26/08
to

"Helen" <helensi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc9f3757-c043-41e2...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

"Has a white dog"

------------------------------

You really are the best bitch he's ever had, aren't you?

This amateur handwriting expert (NOT) reckons the aggressive nature of your
replies - now you've been outed - pretty much matches the language and
vernacular of one Bret Douglas.

"Mighty Jewel"


"wax your ass"
"in a heartbeat"

Hey mate. Just who do you think you are fooling with this charade? Some 10
year old school kid from the backwoods of Tennessee? Hey, that's you, isn't
it? Let go of it before you develop a rash and need to have it amputated.

That reminds me a another village idiot. How many of my own personal trolls
will I collect before I sail off into the sunset? It looks like I've got 4
so far. 3 aussies idiots and a jackass from Tenessee. I guess Australia has
more idiots or does Tenessee have more jackasses?

2 blokes sitting in the waiting room with bandages around their dicks.
Bloke 1: What's your problem mate?
Bloke 2: Dunno. I got this green ring around my dick.
Bloke 1: That's odd, I got a red one.

Doctor calls bloke 1 into the surgery. Has a look and gets some stuff out of
the cupboard and in an instant the red ring goes away.

As bloke 1 leaves his mate asks how he went. "Good. He used some ointment
and cleared it up, no worries".

Bloke 2 gets his turn with the Doc. Hmmm Says the doctor. Looks like
amputation is all that'll fix this. "Hell Doc, you fixed the other bloke
with ointment, why not me"?

Doctor: There's a difference between lipstick and gangrene!

Just remember that Bret, next time you start wanking off in front of the
computer without washing your hands. Which one is Helen? Left or right?


Helen

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 8:25:40 PM2/26/08
to
On Feb 26, 8:07 pm, "Douglas" <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Helen" <helensilverb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message


If I were Bret I'd be a helluva lot more creative with my retort.

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 8:46:11 PM2/26/08
to
"Douglas" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lJ2xj.19676$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

And here we have it folks, the true measure of the man :-)

Steve Brooks

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 9:04:13 PM2/26/08
to


I am guessing this is a true story and you are bloke 2

Douglas

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 10:59:05 PM2/26/08
to

"Helen" <helensi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cf13dbd-486f-4510...@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...

>
> Just remember that Bret, next time you start wanking off in front of the
> computer without washing your hands. Which one is Helen? Left or right?


If I were Bret I'd be a helluva lot more creative with my retort.

You are and you aren't! LOL.


Douglas

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 11:00:02 PM2/26/08
to

"Atheist Chaplain" <ab...@cia.gov> wrote in message
news:Dh3xj.19707$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Bored again, huh?


Annika1980

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 11:06:19 PM2/26/08
to
On Feb 26, 6:19 pm, Helen <helensilverb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Now THAT'S funny!!  You obviously have NO idea how many people envy
> Bret's insight, experience and knowledge about the game of golf.  You
> know how much these caddies make Douglas?  A sum you will never see.

I quit caddying years ago, but a guy I used to caddy with named Mitch
Knox is still at it. He is known as "Fort Knox" because he makes
money everywhere he goes.
He caddied for David Duval when Duval was the #1 player in the world.
He's also caddied for Gary Nicklaus and a few others. Currently he is
caddying for Daniel Chopra, who won the PGA event at Kapalua to start
the season. In 7 weeks so far this year, Mitch has made about
$115,000, which coincidentally is the total net worth of all of D-
Mac's boat and all his businesses put together .... if they existed.

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 11:20:50 PM2/26/08
to
On Feb 26, 5:47 pm, "Douglas" <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lives in a ridge road with the name of a tree.
> Has a white dog.
> Claims to be married to an easily fooled woman.
> Has a habit of impersonating a woman whenever he needs to conceal spending
> money from his wife.
> His caps lock frequently gets stuck when he hits the "subject" line.
> He drives around in a funny little car with personalised plates.
> He uses a pirate copy of Photoshop.
> He's a broken down golf caddie who took up fast food for a living or was it
> lifestyle?
> He has a web site devoted to exposing his criminal activities.
> Http://www.dmacsuckscock.com

>
> Anyone guessed who it is yet?

Wow, you actually got two of them right (the first two).
I think that's a new personal record for the most true statements
you've ever made in one post.

I could play the same game with you, but it would take me all night to
type all the bogus crap you've claimed to do / own / sell.

But even after all of your braggadocio, we have all managed to learn
the truth .... that you really don't own any print centers, art
galleries, or Canon cameras for that matter.
You live in a tiny basement apartment that your daughter provides for
you on Tangalooma. She does this to keep you away from her daughters
so that they don't suffer the same fate that she once had to endure.
So you spend your few remaining days dreaming up new personas,
downloading porn, and infesting newsgroup with your lies and
hallucinations.

Sound familiar?


Annika1980

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 11:36:40 PM2/26/08
to
On Feb 26, 8:46 pm, "Atheist Chaplain" <ab...@cia.gov> wrote:
>
> > You really are the best bitch he's ever had, aren't you?
>
> And here we have it folks, the true measure of the man :-)

Well what else is he going to say?
Everyone on Usenet has now seen his true colors, that he's a liar and
a fraud with zero credibility. Imagine the torture he must go through
being a delusional paranoid when everyone really does hate him.
Now that everyone is jumping down his throat and exposing his lies, he
has to fall back on his old standby .... attacking me and my friends.

D-Mac should have learned by now that attacking Helen or me is
tantamount to coming in here with a big "KICK ME!" sign on his ass.


Douglas

unread,
Feb 27, 2008, 12:48:37 AM2/27/08
to

"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:65b981bf-98d5-463e...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...

Sound familiar?
--------------------------------
Sure does.
You're talking about that (alleged) paedophile Bret Douglas.
Oh yes... We haven't gone there yet have we?

The idiot who thought he could impersonate me and get away with it.

You know who I'm talking about? That fool who thought he was just sooo smart
putting up someone else's image with one of mine pasted in it?

The fool who thought he was smart enough to post a message here and a few
seconds later, use my form mailer to flip me a few lines... Then try to
(ILLEGALLY) obtain my eBay seller's account password... Leaving his IP
signature with each act. Yep... Real smart fella NOT!

While I'm at it... let's brush up on Helen. That incredible sweetheart who
does time travel and can be in two places at once. The one who "only types
what my cousin in Chattanooga tells me to, word for word".

That innocent little cyber slut who posted a link to a photo of mine you
(ILLEGALLY) downloaded and pasted a porn photo of 2 guys having sex into...
Oh Yes! Shit Bret... Those man boobies must really have you screwed up big
time.

You're the prick who put on your "Helen cloak" and complained to eBay I'd
advertised a photo package in the wrong category then posted a record of
your dirty deed here.

You got seriously outed - as all swine eventually do - when you did a bit of
double posting and couldn't remember what you'd just done! Ha, ha, ha. Boy,
Rita sure had your number all along.

The critter with a dick and little man boobies we all love to laugh at.
http://www.annika1980.com where your exploits are factually described.

You're the prick in that description you just wrote mate...Just substitute
Tangalooma for Chattanooga and daughter for mother and you got the swine
true to form right enough.

And you actually had the gall to try and enlist me to defend your disgusting
behaviour? What a fuchin idiot of the first order.


Noons

unread,
Feb 27, 2008, 1:02:00 AM2/27/08
to


I put taste above anything else when ity coems to offers.
Yours are so tasteless they don't even register, pisshead.

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 27, 2008, 1:10:28 AM2/27/08
to
On Feb 27, 1:02 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > He'd just run away from the offer like you do, chickenshit.
>
> I put taste above anything else when ity coems to offers.

Ain't easy typing with just the one hand is it?


Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Feb 27, 2008, 2:58:11 AM2/27/08
to
"Douglas" <cryp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f5xj.19750$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

How could I ever be bored with a complete tosser like you infesting Usenet,
the best part is your so stupid I don't even have to try very hard to show
you up :-)

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


mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 27, 2008, 4:00:39 AM2/27/08
to
On Feb 27, 11:46 am, "Atheist Chaplain" <ab...@cia.gov> wrote:
>
> And here we have it folks, the true measure of the man :-)

To try and drag this back on topic (a little), if you really want a
bit of a laugh, and to get a true feel for the measure of Douglas
MacDonald's "brilliance" in the field of digital imaging and printing,
then you really must not miss this thread:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/fbd753ec3a192fe4

Take a long hard look at Doug's posting, Feb 26, 10:05 am, about
printing technology.

It contains classic lines like this (read and weep) - remember, this
is Douglas MacDonald telling us all how it is done:
> RGB is a standard left over from the days of "3 tube" video cameras...
> Black is carried in the green channel of just 3 primary colours...
> The problem with printing photos from digital cameras to a printer
> which runs on a video signal is the video signal used to supply data
> to the print head does not have a black channel...
> Frontier's are basically just a laser printer without the black cartridge.
> RGB printers are: Laser printers, Dye Sublimation printers, and any
> printer (like a Fuji Frontier) that relies on a video signal and LEDs
> If you have green in your blacks, either you edited your photos in a
> wide gamut space (like Pro-Photo RGB) or the printer itself can't
> produce black.

O h m y G o d !!!! Yes, this man sure knows his stuff!

Needless to say, Doug's 'wisdom' has suffered a bit of a beating - in
particular Doug Jewell has posted an excellent response to the Douglas
MacDonald bullshit.

Anonymous

unread,
Feb 27, 2008, 5:03:04 AM2/27/08
to
Annika1980 wrote:

> On Feb 27, 1:02=C2=A0am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > He'd just run away from the offer like you do, chickenshit.
> >
> > I put taste above anything else when ity coems to offers.

>=20


> Ain't easy typing with just the one hand is it?

*laugh!*


Now THAT was funny. :)

Helen

unread,
Feb 27, 2008, 6:57:33 AM2/27/08
to


Exactly!
Only an ignorant fool would claim caddying is a mediocre job.

Message has been deleted

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 27, 2008, 9:07:40 AM2/27/08
to
On Feb 27, 7:41 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> It does have its perks, especially if the caddy holds his mouth open just
> right.
>
> Rita

I think you are confusing being a caddy with what you do to earn $10
in the back seat of one.

Douglas

unread,
Feb 27, 2008, 5:22:39 PM2/27/08
to

"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3a3e37da-e821-41aa...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

----------------------

Like usual... You can't even get that part right.You think everyone is as
cheap as you? Ha. WRONG, wrong wrong.

I'll ask again ...Which one is Helen Mate. Left or Right? One of them can't
write properly . It's just all scribble.

That's probably why the check for the camera bounced. ROTFL. Have they
repossessed it yet or did FedEx fall for the Toronto scam too?

Message has been deleted

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 27, 2008, 10:50:04 PM2/27/08
to
On Feb 27, 5:22 pm, "Douglas" <crypto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's probably why the check for the camera bounced. ROTFL. Have they
> repossessed it yet or did FedEx fall for the Toronto scam too?

You'll be happy to know that the 40D is still working perfectly.
Heck, I'd even consider selling you my old 20D if I didn't think you
would fuck it up by putting some of those crappy Sigma lenses on it.