Lying in wait.. for James Bond fans only?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 27, 2008, 1:36:13 AM7/27/08
to
I went to a sort-of-unrelated event today and took quite a few snaps,
some of which I may post later. But isn't it always the way - as I
browsed over the results, the shot that took my eye was just a careless
grab.

http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/aston_martin.jpg

Pity about the crop and the just-a-bit-too-obvious flash fill (and
there's some amateurish ps work to eliminate a couple of annoying items
that would have detracted from the mood). Maybe it is just because I'm a
Sean Connery fan that I like it..


Bonus points for working out what event I might have been at - there are
clues in the image. *No* bonus points for spotting the poor cloning - I
may fix it up later.. or not.

Jeff R.

unread,
Jul 27, 2008, 2:12:08 AM7/27/08
to
Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> Bonus points for working out what event I might have been at - there
> are clues in the image. *No* bonus points for spotting the poor
> cloning - I may fix it up later.. or not.

Hmmm... a bunch of Rollers and an Aston outside a church... a wedding?

Have you seen the episode of Top Gear in which that twat Jeremy Clarkson
pitted a DB5 and an E-type Jag against a modern car?

Sadly the modern rice-burner won - both in speed and handling.

Tragically, the modern car was a.... <gulp> Honda Accord.

At least the DB and the E won the appearance and style contest hands-down.

--
Jeff R.

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 27, 2008, 2:39:12 AM7/27/08
to
Jeff R. wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Bonus points for working out what event I might have been at - there
>> are clues in the image. *No* bonus points for spotting the poor
>> cloning - I may fix it up later.. or not.
>
> Hmmm... a bunch of Rollers and an Aston outside a church... a wedding?

Nope, but that was indeed the obvious answer, and you spotted the 'clue'
such as it was. I shall post the real answer shortly.. It would be good
if it was a clandestine mafia event or something, but sadly it's not
that exciting..

> Have you seen the episode of Top Gear in which that twat Jeremy Clarkson
> pitted a DB5 and an E-type Jag against a modern car?

Yep!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW91gwiaFsk

I agree with your assessment of JC, but I like his voice and I havta
admit I love watching that show. And if someone gave me one of those
modernised db5's he drives at the end, I'd probably keep it.

(If you visit that link, check out the topmost 'related' video you will
probably get - gotta be proud of the Monaro!!)

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 27, 2008, 2:37:44 AM7/27/08
to
Jeff R. wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Bonus points for working out what event I might have been at - there
>> are clues in the image. *No* bonus points for spotting the poor
>> cloning - I may fix it up later.. or not.
>
> Hmmm... a bunch of Rollers and an Aston outside a church... a wedding?

Nope, but that was indeed the obvious answer, and you spotted the 'clue'

such as it was. I shall post the real answer shortly.. It would be good
if it was a clandestine mafia event or something, but sadly it's not
that exciting..

> Have you seen the episode of Top Gear in which that twat Jeremy Clarkson

> pitted a DB5 and an E-type Jag against a modern car?

tony cooper

unread,
Jul 27, 2008, 9:53:44 AM7/27/08
to
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:36:13 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

>Bonus points for working out what event I might have been at - there are
>clues in the image. *No* bonus points for spotting the poor cloning - I
>may fix it up later.. or not.

Grand opening of the new Gift Shoppe and Reliquary Boutique at St
Aslem's of the Heath, Hampstead.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

dj_nme

unread,
Jul 27, 2008, 10:23:14 AM7/27/08
to
Mark Thomas wrote:
> I went to a sort-of-unrelated event today and took quite a few snaps,
> some of which I may post later. But isn't it always the way - as I
> browsed over the results, the shot that took my eye was just a careless
> grab.
>
> http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/aston_martin.jpg
>
> Pity about the crop and the just-a-bit-too-obvious flash fill (and
> there's some amateurish ps work to eliminate a couple of annoying items
> that would have detracted from the mood). Maybe it is just because I'm a
> Sean Connery fan that I like it..

It's a great photo, so don't be so hard on yourself.
The B&W treatment makes the specular highlights from the flash look "right".

> Bonus points for working out what event I might have been at - there are
> clues in the image. *No* bonus points for spotting the poor cloning - I
> may fix it up later.. or not.

Vintage car club?

Frank ess

unread,
Jul 27, 2008, 12:52:36 PM7/27/08
to

Lord March's garden party?

--
Frank ess

Paul Bartram

unread,
Jul 28, 2008, 1:28:07 AM7/28/08
to

"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote

> Bonus points for working out what event I might have been at - there are

> clues in the image. *No* bonus points for spotting the poor cloning - I
> may fix it up later.. or not.

Hmm... Police Seized Auction of drug dealer's property? No, maybe not. The
cars would be even more expensive...

Seeing the cross in the background, maybe a funeral or remembrance
gathering?

Paul

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 28, 2008, 6:08:36 AM7/28/08
to

Close enough, points awarded. It was a "Rolls Royce Concours
d'Elegance", where the proud Roller owners around Brisbane (Qld, Aust)
got together for a bit of showing off and judging. The Aston just
happened to be parked outside under trees, and it reminded me of the
original JB movies..

I took quite a few shots of the Rollers:
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/rolls_1.jpg
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/rolls_2.jpg
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/rolls_3.jpg
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/rolls_4.jpg
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/rolls_5.jpg

..but nothing that I'm particularly happy with. The day was somewhat
overcast and had that ugly flat light you get sometimes - good for
portraiture, but not cars.

Thanks for the comments.

Jeff R.

unread,
Jul 28, 2008, 9:04:58 AM7/28/08
to
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Close enough, points awarded. It was a "Rolls Royce Concours
> d'Elegance", where the proud Roller owners around Brisbane (Qld, Aust)
> got together for a bit of showing off and judging. The Aston just
> happened to be parked outside under trees, and it reminded me of the
> original JB movies..


Hmmm... so the church was a red herring then, huh?
Sneaky.


>
> I took quite a few shots of the Rollers:

> http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/rolls_4.jpg

Aha!
Finally a self-portrait of the elusive Mark Thomas!

Should be enough info there to make a positive ID.

Dunno if I could own one of those *and* keep any vestiges of sanity. Can
you imagine parking it in the Coles carpark while you duck in for a carton
of milk? Imagine the cringing when a B-double roars up next to you on a
skinny three-lane highway.

Nup.
I think I'll stick to less nerve-wracking pursuits - like finally picking up
a Triumph Bonneville.

(sigghhhhhh)

--
Jeff R.

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 28, 2008, 7:01:54 PM7/28/08
to
Jeff R. wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Close enough, points awarded. It was a "Rolls Royce Concours
>> d'Elegance", where the proud Roller owners around Brisbane (Qld, Aust)
>> got together for a bit of showing off and judging. The Aston just
>> happened to be parked outside under trees, and it reminded me of the
>> original JB movies..
>
>
> Hmmm... so the church was a red herring then, huh?
> Sneaky.

Yep! I didn't actually take notice of what that building was - I think
it is a little chapel in the grounds of the venue - Ormiston House.

Ormiston House is a heritage listed restored home (mansion is probably a
better word) of one of Qld's original sugar barons.

>> I took quite a few shots of the Rollers:
>> http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/rolls_4.jpg
>
> Aha!
> Finally a self-portrait of the elusive Mark Thomas!
>
> Should be enough info there to make a positive ID.

Yes, just zoom it right up and you will realise what my highly
identifiable attribute is - yes - pixellation!!

> Dunno if I could own one of those *and* keep any vestiges of sanity.

Exactly. I would make the glib observation that the audience, which
clearly was mostly owners and RR enthusiasts (of which I am not),
weren't exactly the happiest looking lot. Just shows that money isn't
everything. And I watched/listened to a bit of the judging:
"running a bit rough"
"yes, one cylinder needs work"
"the a/c compressor isn't working"
"last service cost me $3000, hahaha"

> Imagine the cringing when a B-double roars up next to
> you on a skinny three-lane highway.

At least the b-double would feel the bump as it ran over it - with mine,
he wouldn't even notice..

> I think I'll stick to less nerve-wracking pursuits - like finally
> picking up a Triumph Bonneville.

Forgive the trite treatment (O:, but there was a bike near the Aston..
Not quite a Bonneville, or even a Harley, just a wannabe:

http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/kawasaki.jpg

tony cooper

unread,
Jul 28, 2008, 8:53:07 PM7/28/08
to

To keep up with the Roller owners, though, you need a Vincent Black
Shadow fully restored.

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 28, 2008, 10:50:55 PM7/28/08
to
tony cooper wrote:
>>> I think I'll stick to less nerve-wracking pursuits - like finally
>>> picking up a Triumph Bonneville.
>> Forgive the trite treatment (O:, but there was a bike near the Aston..
>> Not quite a Bonneville, or even a Harley, just a wannabe:
>>
>> http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/kawasaki.jpg
>
> To keep up with the Roller owners, though, you need a Vincent Black
> Shadow fully restored.

Had to look that one up...
http://bikes.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleId=10767
Very cool bike. 151mph in 1948!!

I'd never go for a Harley, but that...

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Jul 29, 2008, 4:47:35 AM7/29/08
to
"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
news:g6h1ge$2au$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

I have to ask do you have that in something larger so I can use it as a
wallpaper, I would love to own a DB5 one day, but finding one in good
condition and priced at something lower than a kings ransom is difficult :-)
BTW screen res is 1680 x 1050 if that's at all possible. lovely photo and
the plates probably double the value of that particular car :-)

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


Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 29, 2008, 5:59:13 AM7/29/08
to
Atheist Chaplain wrote:
> I have to ask do you have that in something larger so I can use it as a
> wallpaper, I would love to own a DB5 one day, but finding one in good
> condition and priced at something lower than a kings ransom is difficult
> :-)
> BTW screen res is 1680 x 1050 if that's at all possible.

Certainly, AC. Caring and sharing is what it is all about! You can
even have a choice of mono or colour:
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/aston_mono.jpg
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/aston_colour.jpg

I confess that rather cursory post-processing was applied to these, hope
they are ok for your purpose..

Now I know AC will do the right thing, but for anyone else who downloads
those images, please don't sell them, ok? (O:

Thanks for the kind comments, AC.

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Jul 29, 2008, 7:33:27 AM7/29/08
to
"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
news:g6mplf$ucv$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

you know I think it stands out more as a mono than colour, it ads to the
character of the car IMHO
Many thanks Mark, that has immediately gone into the rotation (I use
Webshots desktop (been a subscriber for many years now)) and this will bring
a pleasant little surprise when I close a few windows down and the DB5 is
gleaming back at me :-)

D-Mac

unread,
Jul 29, 2008, 9:06:11 PM7/29/08
to

Why is all the sky blown out? Shouldn't a man with your (claimed)
experience have been able to do something about that?

Mr.T

unread,
Jul 29, 2008, 9:34:26 PM7/29/08
to

"D-Mac" <email....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g6oeq6$vln$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

> Why is all the sky blown out? Shouldn't a man with your (claimed)
> experience have been able to do something about that?

And some fill flash or a reflector, or at the very least some contrast
adjustment in PS.

MrT.


D-Mac

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 1:27:52 AM7/30/08
to
I think the real problem is the camera. Most small (read consumer range
cameras)with CCD sensors simply don't have enough contrast range for
this sort of shot. I guess there is only so much you can carry on a bike
but a tripod and HDR would have fixed a static shot like this.

Mark was using a flash that day, I thing the diffuser he used crippled
the flash. It simply couldn't output enough power for the job.

My wife's little Nikon D60 does an amazing job in these situations, out
performing a 40D Canon and blowing away her previous Panasonic results
which did exactly the same as Mark's camera does, even with a Metz flash
to help!

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 4:04:19 AM7/30/08
to

I only worry about blown highlights when they show loss of important
detail. You may think this image is about the sky but many might
disagree. Getting a reasonable image in such deep shadow without
overdoing the flash pretty much requires a blown sky, unless it was
HDR'd. HDR, imo, would have completely ruined the effect.

But I'm sure you can show us a better similar shot. In fact (and here's
another free plug!) a quick glance at images 2 and 9 here:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/portfolio/weddings/
..show just how well *you* can control those skies in similar
situations! I would suggest a quick check of your own house might be in
order. Perhaps you can explain the difference? It's ok for you but not me?

I answered your question... so:

Where's your Manly panorama?
Where's the description of me from your fantasy security footage?
Why did you keep forgetting you were your 'daughter' in your latest
sockpuppet?
Why do you (and your sockpuppet) both call printers 'devises'?
Why do you (and your sockpuppet) both think black' data is carried in
the green channel of RGB 'devises'? Citation?
Also, please provide a citation for the court case in which you were
awarded a copyright 'settlement'.

Lastly, we are still waiting with baited breath for an address of any of
your multitudinous printing labs or galleries.

Over to you, Dougie.

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 4:25:24 AM7/30/08
to
(Heavens, this is almost sensible... keep it up, Doug)

D-Mac wrote:
> I think the real problem is the camera. Most small (read consumer range
> cameras)with CCD sensors simply don't have enough contrast range for
> this sort of shot.

Correct, *if* the intention was, for some reason, to render that very
small area of sky accurately. Had you read my initial comments, you
would have noticed that I stated that it was just a grab shot and I was
suprised to find I like the result.

But neither would a DSLR have the ability to do this. As I mentioned, a
quick visit to Doug's gallery here:

http://www.douglasjames.com.au/portfolio/weddings/

and a look at images 2 and 9, will show you what I mean. Perhaps Doug
can explain this apparent dichotomy?

HDR would be the only way - but here's the rub... Even tho it was just
a grab shot, it was my intention to get a very low-key, sinister image,
with the car in deep shadow. The sky was irrelevant to me - tell us
Doug, why do you think the sky was important? But not in your own
images 2 and 9 above?

> I guess there is only so much you can carry on a bike
> but a tripod and HDR would have fixed a static shot like this.

Given I was disinterested in the sky, HDR wasn't even a consideration.

> Mark was using a flash that day

Correct, I added a small amount of fill to 'sparkle up' the front. Mr T
obviously hasn't much experience in spotting clues.

> I thing (sic) the diffuser he used crippled the flash.
No diffuser. Only a twit would use a diffuser if he was after specular
highlights.

> It simply couldn't output enough power for the job.

No, I dialled it down so it wouldn't look like a harshly lit wedding
portraits.

> My wife's little Nikon D60 does an amazing job in these situations, out
> performing a 40D Canon

There we go again.

> and blowing away her previous Panasonic results
> which did exactly the same as Mark's camera does, even with a Metz flash
> to help!

As above, only a twit would use a lot of flash for a shot like that.

Mr.T

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 5:54:14 AM7/30/08
to

"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
news:g6p8hh$2mv$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

> As above, only a twit would use a lot of flash for a shot like that.

And only a twit would be happy with the shot as is IMO, that's why I also
suggested a reflector and/or a bit of tweaking in Photoshop.
But as long as you're happy to put your name on it, fine by me.

MrT.


Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 7:14:47 AM7/30/08
to

So, show us a shot in a similar vein *where flash has been used*, and
tell us how you would get a realistic effect that didn't overlight the
front of the car? Feel free to use google images.

Also, have you checked your monitor gamma lately? When I do something
low-key, I get the shadow detail down to levels that will look black on
a badly adjusted screen. I have adjusted that image to where I want it
to be, dark but detail in the shadows, and contrasty.

You have my permission to tweak it as you wish in PS and re-post it -
show us how you would do it. There is plenty of detail in the shadows
to play with, and the fact it will go a bit noisy should not be a
problem for the effect you want.

I'm all eyes...

(O:

Jeff R.

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 10:13:09 AM7/30/08
to

Nonsense.
The shot is evocative and very compelling just as it is.

Why don't you bore us with how it doesn't comply perfectly with the rule of
thirds?

Photography isn't paint-by-numbers. You actually have to apply judgement,
not work to some brainless formula designed to keep idiots from stuffing up.
How's it working for you, BTW?

--
Jeff R.

tony cooper

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 10:30:45 AM7/30/08
to
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:04:19 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

>Why do you (and your sockpuppet) both call printers 'devises'?

The printer is a device, and is called a device in many computer
manuals and references. And in your "Device Manager" if you use
Windows. The "devise" spelling is sometimes used in the UK and by
people in other countries that follow the UK spelling conventions. I
don't see it spelled this way very often, but it's not rare. We see
Brits writing "advise" when we would use "advice", and there are
other, similar, examples of the "s" used for the "c" in Brit spelling.


>
>Lastly, we are still waiting with baited breath for an address of any of
>your multitudinous printing labs or galleries.

Was this a joke? A play on what you perceive as his spelling error?
The phrase is "bated breath". "Bated" is a contraction by aphesis of
"abated" or "held back".

“Shall I bend low and, in a bondman’s key,
With bated breath and whisp’ring humbleness,"

Shylock to Antonio in "The Merchant of Venice", WS.

dj_nme

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 11:52:34 AM7/30/08
to
tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:04:19 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do you (and your sockpuppet) both call printers 'devises'?
>
> The printer is a device, and is called a device in many computer
> manuals and references. And in your "Device Manager" if you use
> Windows. The "devise" spelling is sometimes used in the UK and by
> people in other countries that follow the UK spelling conventions.

Are you sure about that?
The country I live in uses English (not American) spellings and the
only time I've ever seen the spelling "devise" it has meant "to think
up" or "create in the mind" and used something like "He had to devise a
plan.".
The word "devise" rhymes with "rise" and the end of "device" sounds like
"ice" (as in frozen water).

> I
> don't see it spelled this way very often, but it's not rare. We see
> Brits writing "advise" when we would use "advice", and there are
> other, similar, examples of the "s" used for the "c" in Brit spelling.

"to advise" is the act of giving advice.
There is no word "advicer", it's spelled "adviser" (one who gives advice).

>> Lastly, we are still waiting with baited breath for an address of any of
>> your multitudinous printing labs or galleries.
>
> Was this a joke? A play on what you perceive as his spelling error?
> The phrase is "bated breath". "Bated" is a contraction by aphesis of
> "abated" or "held back".

"baited breath" a rather common spelling error.
It would seem far more likely that Mark Thomas's intention is to allude
to your somewhat "fishy" claims.
Unless Mark actually intends to chew on worms while awaiting your response.

> “Shall I bend low and, in a bondman’s key,
> With bated breath and whisp’ring humbleness,"
>
> Shylock to Antonio in "The Merchant of Venice", WS.

Although, I believe that it's rather incautious to rely on The Bard for
exact spellings.
He apparently couldn't even decide on how to spell "Shakespear", there
are several different spellings from different signatures which I've
seen reproduced photographically in textbooks.

tony cooper

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 12:38:37 PM7/30/08
to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:52:34 +1000, dj_nme <dj_...@iinet.net.au>
wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:04:19 +1000, Mark Thomas
>> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you (and your sockpuppet) both call printers 'devises'?
>>
>> The printer is a device, and is called a device in many computer
>> manuals and references. And in your "Device Manager" if you use
>> Windows. The "devise" spelling is sometimes used in the UK and by
>> people in other countries that follow the UK spelling conventions.
>
>Are you sure about that?

Sure that I've seen it? Yes. Sure that it's common? No, and it's
not. Sure that it's not rare? Yes.

>The country I live in uses English (not American) spellings and the
>only time I've ever seen the spelling "devise" it has meant "to think
>up" or "create in the mind" and used something like "He had to devise a
>plan.".
>The word "devise" rhymes with "rise" and the end of "device" sounds like
>"ice" (as in frozen water).
>> I
>> don't see it spelled this way very often, but it's not rare. We see
>> Brits writing "advise" when we would use "advice", and there are
>> other, similar, examples of the "s" used for the "c" in Brit spelling.
>
>"to advise" is the act of giving advice.
>There is no word "advicer", it's spelled "adviser" (one who gives advice).

See, there you go. More than one way to correctly spell a word.
Spelling it "advisor" yields three times the number of hits in Google
over "adviser". Either is correct, but the main M-W dictionary entry
is "adviser" with "advisor" as "also".

>>> Lastly, we are still waiting with baited breath for an address of any of
>>> your multitudinous printing labs or galleries.
>>
>> Was this a joke? A play on what you perceive as his spelling error?
>> The phrase is "bated breath". "Bated" is a contraction by aphesis of
>> "abated" or "held back".
>
>"baited breath" a rather common spelling error.
>It would seem far more likely that Mark Thomas's intention is to allude
>to your somewhat "fishy" claims.

I'm quite willing to assume that Mark injected a subtle bit of humor.

>Unless Mark actually intends to chew on worms while awaiting your response.
>
>> “Shall I bend low and, in a bondman’s key,
>> With bated breath and whisp’ring humbleness,"
>>
>> Shylock to Antonio in "The Merchant of Venice", WS.
>
>Although, I believe that it's rather incautious to rely on The Bard for
>exact spellings.

That's the first verified sighting of the term, and why it's cited.

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 7:14:50 PM7/30/08
to
I'll concede one out of two..

tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:04:19 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do you (and your sockpuppet) both call printers 'devises'?
>
> The printer is a device, and is called a device in many computer
> manuals and references. And in your "Device Manager" if you use
> Windows. The "devise" spelling is sometimes used in the UK

??? Can you provide a cite for this? The only definitions I can find,
or have ever heard used, indicate that "devise" is only used as a verb..
"We will devise a clever plan."
or (very rarely and only in legal documents) as a noun meaning a gift of
property via a will.

Besides, my point was simply to show that D-Mac and his 'daughter'
(2squid), who both used the term identically, were one and the same person.

> I don't see it spelled this way very often, but it's not rare.

I beg to differ - like I said, cites?


> We see
> Brits writing "advise" when we would use "advice"

Again, the s form is the verb. I can find no references whatsoever to
advise ever being used as a noun.

>> Lastly, we are still waiting with baited breath for an address of any of
>> your multitudinous printing labs or galleries.
>
> Was this a joke? A play on what you perceive as his spelling error?
> The phrase is "bated breath". "Bated" is a contraction by aphesis of
> "abated" or "held back".

Yes, you got me on this one. My bad.

Ron Hunter

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 7:46:28 PM7/30/08
to
????
Advise and advice are two different words. Both pertain to giving
information, and suggestions, but one is the verb form and the other is
the noun form, and our British cousins would spell 'advise' as 'advize'.
At least they would if they were consistent. But who can expect that
from the English language....?? After all, they put bonnets on lories!

tony cooper

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 8:35:49 PM7/30/08
to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:14:50 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

>I'll concede one out of two..
>
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:04:19 +1000, Mark Thomas
>> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you (and your sockpuppet) both call printers 'devises'?
>>
>> The printer is a device, and is called a device in many computer
>> manuals and references. And in your "Device Manager" if you use
>> Windows. The "devise" spelling is sometimes used in the UK
>??? Can you provide a cite for this? The only definitions I can find,
>or have ever heard used, indicate that "devise" is only used as a verb..
>"We will devise a clever plan."
>or (very rarely and only in legal documents) as a noun meaning a gift of
>property via a will.
>
>Besides, my point was simply to show that D-Mac and his 'daughter'
>(2squid), who both used the term identically, were one and the same person.

Well, my daughter has picked up many terms and phrases from me, and I
assure you that I really have a daughter.

>> I don't see it spelled this way very often, but it's not rare.
>
>I beg to differ - like I said, cites?

I went to Google.UK and typed in "printer devise". First result up:
http://www.myofficemonkey.co.uk/id4.html Second result up:
http://www.art4all.co.uk/collectprint2.htm (right column under
"Digital Printing Process". Enuf? You won't find it using Google
unless you specify Google.UK and UK pages.

I brought up Google.aus and specified Australian pages only. First
two hits use the "devise" spelling for "device". Many more for
"device", but I'm looking for some, not most.

To find this variation in a dictionary you would have to use a
dictionary that lists UK spellings as the primary spelling. The
online dictionaries are US-centric. I don't have access to the OED,
but I'd expect that it's at least listed as a variation there.

Before we say that someone is wrong, it's best to see what might be
right for them that is wrong for us.

Mr.T

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 10:49:54 PM7/30/08
to

"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
news:g6pif3$2pb$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

> So, show us a shot in a similar vein *where flash has been used*,

Have a look at almost any car sales brochure for example.

> tell us how you would get a realistic effect that didn't overlight the
> front of the car?

Did I say a single on camera flash?
Maybe you should learn by your mistakes rather than defending them.

>Feel free to use google images.

Feel free to do your own research and try to learn something in the process.

> Also, have you checked your monitor gamma lately?

Yep, have you?

> You have my permission to tweak it as you wish in PS and re-post it -
> show us how you would do it. There is plenty of detail in the shadows
> to play with, and the fact it will go a bit noisy should not be a
> problem for the effect you want.

If it was mine I wouldn't waste time on it. Since it's not, I'm even less
inclined.
If you want to learn something, try it yourself, if not, no skin off my
nose.

MrT.


Mr.T

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 10:55:11 PM7/30/08
to

"Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:489076f8$0$1027$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

> The shot is evocative and very compelling just as it is.

If you think so, fine by me.

> Why don't you bore us with how it doesn't comply perfectly with the rule
of
> thirds?

Never have, is it something you have a fixation about?

> Photography isn't paint-by-numbers.

Who said it was?

>You actually have to apply judgement,
> not work to some brainless formula designed to keep idiots from stuffing
up.

No, the brainless idiots are happy with whatever crap they produce. And
wouldn't understand a formula in any case.

> How's it working for you, BTW?

Fine thanks, let me know how much money THAT picture makes :-)

MrT.


Doug Jewell

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 11:24:21 PM7/30/08
to
Is that the only judge of the quality of a photo, how much
money it makes?
There are many many fine photographs taken every day, that
will never make a cent, and never be seen by anyone other
than the family of the person that took it. Does that mean
they are all crap because they don't make money?
If a photo is taken for the purpose of being sold, then yes,
by all means strive for technical excellence. Striving for
technical excellence is also something that should be done
while practising the craft. But when you are taking a quick
grab so you can remember an event / person / place etc, then
technical excellence can be pushed aside a little and still
result in a decent picture. Yeah Mark's photo isn't going to
grace the covers of a magazine - but snapshots taken of a
car parked at an event never do. I'm sure that had Mark's
intent been to get a cover-photo, he would have consulted
with the owner of the vehicle, and got it postitioned in
better light, set up additional flashguns etc. Such a shoot
would have been done over the course of hours, perhaps days,
not in the couple of minutes he'd have had to do this shot.

Jeff R.

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 2:21:36 AM7/31/08
to
Mr.T wrote:
> "Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote in message
> news:489076f8$0$1027$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> The shot is evocative and very compelling just as it is.
>
> If you think so, fine by me.

Good.
I'm tired of point-by-point pissing contests, so feel free to fill your own
pocket.

--
Jeff R.

MJW

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 3:17:14 AM7/31/08
to

Yay! At last a post that supports the
"non-professional" photographer. My photos may not
be that good, but the people I show them to think
they're ok. I ask stupid questions here from time
to time, in the hope that I can learn & get
better, but have been taken to task by
B.A.Baraccus for asking such questions! I
sometimes think that "use-net" is a waste of
Clubber Langs time, & everyone should stop posting
offensive questions/posts!

Maybe he should stop his jibber-jabbering, get
some nuts, & show everyone how this whole
photography thing is done!

P.S. Sorry Mark for not responding to your
original post, I thought your pic was cool!


--
>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<<

D-Mac

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 4:06:28 AM7/31/08
to

Photos of rare or historically significant vehicles taken at places like
Ormiston House are definitely saleable either outright to a print maker
or as LE "royalty" prints through print galleries.

Someone with foresight could have assembled a very nice collection on
the day suitable for a coffee table book and for an investment of less
than a grand (including the hire of a D3 or 1D), produced half a dozen
or so LE books that had the potential to sell for anything up to $500 each.

Without the glaring defects and taken with a high resolution camera,
that shot had the potential to sell as an LE canvas print maybe 4 or 5
times a year and actually pay for the camera that took it many times over.

A less expensive exercise is screen savers. It takes about 20 minutes to
make a screen saver collection that people like the Atheist spend money
on. My "automotive portrait collections" - posters I made as far back as
2000 still produce income, 8 years after I took the photos.
http://www.d_mac.info/example1 for a look at one of them.

What I don't understand is why Mark whines about his inability to
"afford" a decent outfit and spends a lot of time excusing the poor
quality of the images he posts when, with a tiny bit of advise from
those he manages to alienate, he could actually pay for top flight gear
by using it to do what I just described.

You can all pick shit at me as much as you like but since 1994, I've
made a rewarding income from selling photographs. If I can do it, anyone
can. Anyone that is ...with enough humility to admit they need help and
not bugger it all up by trying to make out they are some sort of God of
imagery and can't produces any evidence that might suggest that could be
true.


Doug.
--

visit www.D-Mac.info
to relieve the tension...
Usenet is after all Usenet!

Neil Ellwood

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 4:10:32 AM7/31/08
to
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:46:28 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> Yes, you got me on this one. My bad.
> ????
> Advise and advice are two different words. Both pertain to giving
> information, and suggestions, but one is the verb form and the other is
> the noun form, and our British cousins would spell 'advise' as 'advize'.
> At least they would if they were consistent. But who can expect that
> from the English language....?? After all, they put bonnets on lories!

Ron,
We are consistent. The bonnet is the cover over the engine compartment of
any front engined vehicle whether car, lorry, bus etc. If the vehicle has
the engine in an alternative place then other names will usually be found.

--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

Neil Ellwood

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 4:13:53 AM7/31/08
to
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:35:49 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

>
> I went to Google.UK and typed in "printer devise". First result up:
> http://www.myofficemonkey.co.uk/id4.html Second result up:
> http://www.art4all.co.uk/collectprint2.htm (right column under "Digital
> Printing Process". Enuf? You won't find it using Google unless you
> specify Google.UK and UK pages.
>
> I brought up Google.aus and specified Australian pages only. First two
> hits use the "devise" spelling for "device". Many more for "device",
> but I'm looking for some, not most.
>
> To find this variation in a dictionary you would have to use a
> dictionary that lists UK spellings as the primary spelling. The online
> dictionaries are US-centric. I don't have access to the OED, but I'd
> expect that it's at least listed as a variation there.
>
> Before we say that someone is wrong, it's best to see what might be
> right for them that is wrong for us.

You can't trust the web for anything and modern magazines and newspapers
are just as bad when it comes to spelling.

Neil Ellwood

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 4:24:56 AM7/31/08
to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:52:34 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

> Although, I believe that it's rather incautious to rely on The Bard for
> exact spellings.
> He apparently couldn't even decide on how to spell "Shakespear", there
> are several different spellings from different signatures which I've
> seen reproduced photographically in textbooks.

In his day and for a century plus afterwards spelling was variable and
the educated man was rated by the number of different ways he could spell
words, good manners entailed using a different spelling each time a word
was used in (for example) a letter or essay.

Doug Jewell

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 5:38:15 AM7/31/08
to
D-Mac wrote:
>
> Photos of rare or historically significant vehicles taken at places like
> Ormiston House are definitely saleable either outright to a print maker
> or as LE "royalty" prints through print galleries.
Most definitely, but doing so would normally require the
co-operation of the vehicle owner and/or the event organiser
and/or the venue owners. A lot of these events though, being
a private event, don't just allow professional photographers
to go in, snap a few shots, and sell them. It is normal that
they would request at the very least that you seek
permission, but would also likely charge a fee or request a
commission on sales. Just like taking photos at the footy
(i'm still sour at Suncorp Stadium, but that's another story).

>
> Someone with foresight could have assembled a very nice collection on
> the day suitable for a coffee table book and for an investment of less
> than a grand (including the hire of a D3 or 1D), produced half a dozen
> or so LE books that had the potential to sell for anything up to $500 each.
Not quite so sure of the $500 part, but yes certainly
saleable. Again though, the event organisers, vehicle
owners, and/or venue owners may not be impressed if you are
making money from photos you took.

>
> Without the glaring defects and taken with a high resolution camera,
> that shot had the potential to sell as an LE canvas print maybe 4 or 5
> times a year and actually pay for the camera that took it many times over.
I tend to disagree here. The "glaring defects" from what I
can tell come from the position of the vehicle and the
lighting. A car positioned under a tree, getting dappled
lighting, with a background varying between trees,
buildings, and bright sky, will take more than a D3 to get
right. Possibly could get something half decent with
multiple flashguns and/or HDR. Reala might be able to nail
that image, but I still think you'd be pushing it. By the
time you set up a multiple lighting scenario or stick a D3
on a tripod, you'll likely draw attention to yourself as a
pro photographer and the above scenarios start playing out.

Better to get the co-operation of the owner of the vehicle
to get it positioned better, and take the shot when the
lighting is better. Once that is done, it would be very
plausible to get a very saleable image


>
> A less expensive exercise is screen savers. It takes about 20 minutes to
> make a screen saver collection that people like the Atheist spend money
> on. My "automotive portrait collections" - posters I made as far back as
> 2000 still produce income, 8 years after I took the photos.
> http://www.d_mac.info/example1 for a look at one of them.

Do people actually spend money on screen savers? Not having
a go at you - if you're making money from it, then well and
good. I'm just amazed that people actually spring money for
something so mundane as a screen saver, especially when
there are thousands of free photos on sites like webshots.
Come to think of it, do people still use screen savers? I
thought power saving had pretty much done away with them.
BTW, that website doesn't work for me.


>
> What I don't understand is why Mark whines about his inability to
> "afford" a decent outfit and spends a lot of time excusing the poor
> quality of the images he posts when, with a tiny bit of advise from
> those he manages to alienate, he could actually pay for top flight gear
> by using it to do what I just described.

Not all of us can afford the top end gear. I have no idea
what Mark's financial status is, but for myself, I don't
have top end gear because I can't afford it. Actually not
quite true, I could afford it, but I wouldn't consider it
prudent to spring a couple of grand on something that is
essentially a hobby. Plus, apart from the more mundane
obligations of life, I have numerous hobbies all clamouring
for the attention of a few dollars, and a significant other
who puts the handbrake on.


>
> You can all pick shit at me as much as you like

I don't need an invitation to pick shit at you :-P


> but since 1994, I've
> made a rewarding income from selling photographs. If I can do it, anyone
> can.

This is going to sound like I'm picking shit = I'm not, I'm
just being blunt. Your line "If I can do it, anyone can".
Doug, I'm sure you have to admit that for the most part, the
photos that you have posted are hardly prize winners. Over
the last year or so that I've been watching here, I've seen
a handful of your photos I liked, and a lot that I thought
were pretty crook. Could it be, that your rewarding income
indicates that your entrepreneurial skills far exceed your
photographic skills. I'm not pretending to be a photographic
God myself - I've posted a few pics of mine that I've liked,
and had them picked to shreds, and also a couple that others
have liked. But one thing I am sure of, is that with the
very odd exception, most of my photos are not saleable, so I
don't even bother trying to sell them.
Having said that, I have been called upon to do Santa
photos, have been paid to do product shots for some of the
local retailers, and currently have a couple of my shots
being used in local advertising campaigns, so I guess I'm a
"professional photographer" whatever that means. This work
has come purely from people getting onto me, rather than me
going out to look for it though.
The way I view it though, is the difference between me and a
true "professional photographer" is not my gear vs theirs,
and it is not my technical photographic knowledge vs theirs,
but is the ability to reliably and consistently take photos
with attention to detail - nailing the composition,
exposure, framing, colour, focus etc every time. Composition
is probably the thing I'm finding toughest.


> Anyone that is ...with enough humility to admit they need help and
> not bugger it all up by trying to make out they are some sort of God of
> imagery and can't produces any evidence that might suggest that could be
> true.

Ok the above could be levelled at a number of posters here,
but with all due respect Doug, it does describe you too. Or
at least describes your online persona.
>
>
> Doug.
Doug also.

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 7:49:35 AM7/31/08
to
tony cooper wrote:

> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> Besides, my point was simply to show that D-Mac and his 'daughter'
>> (2squid), who both used the term identically, were one and the same person.
>
> Well, my daughter has picked up many terms and phrases from me, and I
> assure you that I really have a daughter.

Do you also both think that 'black' information is only carried in the
green channel of RGB printer devises?

>>> I don't see it spelled this way very often, but it's not rare.
>> I beg to differ - like I said, cites?
>
> I went to Google.UK and typed in "printer devise". First result up:
> http://www.myofficemonkey.co.uk/id4.html Second result up:
> http://www.art4all.co.uk/collectprint2.htm (right column under
> "Digital Printing Process". Enuf? You won't find it using Google
> unless you specify Google.UK and UK pages.

Fascinating. I tried this
(http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=printer+devise&btnG=Search&meta=)
and got very different results, but in any case I would point out that I
was asking for cites. Cites being short for 'citations'. Generally I
would expect such a citation to be sourced from a dictionary site of
some sort...

> I brought up Google.aus and specified Australian pages only. First
> two hits use the "devise" spelling for "device". Many more for
> "device", but I'm looking for some, not most.

Now this is even more fascinating, but also a little funny when you see
those two hits. Here are the actual results when I do exactly that, ie:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=printer+devise&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU
=============================
Did you mean: printer device?

CPPA Monitor and printer calibration images
... balancing colour for the output of a specific printer** but oddly
enough, ... for the express purpose of checking the colour of your
output devise. ...
www.cppa.org.au/resources.htm - 7k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

DPexpert: [ EPSON STYLUS PHOTO R290 printer ]
I wish that I could test the cost per print for every printer I review
but at the moment it is not possible. I hope next year to devise a
standardised test ...
www.dpexpert.com.au/archives/2007/11/_epson_stylus_photo_r290_print.html
- 17k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
==============================

Firstly I will happily concede that the very *next* result is an example
of the error, but the first two hits are not exactly supportive of your
case. The second entry is simply not an example - devsie is correctlky
used, but the first... well, that's the funny one.

That first entry comes from the webpage of the 'famous' CPPA. Tony, do
you know who/what the CPPA is? It is an 'association' (not yet
incorporated!) for 'Certifying Professional Photographer's (sic)'. It
appeared just a few months ago, at the very same time as Douglas
MacDonald (aka D-Mac, aka 2Squid, etc) had an ebay auction saying he was
certified by the CPPA. But who, you may ask, is the registered owner of
the cppa website? You guessed it. Douglas himself. In other words you
are using Douglas to back up Douglas. It's *his* (and perhaps his
daughter's?) website. (O:

> To find this variation in a dictionary you would have to use a
> dictionary that lists UK spellings as the primary spelling. The
> online dictionaries are US-centric. I don't have access to the OED,
> but I'd expect that it's at least listed as a variation there.

Nor me, but the concise Oxford is here:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/device?view=uk
and it does not list devise as an option to device as a noun, nor do any
of the US ones I've tried. So it would seem to be misuse, no matter how
you look at it.

> Before we say that someone is wrong, it's best to see what might be
> right for them that is wrong for us.

Like I said, it was all secondary to the intent, but at least it led us
in an amusing circle. (O:

dj_nme

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 8:04:48 AM7/31/08
to

Of course, but don't forget that just being able to read and write was
the mark of an educated man until quite recently (the last couple
hundred years).

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 8:21:45 AM7/31/08
to
Mr.T wrote:
> Have a look at almost any car sales brochure for example.

Apart from the fact that most car brochures do not show cars in dappled
shadows under a canopy of trees, nor are they seeking a slightly dark,
sinister effect... Did you actually read the OP? It was a quick grab
in a carpark. I shot it with the intention of the car being
deliberately, furtively parked in shadows, ie low-key. What part of
'lying in wait' didn't you get?

Now, what do you think the difference between a snapshot and a car
brochure would be? Do you normally carry a 15-foot softbox with you?

>> tell us how you would get a realistic effect that didn't overlight the
>> front of the car?
>
> Did I say a single on camera flash?

Gee, did *I* say it was a grab?

> Maybe you should learn by your mistakes rather than defending them.

Maybe you should actually add to the thread and tell us what you would
have done with a single flash, and to achieve the desired result as
explained above? All you have to do is find a similar low-key wide
angle shot that was lit by flashgun, and looks better than mine. Surely
if you were any good you would have one? Why not just shoot something
next time you are in a carpark and bring it back here? Once you supply
a better image, feel free to come back and explain the technique you
used to the eager audience. I've explained what (little!) I did, I've
offered you this image to manipulate as you wish to show the sort of
lighting you would prefer, and all you do is... run for your life.

Your choice, I guess. Me, I prefer to debate with examples.. and people
who have the guts to post them.

>> Feel free to use google images.
>
> Feel free to do your own research and try to learn something in the process.

Ah yes, more of the troll's escape methodology... Next line will be
"You are not worthy to see my images.."

> If it was mine I wouldn't waste time on it. Since it's not, I'm even less
> inclined.
> If you want to learn something, try it yourself, if not, no skin off my
> nose.

(grin) Yep. Pretty much as I thought. Run away!!!

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 8:31:18 AM7/31/08
to
Doug Jewell wrote:
> Mr.T wrote:
>> Fine thanks, let me know how much money THAT picture makes :-)
> Is that the only judge of the quality of a photo, how much money it makes?
> There are many many fine photographs taken every day, that will never
> make a cent, and never be seen by anyone other than the family of the
> person that took it. Does that mean they are all crap because they don't
> make money?
> If a photo is taken for the purpose of being sold, then yes, by all
> means strive for technical excellence. Striving for technical excellence
> is also something that should be done while practising the craft. But
> when you are taking a quick grab so you can remember an event / person /
> place etc, then technical excellence can be pushed aside a little and
> still result in a decent picture. Yeah Mark's photo isn't going to grace
> the covers of a magazine - but snapshots taken of a car parked at an
> event never do. I'm sure that had Mark's intent been to get a
> cover-photo, he would have consulted with the owner of the vehicle, and
> got it postitioned in better light, set up additional flashguns etc.
> Such a shoot would have been done over the course of hours, perhaps
> days, not in the couple of minutes he'd have had to do this shot.

Thanks, Doug. You're right... but no, *I* wouldn't have done all that,
because I don't do commercial photography nowadays - it's too much like
hard work!

It's interesting how the mind of a Mr T (or D-Mac) works - it's all
about making a buck. (And if money is the measuring stick of quality,
then clearly KFC and MacDonalds make the state-of-the-art in chicken and
burgers.)

And only money-making photographers should post here, perhaps.. Gee,
that would be just great.


There will be a small postscript to this story later, I hope.

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 8:38:03 AM7/31/08
to
Jeff R. wrote:
> The shot is evocative and very compelling just as it is.

I thank you for the kindness, Jeff. I thought it was good-ish, if
technically a little flawed.


(O:

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 8:42:10 AM7/31/08
to

Like I said earlier, I'm sure we are not worthy of seeing his
brilliance... And I think the old saying applies here:

There are no stupid questions, just ignorant, egotistical pretenders who
answer them rudely.

(Wait. Have I got that right?)

Thanks for the comments, MJ. (When are you posting more stuff? (O:)

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 9:19:29 AM7/31/08
to
Doug Jewell wrote:
> D-Mac wrote:
>>
>> Photos of rare or historically significant vehicles taken at places
>> like Ormiston House are definitely saleable either outright to a print
>> maker or as LE "royalty" prints through print galleries.
> Most definitely, but doing so would normally require the co-operation of
> the vehicle owner and/or the event organiser and/or the venue owners.

Perhaps not the way DMac operates... As an example of how he operates,
his copyright page used to contain these words:

>Professional Wedding and Portrait photos are most likely taken with
>cameras having a high quality lens and are likely to be sharply
>focused. We can scan these pictures and return very nice
>enlargements...
>The copyright of Wedding and Portrait Photographs taken before 1999
>absolutely belongs to the couple or family.

That is *absolutely* incorrect, and is inviting people to bring in
professionally shot images for illegal reproduction.

> A lot of these events though, being a private event, don't just allow
> professional photographers to go in, snap a few shots, and sell them.

Correct, and that is why I just took my p&s.

>> Someone with foresight could have assembled a very nice collection on
>> the day suitable for a coffee table book and for an investment of less
>> than a grand (including the hire of a D3 or 1D), produced half a dozen
>> or so LE books that had the potential to sell for anything up to $500
>> each.
> Not quite so sure of the $500 part

You did see the 'up to' part, didn't you? Car images are a dime a dozen
at markets...

> but yes certainly saleable. Again
> though, the event organisers, vehicle owners, and/or venue owners may
> not be impressed if you are making money from photos you took.

Naturally, if I was shooting this sort of thing for sale, I would have
to seek out the car owner. (Which I am doing anyway, to donate the shot
to him/her if s/he wants it.)

>> Without the glaring defects and taken with a high resolution camera,
>> that shot had the potential to sell as an LE canvas print maybe 4 or 5
>> times a year and actually pay for the camera that took it many times
>> over.
> I tend to disagree here. The "glaring defects" from what I can tell come
> from the position of the vehicle and the lighting. A car positioned
> under a tree, getting dappled lighting, with a background varying
> between trees, buildings, and bright sky, will take more than a D3 to
> get right. Possibly could get something half decent with multiple
> flashguns and/or HDR. Reala might be able to nail that image, but I
> still think you'd be pushing it. By the time you set up a multiple
> lighting scenario or stick a D3 on a tripod, you'll likely draw
> attention to yourself as a pro photographer and the above scenarios
> start playing out.

Exactly. As I stated initally, this was just a grab that I liked when i
got home and looked at it. At the time I took it, I thought it would be
rubbish. To Dmac and MrT, it is, but that's ok!

>> A less expensive exercise is screen savers. It takes about 20 minutes
>> to make a screen saver collection that people like the Atheist spend
>> money on. My "automotive portrait collections" - posters I made as far
>> back as 2000 still produce income, 8 years after I took the photos.
>> http://www.d_mac.info/example1 for a look at one of them.

Another piece of DMac *brilliance*. Not just 'page not found', there is
no such domain. He's a genius at this web stuff.

> Do people actually spend money on screen savers? Not having a go at you
> - if you're making money from it, then well and good. I'm just amazed
> that people actually spring money for something so mundane as a screen
> saver, especially when there are thousands of free photos on sites like
> webshots. Come to think of it, do people still use screen savers? I
> thought power saving had pretty much done away with them.
> BTW, that website doesn't work for me.

I'm sure there is a huge market here in DMac's head, but we know how
that relates to reality.

>> What I don't understand is why Mark whines about his inability to
>> "afford" a decent outfit

Perhaps DMac would like to link to where I *whine* about that? I've
always said that I wouldn't get myself a dslr until they met my
criteria, and it has only been recently that they have done so.. While
I decide which way to go, the p&s I have does pretty well and I have
'fallback' equipment for anything serious I might want to do. So my
choice is not urgent.

>> and spends a lot of time excusing the poor
>> quality of the images he posts

That's better than posting frequent crap like Dmac's, and saying how
brilliant it is, lying about his certifications...

>> when, with a tiny bit of advise

To Dmac:
That's ADVICE. This has come up many times recently. ADVISE is a verb.
ADVICE is a noun. Just as DEVICE is a noun. DEVISE is a verb (not a
printer..) Tell your daughter too.

>> from
>> those he manages to alienate

At last count that was only Dmac, Rita, and perhaps Mr T. I'm happy,
nay delighted, with that result.

>>, he could actually pay for top flight
>> gear by using it to do what I just described.

But, as Dmac and Rita (where is MrT's portfolio?) so richly demonstrate,
top-flight gear does not make good images.
(I'm still waiting to hear why Dmac blew the skies in images 2 and 9
here, given that was his sole initial complaint about my image:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/portfolio/weddings/ )

All I can say is.. well put, Doug J.

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 9:58:56 AM7/31/08
to
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Mr.T wrote:
>> Have a look at almost any car sales brochure for example.
>
> Apart from the fact that most car brochures do not show cars in dappled
> shadows under a canopy of trees, nor are they seeking a slightly dark,
> sinister effect... Did you actually read the OP? It was a quick grab
> in a carpark. I shot it with the intention of the car being
> deliberately, furtively parked in shadows, ie low-key. What part of
> 'lying in wait' didn't you get?

Geeez, all you would have had to do is hire a tow truck or 15 beefy
lads, moved the car to a promontory, waited till it was overcast and low
light, then made your shot.

Oh, darn, then it wouldn't have displayed the furtive part.....

--
john mcwilliams

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 10:20:45 AM7/31/08
to

Nice to see a few others got it. (O:

But clearly to satisfy some, I shall need to take my softbox, lighting
setups and backdrops in future, because I should be shooting this sort
of image...

http://www.exoticcarsite.com/pictures/Cars/holden/efijy-concept/holden-efijy-concept-2005-1.jpg

(No, not my image.. But it is an Australian car, so maybe MrT or DMac
took it..?)

tony cooper

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 10:38:42 AM7/31/08
to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:49:35 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Besides, my point was simply to show that D-Mac and his 'daughter'
>>> (2squid), who both used the term identically, were one and the same person.
>>
>> Well, my daughter has picked up many terms and phrases from me, and I
>> assure you that I really have a daughter.
>
>Do you also both think that 'black' information is only carried in the
>green channel of RGB printer devises?

I have no idea what that sentence means. I'm either not smart enough
to figure it out, or it's gibberish.

>
>>>> I don't see it spelled this way very often, but it's not rare.
>>> I beg to differ - like I said, cites?
>>
>> I went to Google.UK and typed in "printer devise". First result up:
>> http://www.myofficemonkey.co.uk/id4.html Second result up:
>> http://www.art4all.co.uk/collectprint2.htm (right column under
>> "Digital Printing Process". Enuf? You won't find it using Google
>> unless you specify Google.UK and UK pages.
>
>Fascinating. I tried this
>(http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=printer+devise&btnG=Search&meta=)
>and got very different results, but in any case I would point out that I
>was asking for cites. Cites being short for 'citations'. Generally I
>would expect such a citation to be sourced from a dictionary site of
>some sort...

A "cite" is a citation to a source that supports or disproves a
statement. We can only cite the sources that are available to us. I
don't have access to the OED or the Macquarie (Australian) Dictionary,
so the only thing I have available is examples of usage.


>=============================
>Did you mean: printer device?

Yes, because it's under "device" that you will get most of the hits.
That's the way Google works. The statement made, though, was that
some people use "devise" for "device" and not that most people use
"devise" for "device". Usage shows that some do.

>In other words you are using Douglas to back up Douglas.

I wouldn't know that. I don't follow this feud, and I don't even know
the names involved.

>> To find this variation in a dictionary you would have to use a
>> dictionary that lists UK spellings as the primary spelling. The
>> online dictionaries are US-centric. I don't have access to the OED,
>> but I'd expect that it's at least listed as a variation there.
>
>Nor me, but the concise Oxford is here:
>http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/device?view=uk
>and it does not list devise as an option to device as a noun, nor do any
>of the US ones I've tried. So it would seem to be misuse, no matter how
>you look at it.
>
>> Before we say that someone is wrong, it's best to see what might be
>> right for them that is wrong for us.
>
>Like I said, it was all secondary to the intent, but at least it led us
>in an amusing circle. (O:

If you want it to be an error or a misuse, that's up to you. I'm
willing to accept it as a variation. As you can tell from other posts
I've made, words and word usage interest me a great deal. I've had
enough exposure to usage that I know that not everyone uses words or
terms the way I would normally use them, and that there are idiomatic
differences. This includes spelling.

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 11:14:08 AM7/31/08
to

Hmmmm. I doubt anyone "took it", though it's possible to have started
with a pic....

Illustrator?
Still, I think I get what you mean.

--
john mcwilliams

dj_nme

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 11:10:23 AM7/31/08
to

Ah!
So you'll be the one dragging a (at least) 20 x 20 metre white tent, 40
odd metres of white paper with stand and several giant softboxes in
order to get a technically perfect showroom styled grab-shot?
Not to mention, a team of assistants to help you carry it all around.
That would be very covert and secretive, also furtive. NOT!
The mind truly boggles with what results some people say they expect.

> (No, not my image.. But it is an Australian car, so maybe MrT or DMac
> took it..?)

The term "concept" appears in the URL and on the source website, so it
might not even be an actual physical car.
http://www.rsportscars.com/holden/2005-holden-efijy-concept/
It seems to be a one-off custom-made concept car, so it does actually
exist in some form.
With "n/a" in various listed statistics, that may not be beyond being
just a nice looking mock-up.

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 11:18:49 AM7/31/08
to
tony cooper wrote:

> If you want it to be an error or a misuse, that's up to you. I'm
> willing to accept it as a variation. As you can tell from other posts
> I've made, words and word usage interest me a great deal. I've had
> enough exposure to usage that I know that not everyone uses words or
> terms the way I would normally use them, and that there are idiomatic
> differences. This includes spelling.

Have you take on Floyd and his doggedly odd way of spelling "lense"??
[He thinks it's the singular of "lenses"!]

No? You should, and either he'll be too chicken to take you on, or he'll
do so with 5-600 words and some cites including sites.

--
john mcwilliams

Frank ess

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 11:53:21 AM7/31/08
to

You are too kind, Neil.

A sterner critic would have pointed out Mr Hunter's Skitt's Law error.

http://confiteminidomino.blogspot.com/2007/01/skitts-law.html

These are "lories", or lorikeets. Imagining them with bonnets on is
fun:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1150/1444342608_7435e445c1_o.jpg


--
Frank ess

tony cooper

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 11:54:13 AM7/31/08
to
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:18:49 -0700, John McWilliams
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> If you want it to be an error or a misuse, that's up to you. I'm
>> willing to accept it as a variation. As you can tell from other posts
>> I've made, words and word usage interest me a great deal. I've had
>> enough exposure to usage that I know that not everyone uses words or
>> terms the way I would normally use them, and that there are idiomatic
>> differences. This includes spelling.
>
>Have you take on Floyd and his doggedly odd way of spelling "lense"??
>[He thinks it's the singular of "lenses"!]

No, because that's designated as an archaic or a variant spelling.
Legitimate if you want to appear to be archaic. I think Floyd uses it
just to invite comment.

>
>No? You should, and either he'll be too chicken to take you on, or he'll
>do so with 5-600 words and some cites including sites.

Floyd has never been too chicken to take me on. I sometimes run
across him in another newsgroup. We had some rounds in a photography
group (perhaps this one) in a discussion about taking photographs in a
commercial airplane and around airports. A discussion, if I remember
correctly, started by an Australian. Those Aussies are troublemakers,
aren't they?

Floyd can be very, very right about some things of a technical nature.
He's very informed and seldom caught out in the wrong on technical
issues. His personal views, though, sometimes set my teeth on edge.
He can come across as very condescending and know-it-allish, but
that's a pot/kettle/black position for me to take.

Frank ess

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 11:57:12 AM7/31/08
to

Ugly, though, my view.

--
Frank ess

MJW

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 2:08:42 PM7/31/08
to

Its finally stopped raining around here, so I will
be doing some more panorama experimenting soon!


--
>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<<

D-Mac

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 7:42:21 PM7/31/08
to

You seem to have an opinion that doesn't fit the mould of a successful
seller of photographs. I discovered very early in life - When I worked
in the newspaper game, that causing a person to become emotional looking
at a photo is the key to selling them, not all that crap about nailing
composition. You use a camera, not a hammer.

When I started work at the weekly times I was handed a 4x5 field camera
with a 38mm lens on it and told; "Just make sure you get the subject in
the frame and don't pop the bulbs on someone's dress, I can to the
subject when I make the prints".

The beetles arrived in town the next week and I took my shots holding
the camera above my head, hoping like hell the lens was wide enough to
get something on interest.

The reality is knowing your market and what you can and cannot sell
people. I guess that's the difference between me and those who criticise
me and my pictures... I take photos for a living, they take them for a
different reason.

Here's some I took "for a different reason".
http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix/ Not one of them has any commercial value.
That's why there's a download button there!

I've said it many times in the past. You don't need to be the world's
best photographer to make a living at photography. What you do need is
an understanding of why people take a liking to a picture and work on
the emotion of the viewer... Bugger the rest of it. If you can appeal to
someone's emotions, you can sell them the photo.

Probably the single biggest reason I can make a living from it is
because like all business people who have done the hard yards, I know at
what point I can get away with something but an amateur thinks they have
to do everything perfectly. You do if you want to win a competition but
that won't put food on the table.

Some of the world's most revered photographs are out of focus. Many have
really obvious (to a photographer) flaws in them but they are still up
there for all to admire.

An interesting thing here Doug... Not everyone looks at photos the same
way. I once took a photo of two girls and swapped the heads around.
Totally different body shapes and ages. When they each showed the photos
to their parents, all for of them failed to notice the swap!

Those who pick shit at me and the "photos of interest" I post look not
at the entertainment value of the photos but at the technical "quality"
of them. Something 85% of people who buy photographs seldom do.

There is more to photography than the technical level of images... Far
more and if you ever try to sell your photos and wonder why people like
me sell so many when you can't sell any, it might dawn on you that I
took the time to discover buyer motives and see the technical level of
the photos that sell as a lesser issue than the subject matter.

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Jul 31, 2008, 8:18:54 PM7/31/08
to
"dj_nme" <dj_...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4891d5e3$0$8952$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

Actually the Efijy does in fact exist in the metal and last year won some
major award or other for best custom car, and even led the drive by parade
(so yes, it is drivable)


--
"Calling Atheism a religion i