Digital photo product
Craig Koller
Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> No matter if you're a Mac user, Windows or Linux, this is a neat product
> although pricy at the moment. I'd bet if there is some acceptence, the
> price should come down in a resonable amount of time.
>
> http://www.photovu.com/
Hmm, somewhere in the garage is our Kodak picture frame deal that used
to do the same thing, but on a much smaller scale (4x5"). It was cool
for a while, but I think we needed the outlet or something and
unplugged it after the novelty wore off.
I just think there's something different between active viewing and
passive viewing that makes gizmos like these more distracting in a
domestic setting than interesting or entertaining. Kinda like a web
page with too many animations going on at the same time. Whereas
actively pulling photos up on a TV or computer is perfectly fine - I'd
love to see an easier solution for TV picture viewing that doesn't
require expensive memory sticks, that has navigation as easy as iPhoto.
iPhoto on the family Mac is how we view most of our photos. Then my
wife will use iMovie to make montages and we'll watch those on the TV.
For the real ambitious stuff, I'll whip out FC Pro.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
I'll say it's expensive! How about a used Mac behind the couch running
iPhoto in slide-show loop mode on a 19" flat display hanging on the wall?
--
George Graves
------------------
My Three Favorite Words WRT Women, Wine, food, cars and motorcycles:
"Made in Italy"
Daniel Dreibelbis
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > http://www.photovu.com/
>
> I'll say it's expensive! How about a used Mac behind the couch running
> iPhoto in slide-show loop mode on a 19" flat display hanging on the wall?
that's actually not that far from the mark - take a look at this if
you've got a few older Powerbooks lying around!
http://www.applefritter.com/?q=hacks/duodigitalframe
http://www.applefritter.com/?q=node/view/728
--
Dan Dreibelbis, Guitar Nerd - Better Living Through Home Recording
Newest song - "Get Off My Good Foot", as well as some old favorites, found at:
http://www.soundclick.com/dandreibelbismusic.htm
John
> In article <jpolaski-D4C8FB...@netnews.comcast.net>, Jim
> Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
>
>> No matter if you're a Mac user, Windows or Linux, this is a neat
>> product although pricy at the moment. I'd bet if there is some
>> acceptence, the price should come down in a resonable amount of time.
>>
>> http://www.photovu.com/
>
> Hmm, somewhere in the garage is our Kodak picture frame deal that used
> to do the same thing, but on a much smaller scale (4x5"). It was cool
> for a while, but I think we needed the outlet or something and
> unplugged it after the novelty wore off.
>
> I just think there's something different between active viewing and
> passive viewing that makes gizmos like these more distracting in a
> domestic setting than interesting or entertaining. Kinda like a web
> page with too many animations going on at the same time. Whereas
> actively pulling photos up on a TV or computer is perfectly fine - I'd
> love to see an easier solution for TV picture viewing that doesn't
> require expensive memory sticks, that has navigation as easy as
> iPhoto.
>
>
You're absolutely right. A REAL photograher would see it the same way
you do. You'll have to excuse Jimbo. He was a "Quarter Pounder
photograher".
Tim Adams
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Which is a big step up from being an idiot photographer like you
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-FE6B...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <jpolaski-D4C8FB...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> > Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.photovu.com/
> >
> > I'll say it's expensive! How about a used Mac behind the couch running
> > iPhoto in slide-show loop mode on a 19" flat display hanging on the wall?
>
> Sure it's pricy, but I said that. However, your solution is another
> computer(pricy too) and not wireless as this is.
> Is that 6 of one and a half-dozen of another to some point?
Yeah, but a B&W G3 is cheap and a decent 19" flat screen monitor can be
had for only about $600. I bet one could put the whole megellah
together for a grand.
George Graves
Daniel Dreibelbis <dre...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-FE6B...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.photovu.com/
> >
> > I'll say it's expensive! How about a used Mac behind the couch running
> > iPhoto in slide-show loop mode on a 19" flat display hanging on the wall?
>
> that's actually not that far from the mark - take a look at this if
> you've got a few older Powerbooks lying around!
>
> http://www.applefritter.com/?q=hacks/duodigitalframe
>
> http://www.applefritter.com/?q=node/view/728
Uh-huh. It can't run iPhoto, but there are a number of Mac "slide show"
apps like SimpleSlide available for OS9 that will do the job.
John
Only a true idiot like yourself would fail to recognize the idiot Jimbo
is.
John
> trying to judge. this is getting even better.
>
> How about another challenge.
>
> We'll let someone here pick a product or some food. Then both of us
> will produce an original photograph(film or digital -TBD) with some
> means of identification(TBD) placed in the photograph(to be visible)
> to insure that we actually did take the photograph. Perhaps some
> unique object someone here could select and send to both of us to be
> included in the photograph.
>
> We'll post them and let eveyone vote on which is better. I'll provide
> the space to post the photos.
No way Jimbo. There you GO AGAIN!!! Trying to change the subject
from your foolish comments earlier in the thread. My policy is to spend
ZERO time on Psycho Jim boondoggles and you know that.
Jim Lee Jr.
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > Now WinwimpWeasel is masquerading as a professional photographer
> > trying to judge. This is getting even better.
> >
> > How about another challenge.
> >
> > We'll let someone here pick a product or some food. Then both of us
> > will produce an original photograph(film or digital (TBD) with some
> > means of identification (TBD) placed in the photograph (to be visible)
> > to insure that we actually did take the photograph. Perhaps some
> > unique object someone here could selected and sent to both of us to be
> > included in the photograph.
> >
> > We'll post them and let eveyone vote on which is better. I'll provide
> > the space to post the photos.
> No way Jimbo. There you GO AGAIN!!! Trying to change the subject
> from your foolish comments earlier in the thread. My policy is to spend
> ZERO time on Psycho Jim boondoggles and you know that.
Pussy.
Steve Carroll
Ya know, Johnny... it simply amazes me that you can do all the things
you claim to do so well without possessing a spine.
Steve
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
But nobody fails to see what an idiot YOU are, Whiney.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <102ofhg...@news.supernews.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> yeah WimpWeasel, I am such an idiot that I made tens of thousands of
> dollars taking photos of McDonalds burgers and breakfasts for close to
> five years.
>
> Your photos are in a shoebox, maybe the trash.
None of Whiney's pictures ever "come out."
Sandman
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > http://www.photovu.com/
> > >
> > > I'll say it's expensive! How about a used Mac behind the couch running
> > > iPhoto in slide-show loop mode on a 19" flat display hanging on the wall?
> >
> > Sure it's pricy, but I said that. However, your solution is another
> > computer(pricy too) and not wireless as this is.
> > Is that 6 of one and a half-dozen of another to some point?
>
> Yeah, but a B&W G3 is cheap and a decent 19" flat screen monitor can be
> had for only about $600.
That's pretty pricey though. I bought my three 19" flatscreens for each about
$395 (including VAT).
> I bet one could put the whole megellah together for a grand.
If you've got a Cube lying around, it would be dirt cheap AND stylish. Plus it
could be used for so much more than just photos.
- iPhoto running slideshows from the main computer via Rendezvous.
- iTunes jukebox with visualizer (great for parties)
- iCal family schedule center, fetched from all seperate iCal calendars
through .Mac
- TV channel listing always available
You can control all of this with the ATI All-in-wonder remote control, or your
palm/sonyericsson cellphone with salling clicker.
Or imagine having a Wacom Cintiq screen on the wall, so you can use a stylus to
leave messages. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Adams
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <102o8tv...@news.supernews.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Now winwimpWeasel is masquerading as a professional photographer trying
> to judge. this is getting even better.
>
> How about another challenge.
>
> We'll let someone here pick a product or some food. Then both of us will
> produce an original photograph(film or digital -TBD) with some means of
> identification(TBD) placed in the photograph(to be visible) to insure
> that we actually did take the photograph. Perhaps some unique object
> someone here could select and send to both of us to be included in the
> photograph.
>
> We'll post them and let eveyone vote on which is better. I'll provide
> the space to post the photos.
You actually think winweasle know how to use a camera? You give him a
lot more credit than most of us. Prsonally i think if you took a camera
and 3 or 4 other object of similar size and shape, lined them up on a
table, he'd have a problem finding the camera.
Tim Adams
IOW - I've no camera and wouldn't have the ability to use it if I did.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-F14D...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> They just stay latent? Sort of like a wet dream, not the real thing?
Not really. It's an old expression from the days of box cameras. Nothing
was adjustable on those, just a fixed plastic (a-la Kodak "Brownie" of
the '50's) or single-element glass lens and a 1/25th of a second spring
and balde shutter. The film had little lattitude, and people just lived
with the fact that a certain number of pictures on each roll simply
would not be any good (as in underexposed, overexposed, blurred from
movement, out of focus, etc) or wouldn't "come-out". A common expression
used in those days was "This is supposed to be a picture of Mildred
standing in front of the Statue of Liberty, but it didn't come-out." My
reference wrt Whiney was meant to intimate that his expertise in
photography extends no further than using a simple box camera.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <fretwizz-AF7467...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> I'm certain that WinWimpWeasel doesn't have the barest clue as to what a
> pro looks at in doing an image at the professional level. That's not to
> say that an amateur can't take a pro quality photograph, but rather the
> pro does it on demand every time and knows how to make it happen.
>
> I'd love to see WinWimpWeasel try to photograph the classic Thanksgiving
> Turkey. That would be real interesting.
Well, I'm a pretty gifted photographer and have won a number of awards
for my work, but I wouldn't pretend to know how to even BEGIN to do
product photography, especially food photography. Even Edward Weston
could only photograph bell peppers <grin>. Professional lighting alone
is a whole college course and even so, they can only teach you the
basics, not when to use a given set of tools or how to use them
optimally. It's certainly a subject that I know nothing of. I do know
that product photography is the most demanding (you have a very picky
client to please) type of professional photography that there is, and if
Jim does that for a living, my hat's off to him.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-2FF4...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <jpolaski-9FC696...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> > Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <gmgravesnos-FE6B...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <jpolaski-D4C8FB...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> > > > Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > http://www.photovu.com/
> > > >
> > > > I'll say it's expensive! How about a used Mac behind the couch running
> > > > iPhoto in slide-show loop mode on a 19" flat display hanging on the
> > > > wall?
> > >
> > > Sure it's pricy, but I said that. However, your solution is another
> > > computer(pricy too) and not wireless as this is.
> > > Is that 6 of one and a half-dozen of another to some point?
> >
> > Yeah, but a B&W G3 is cheap and a decent 19" flat screen monitor can be
> > had for only about $600. I bet one could put the whole megellah
> > together for a grand.
>
> Actually George, I'll find out as I realized a buddy who writes for
> photos mags, etc. is at the PMA show I think. If he is, I'm sure he's
> looked at the product and gotten some reactions from other attendees.
>
> We'll see.
Looking forward to it.
George Graves
<teadams$2$0$0$3-51510C.07...@news03.east.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I do like the idea of putting up a web site someplace where we can see
each other's work. That would be a kick. I'd glady contribute some of my
photos.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-023D...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George, that's exactly what I've done. Food/tabletop and still life,
> some special effects. While I've never advertised doing
> people(BlackBook, Workbook, etc.) as I did the food/tabletop, I'll do
> psoplefor clients and have samples on request. BTW, some years ago, I
> also did most of the work for Blaupunkt/Bosch and there car audio stuff.
> But for here, the discussion was McDonalds. Whiny seems to think it's so
> simple. Riiiight! Even tabletlop. Anyone can slap somthing down and get
> an image, but to give it some "touches" or "life" if you will. Even an
> outline photo of a product can be done well, and, not so very well at
> all.
> But now bring that to the PC or the Mac, specifically PHOTOSHOP. While
> you can take a bad photo, even an outline of a product, sometimes you
> can save it. Others, just can't. It always pays to do the photo the best
> that can be in-camera. Why have to spend on retouching. That's not to
> say that what used to take an inordinate amount of time to do on the set
> or in-camera is also sometimes best done in photoshop these days because
> that is the best way. Something like say, paint blemishes in something.
> What's easier, having the product stripped and hand painted instead of
> off the production line, or spending 10 mins in Photoshop doing some
> cleanup?
> Today that's trivial because regardless of if you use a PC or a Mac, the
> desktop has so much power,performance and software features.
OTOH, I've done enough photography to know that Photoshop is NOT a
panacea. You have to have something to work with first. In traditional
chemical photography, you can develop a methodology to manipulate the
image both in the camera and, subsequently, in both the film developing
and the print making stages. Ansel Adams called this the Zone System,
and it does give film much more latitude and many more steps between
solid black (D-Max) and pure white. You cannot replicate this level of
control over an image in Photoshop. Even the very best drum scanners
simply cannot digitize a range of tonality that in any way, shape or
form approaches what can be done with physical and chemical manipulation
of a traditional film image.
With Photoshop, the term garbage-in-garbage-out has never had more
meaning. I agree that PS is a marvelous tool and it certainly has, for
most practical purposes, almost totally replaced the traditional
darkroom. But, in my opinion, the need to use this tool has put even
more importance on getting the picture RIGHT in the camera beforehand.
This puts much more emphasis on proper lighting; shadows must be more
strictly controled, for instance. Most importantly, one needs to avoid,
as much as possible, D-max areas and D-0 areas because once digitized,
there is NOTHING in those areas to work with. Unlike film, you cannot
coax details from a digital image that simply are not there.
> Lets go back to around the early 80's. I did a lot of product photos for
> Beatrice. On the cover of their corporate monthly, they had a photo of a
> child in parents arms holding a cup of Hawthorne Melody Ice Cream. Cup
> had a logo and it was twisted. So the designer had to go to the
> seperater/printer(Black Dot) and put it on the "system," a
> Hell-Chromacom. It took several hours of tech.time @$6-800/hr. And that
> system would be humbled by what you can do on todays desktop with
> Photoshop. They had to twist the logo straight forward and blend it into
> the rounded cup surface so it looked right (in the lighting) and more
> facing the camera. I'm sure someone would argue about why not have the
> kid just hold the cup straight. Well, the photo was taken at some event
> in China, and probably a PR/news/corporate photo from Beatrice the
> designer had to use. Couldn't re-do it and the shoot wasn't staged. So
> they had to use the "system" and spend $1200-2400 !
>
> What a difference, eh?
No argument that Photoshop is a wonderful, heck, a revolutionary, tool
(as is digital photography).
How about my idea of a web page where we CSMA types can post some of our
work for others to see?
John
What a laugh that would be. Go for it.
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Well, we know who's photographs would NOT be there. Yours.
John, you remind me of a ghost, pointing an empty sleeve and laughing at
everything anyone does, or says, or feels because you can't do anything,
say anything, or feel anything. I'm right, aren't I? How utterly
pathetic.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-F6BD...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George, you're certainly right that the "starting point" makes all the
> difference. The problem is that the marketspace that the pros are
> selling to is so woefully lacking in understanding these days, they
> think just about *any* image can be made "good enough" for their needs.
> Quality has gone out the window in the original image in many cases
> because the clients don't want to pay what it costs to commission the
> photographer to do them. LOTS of photographers have gone out of business
> because there just isn't the work.
>
> Time was that folks(client or agency) had an idea, got the thing
> approved them commissioned the photog. and did the job. Today, it's RF
> CD's and photoshop. Even the clients sometimes demand the agency AD does
> the photos(He's supposed to KNOW after all what good is?) and then
> again, photoshop.
>
> As to AA, he created the Zone System for ONE reason. Control. He
> couldn't change the light where he wanted to do a photograph. The ZS
> allowed, with much calibration, the photographer to look at the light
> level and contrast range and by using exposure and then appropriate
> development, produce(theoretically) a negative that would perfectly
> reproduce the tonal range. It would also let the photographer move the
> tonal range when necessary, like on overcast days. Those had less
> contrast, so with appropriate exposure and development you could expand
> the range to fit your printing paper and thus the photo would look right
> tonally. As a theoretical benefit, all your negatives should print at
> the same exposure/development times in the darkroom. The thing was about
> the ZS was that it was designed for sheet film, not roll, though you
> could use it for "whole rolls" that were done under one
> light/development.
>
> On the negative side, change *Anything*, film batch,developer, printing
> paper batch and you had to test and calibrate *everything* in the
> process all over. It was great if you basically used 1-2 films and
> papers.
>
> Studio guys like me didn't need the Zone system because we just control
> the light, contrast and all the things needed for proper exposure. Even
> then, *any* photograph color or B&W has far more information than can be
> reproduced on the printed page so we have the tools to make the printing
> press represent whats in the film, just like the Zone System let the
> printing paper represent what was in the original scene with the
> negative.
> >
> > With Photoshop, the term garbage-in-garbage-out has never had more
> > meaning. I agree that PS is a marvelous tool and it certainly has, for
> > most practical purposes, almost totally replaced the traditional
> > darkroom. But, in my opinion, the need to use this tool has put even
> > more importance on getting the picture RIGHT in the camera beforehand.
> > This puts much more emphasis on proper lighting; shadows must be more
> > strictly controled, for instance. Most importantly, one needs to avoid,
> > as much as possible, D-max areas and D-0 areas because once digitized,
> > there is NOTHING in those areas to work with. Unlike film, you cannot
> > coax details from a digital image that simply are not there.
>
> Well put. Today many folks at agencies, design firms and the clients are
> younger and younger and just don't know anymore what "doing it right"
> is, so they reply now on Photoshop as a "tool of creation" in the
> process instead of commissioning the work to be done *right.*
>
> The thing is that through the years the folks who once did *know* have
> moved to management and so on, even retired and there are so few to
> *mentor* the new folks who think they know it anyway. It's not like the
> new photographers coming into the biz are any better. It was that you
> were an *apprentice* and learned not just the photo knowledge that isn't
> on the Kodak Data Sheets and what the *business end of photography*is
> about. Now, they go to photo school having been taught by someone who
> doesn't work as a pro and perhaps never has, and they too think
> they*know*. Perhaps it's a fitting match, but in part it's responsible
> for the horrible print advertising we have which only seems to be
> getting worse.
>
> After all, I'm so damn tired of seeing "out of focus, or "selectively
> focused" food in ads. Just because someone thinks it's "design trendy".
> Food is supposed to be luscious, almost like you'd want to reach into
> the page.
>
> Then there's today's TV spots. In so many, I find you remember the spot
> and not the client. If Remington still made typewriters and there was a
> spot, we'd only see small shots of the product, but we'd see the office
> assistant and how much fun they had that night out partying since the
> typewriter left them feeling good from the days drudgery of typing.
> >
> > > Lets go back to around the early 80's. I did a lot of product photos for
> > > Beatrice. On the cover of their corporate monthly, they had a photo of a
> > > child in parents arms holding a cup of Hawthorne Melody Ice Cream. Cup
> > > had a logo and it was twisted. So the designer had to go to the
> > > seperater/printer(Black Dot) and put it on the "system," a
> > > Hell-Chromacom. It took several hours of tech.time @$6-800/hr. And that
> > > system would be humbled by what you can do on todays desktop with
> > > Photoshop. They had to twist the logo straight forward and blend it into
> > > the rounded cup surface so it looked right (in the lighting) and more
> > > facing the camera. I'm sure someone would argue about why not have the
> > > kid just hold the cup straight. Well, the photo was taken at some event
> > > in China, and probably a PR/news/corporate photo from Beatrice the
> > > designer had to use. Couldn't re-do it and the shoot wasn't staged. So
> > > they had to use the "system" and spend $1200-2400 !
> > >
> > > What a difference, eh?
> >
> > No argument that Photoshop is a wonderful, heck, a revolutionary, tool
> > (as is digital photography).
> >
> > How about my idea of a web page where we CSMA types can post some of our
> > work for others to see?
>
> That could be fun. I think a lot of Mac users are very
> multi-dimensional. That because the computer has always more appealed to
> the "creative types" who are artists, photographers, sculptors, music
> creators and so on.
OK, so how do we do it?
Steve Hix
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <102t5d2...@news.supernews.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Since you're such a critic, what could you be counted on to produce?
"Those who can't do, criticize."
If the past is any indication at all, he'll complain and sneer, he won't
produce anything of any utility whatsoever.
A sad way to live, frankly.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-749F...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> .Mac? Or one of the sites to post a free page?
Yeah, I'm not a .Mac user, though (no need). It should be a page that
all CSMA'ers can have access to to post their photos. Any suggestions?
John
> In article <gmgravesnos-F564...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> though and will hotly defend that he's better at it than anyone
> here(even me, who's done it at pro level for 25 years) and that
> without seeing anything anyone else has done.\
I've seen your work for McDonalds. It looks like shit. Of course that was done back in the seventies when camera and lens
technology was shit and no Photoshop existed so I will cut you some slack Jimbo.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-F564...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> I think we know johnny will think he knows what a great/good photo is
> though and will hotly defend that he's better at it than anyone
> here(even me, who's done it at pro level for 25 years) and that without
> seeing anything anyone else has done.
That's right, Jim. This guy is utterly pathetic, so totally devoid of a
life that all he can do is denigrate others. You and I just had a nice
photographic discussion. Both of us posted insights into the processes
and thge business of photography that can leave no doubt that we both
know a good deal about the subject on all levels. Whiney, OTOH, has
never posted ANYTHING on any subject which exhibits the slightest
knowledge or insight into the subject at hand. He denigrates your
photography while never demonstrating that he even knows what a
photograph is or how to make one. If we post a site with our
photographs, he will say that they are terrible (no matter that they won
photography awards) and will laugh at them. He will not, OTOH, post any
of his own. Very preditable and very sad.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <102t5d2...@news.supernews.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Since you're such a critic, what could you be counted on to produce?
Nothing, absolutely nothing. He would laugh at an Adams, a Weston, an
Arbus, or an Avedon, much less a Graves or a Polaski simply because
that's what this poor creature does. It's all he can do.
George Graves
<sehix-644518....@dsl081-079-101.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net>,
Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
I agree. John White is truly one of the most pathetic human beings I've
ever heard of.
John
> In article <102vnsa...@news.supernews.com>,
> outlet?
>
> As for photoshop, all that has done wrt to that photo is move costs,
> not change quality. It's a better tool that has made the photographer
> the retoucher in many cases, lowererd the cost of prepress and
> changed how
> we work.
>
> Tell us oh informed one. How has photoshop affected us? The pro's want
> you to tell them? And don't weasel on it not being a computer topic.
> It surely is and if you think not, tell Scott Kelby or Duke
> McClelland to
> name two.
>
> Why don't you show us a better photo you did for McDonalds?
Look at ANY modern photo McDonalds uses Jimbo. All are clearly superior to those seventies shots.
John
My photos are posted on the web and have received rave reviews. You just have to know where to look.
John
> In article
> <sehix-644518....@dsl081-079-101.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net>,
> Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>
>> In article <jpolaski-F3F29C...@netnews.comcast.net>,
>> Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <102t5d2...@news.supernews.com>,
>>> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>> In article <jpolaski-132D11...@netnews.comcast.net>,
>>>>> Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How about my idea of a web page where we CSMA types can post some
>>>>> of our work for others to see?
>>>>
>>>> What a laugh that would be. Go for it.
>>>
>>> Since you're such a critic, what could you be counted on to produce?
>>
>> "Those who can't do, criticize."
>>
>> If the past is any indication at all, he'll complain and sneer, he
>> won't produce anything of any utility whatsoever.
>>
>> A sad way to live, frankly.
>
> I agree. John White is truly one of the most pathetic human beings
> I've ever heard of.
That coming from a severly delusional person who actually believes the trouble prone Mac is superior to the worlds greatest OS. One
which the normal non -ill 97% of the population chooses.
Lloyd Parsons
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
John, point to ONE fucking thing you have EVER done that we can see,
hear or read. Just ONE!
Lloyd
Lloyd Parsons
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
OK, big mouth, where are they?? And don't start any dodging on this,
you sniveling weasel!
Snit
jpolaski-30209E...@netnews.comcast.net on 2/15/04 2:55 PM:
>> I've seen your work for McDonalds. It looks like shit. Of course that was
>> done back in the seventies when camera and lens technology was shit and no
>> Photoshop existed so I will cut you some slack Jimbo.
> Ah now we see. If it's so bad, why did McDonalds put it in every outlet?
I just checked 5 outlets at my house. I saw plugs, but no McDonald's ads
anywhere. You had me worried for a moment.
:)
John
> In article <102vrg0...@news.supernews.com>,
> Depth of field is the same. Films are better, but we don't use those
> anymore. Lenses are not necessarily sharper, but have better coatings
> for flare which means little in the studio since we control the light.
>
> So tell us, how are the photos better? A huge photo of a Big Mac by
> itself is better now than then. Bull. Lit differently, that's about
> all.
>
> Next thing, you'll tell us that light is different today. Then again
> you probably think flashpower is an advancement.
The photos are sharper, have better color fidelity, and look more realistic. The photos you took for those seventies shots look
almost blurry and the color very unnatural.
Elizabot
Well, then quit squinting your eyes while your masturbating to Jim's photos.
Snit
2/15/04 2:07 PM:
If the work is done for McDonalds, it would be deceptive to imply the place
was not shit. Suppose if his work was bad, it was an accurate refection on
the product.
:)
Just my 2 cents.
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Non-Sequitur, Irrelevant and immaterial. Next?
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <102vrm3...@news.supernews.com>,
> Uh-oh. the sr.technologist thinks that "...97% of the population
> chooses" to use Windows.
>
> So tell us informed one. How many of those chose the OS they were given
> at work and subsequently bought a PC not even considering anything else?
>
> How many were gifted a PC by a relative, and made no choice?
>
> Nothing more than the old if the majority use it, then it must be the
> best.
>
> Why then does anyone buy different than a Honda or Toyota and maybe a
> Chevy?
The main thing is that what this pathetic individual posted has NOTHING
whatsoever to do with what we were talking about -namly that Whiney is
all-mouth, never contributes anything positive, and only exists to sneer
at the accomplishments of others.
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
1) That in no way answers the allegations that you are so hateful that
you sneer at everybody else's accomplisments and are capable of little
else.
2) Unless you actually post the URL(s) we will assume that you are
lying, as usual.
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Let's see yours, big mouth. You are such a weasel that you won't tell us
where to foind yours will you? Could that be because like every other of
your accomplishments and areas of expertese, they don't exist?
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <102vnsa...@news.supernews.com>,
> Ah now we see. If it's so bad, why did McDonalds put it in every outlet?
>
> As for photoshop, all that has done wrt to that photo is move costs, not
> change quality. It's a better tool that has made the photographer the
> retoucher in many cases, lowererd the cost of prepress and changed how
> we work.
>
> Tell us oh informed one. How has photoshop affected us? The pro's want
> you to tell them? And don't weasel on it not being a computer topic. It
> surely is and if you think not, tell Scott Kelby or Duke McClelland to
> name two.
>
> Why don't you show us a better photo you did for McDonalds?
Or ANYTHING for that matter.
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Where are your photos to be seen?
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <102vrg0...@news.supernews.com>,
> hmpft. not superior, different. Nothing has changed since the 70's.
> Depth of field is the same. Films are better, but we don't use those
> anymore. Lenses are not necessarily sharper, but have better coatings
> for flare which means little in the studio since we control the light.
>
> So tell us, how are the photos better? A huge photo of a Big Mac by
> itself is better now than then. Bull. Lit differently, that's about all.
>
> Next thing, you'll tell us that light is different today. Then again you
> probably think flashpower is an advancement.
Bottom line: Where can we see his photos? Nowhere, that's where!
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Once more you demonstrate that you know NOTHING anout the subject at
hand. Simply NOTHING. You are a FOOL!
John
You are a fool. You have never seen Jims photo of the Egg McMuffin.
Steve Carroll
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
This pretty much nails Johnny's MO in here :)
Steve
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
And you have? I don't mean a lithograph of the photo, I mean the photo.
George Graves
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-BA0E...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> Everyone would have access to see them, though I'd have to post them
> which would be no problem at all. No holds barred.
That would be fine. I could FTP them to you. You want to do it? Let me
know via E-mail and I'll send you my pics.
Tim Adams
>
>
> You are a fool. You have never seen Jims photo of the Egg McMuffin.
>
>
Hey idiot - Jim posted a link to his picture a couple of months ago so
most all of us that read this newsgroup reguarly HAVE seen his picture.
It's a heck of a lot betteer that ANYTHING you've ever taken.
George Graves
<teadams$2$0$0$3-014588.07...@news05.east.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
We'll never see anything he's taken because he has never taken anything.
He's all mouth and an incredible liar.
He says that he's a photographer. REALITY - He's not.
He says that he has his pictures on the web in multiple places and has
had rave reviews of them, but he hasn't posted the URLs so that we can
see them. REALITY - He has NO pictures posted anywhere.
He claims to know a lot about photography (like he claims to know about
guitars, audio, computers, etc.). REALITY - He knows NOTHING.
He is a pathetic little dipshit who has accomplished nothing in his life
except to make a NG full of people dislike and mistrust him. Some
accomplishment.
John
> In article
> <teadams$2$0$0$3-014588.07...@news05.east.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <10307js...@news.supernews.com>,
>> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are a fool. You have never seen Jims photo of the Egg McMuffin.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hey idiot - Jim posted a link to his picture a couple of months ago
>> so most all of us that read this newsgroup reguarly HAVE seen his
>> picture. It's a heck of a lot betteer that ANYTHING you've ever
>> taken.
>
>
> We'll never see anything he's taken because he has never taken
> anything. He's all mouth and an incredible liar.
>
Bullshit.
> He says that he's a photographer. REALITY - He's not.
>
Bullshit.
> He says that he has his pictures on the web in multiple places and has
> had rave reviews of them, but he hasn't posted the URLs so that we can
> see them. REALITY - He has NO pictures posted anywhere.
>
Only humans with normal mental processes are given the link. No
dipshits.
> He claims to know a lot about photography (like he claims to know
> about guitars, audio, computers, etc.). REALITY - He knows NOTHING.
>
Only 100 times more than you. I am not the one that uses a pathetic OS.
Steve Mackay
Let's see...
John's choice of Newsreader/OS
Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
George's choice of Newsreader/OS
MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
For some odd reason, you mistook George for using windows. What other
"pathetic OS." is there?
John
> In article <1032ci0...@news.supernews.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <teadams$2$0$0$3-014588.07...@news05.east.earthlink.net>,
>>> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <10307js...@news.supernews.com>,
>>>> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a fool. You have never seen Jims photo of the Egg
>>>>> McMuffin.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey idiot - Jim posted a link to his picture a couple of months ago
>>>> so most all of us that read this newsgroup reguarly HAVE seen his
>>>> picture. It's a heck of a lot betteer that ANYTHING you've ever
>>>> taken.
>>>
>>>
>>> We'll never see anything he's taken because he has never taken
>>> anything. He's all mouth and an incredible liar.
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>
>>
>>> He says that he's a photographer. REALITY - He's not.
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>
>>
>>> He says that he has his pictures on the web in multiple places and
>>> has had rave reviews of them, but he hasn't posted the URLs so that
>>> we can see them. REALITY - He has NO pictures posted anywhere.
>>>
>>
>> Only humans with normal mental processes are given the link. No
>> dipshits.
>
>>
>>
>>> He claims to know a lot about photography (like he claims to know
>>> about guitars, audio, computers, etc.). REALITY - He knows NOTHING.
>>>
>>
>> Only 100 times more than you. I am not the one that uses a pathetic
>> OS.
>>
>>
>>
>
> ficticious, just like all the crap he posts here.
> He proves NOTHING he says, stands behind nothing he says not even his
> own name.
>
> WinWimpWeasel is perhaps the most dersive intruder to this NG along
> with prattfall. He's caused more crap than anyone here. Of course he
> gets his jollies from his adoring fan, prattfall who tries to imitate
> but can't duplicate.
>
> THE reason he is WimWimpWeasel is that he has none of the things he
> professes such supreme expertise in for if he were to compete, he'd
> lose and he knows it, so the obvious choice is to be a popous,
> overbearing sack of dirt.
Get some help Jimbo.
George Graves
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article
> > <teadams$2$0$0$3-014588.07...@news05.east.earthlink.net>,
> > Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <10307js...@news.supernews.com>,
> >> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You are a fool. You have never seen Jims photo of the Egg McMuffin.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hey idiot - Jim posted a link to his picture a couple of months ago
> >> so most all of us that read this newsgroup reguarly HAVE seen his
> >> picture. It's a heck of a lot betteer that ANYTHING you've ever
> >> taken.
> >
> >
> > We'll never see anything he's taken because he has never taken
> > anything. He's all mouth and an incredible liar.
> >
>
> Bullshit.
Prove it!
>
> > He says that he's a photographer. REALITY - He's not.
> >
>
> Bullshit.
Prove it!
> > He says that he has his pictures on the web in multiple places and has
> > had rave reviews of them, but he hasn't posted the URLs so that we can
> > see them. REALITY - He has NO pictures posted anywhere.
> >
>
> Only humans with normal mental processes are given the link. No
> dipshits.
IOW, there are no photographs.
> > He claims to know a lot about photography (like he claims to know
> > about guitars, audio, computers, etc.). REALITY - He knows NOTHING.
> Only 100 times more than you. I am not the one that uses a pathetic OS.
The OS I use is irrelevant and immaterial to this discussion.
Let's see your photographs. Otherwise you are a liar!
John
> In article <1032man...@news.supernews.com>,
>
> No verification of anything johnny-whiny says or does.
>
> Time to put-up or shut-up and leave Wimpy. You have no anything other
> than your own hot air and ramblings that satisfy your own ego, which
> is significant. What a sack of dirt, matter of fact dirt would be an
> improvement.
>
> You're looking worse with every WinWimpWeasel post that dodges what
> you've been asked to provide the barest scrap of evidence to verify
> *anything*.
>
> Time to be honest WimWimpWeasel boy...I'll bet all you really try to
> accomplish every day is try to tack fresh JelloŽ to a wall.
Amazing how pissed off you are that the Mac does in fact suck. I have
proven beyond any doubt(to the mentally sane person) that your chosen
platform , the Mac is no more reliable and probably less so than
Windows. All you can do is result to cheap insults. Face it Jimbo(and
Crazy George), you have lost the argument.
John
>
> No verification of anything johnny-whiny says or does.
>
> Time to put-up or shut-up and leave Wimpy. You have no anything other
> than your own hot air and ramblings that satisfy your own ego, which
> is significant. What a sack of dirt, matter of fact dirt would be an
> improvement.
>
> You're looking worse with every WinWimpWeasel post that dodges what
> you've been asked to provide the barest scrap of evidence to verify
> *anything*.
>
>
Verify this:
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
What argument? That you have never taken a photograph in your life? Jim
and I won that one.
John
You and Jimbo make personal insults against me because you have NO
argument when it comes to defending your claims that Macs "just work".
You often try and change the topic away from Mac because you guys can't
beat me and try desparately to find something you can "win" at.
John
> In article <103432g...@news.supernews.com>,
> *proved nothing*. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I'm not pissed, nor is George.
> You're being called on the carpet to put up or shut up, that simple.
> Your idea of any proof of Macs "not working" is only to post your
> daily macfixit link, and that is proof of nothing.
> Further, you've proved nothing eles because all you ever trumpet is
> that you never have *any* problems.
> Even further, you make grandiose claims about other "self agrandized"
> abilities and prove nothing, other than your hot air.
> If any subsequent discussion arises and you make claims about your
> ability, and prove nothing. Like the photography. Had you actually
> done anything, providing a link is trivial. TRIVIAL but you showed us
> all NOTHING but your hot air. HOT AIR.
> PUT UP. You have no credibility Mac related and you have even less in
> any other area. Considering all your other hot air, it's my guess that
> "john white" is also not real and you're the most derisive poster
> here.
>
> Try proving something for everyong. Put up.
Jim you are just too dense to see that with regards to subject RELATING TO
MAC which this newsgroup covers I have PROVED that Macs don't "just work".
Talk to Ted Landau and ask him why he writes a book entitled "Disaster
Relief" if Macs are so reliable.
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Try to keep up. NOBODY'S DISCUSSING MAC VS PC IN THIS THREAD. Got it
now? The "discussion" (I use that word guardedly because no verbal
interaction with you can actually be called a "discussion". You never
discuss anything.) was about photography. You said that you were a great
photographer, that your photographs were all over the werb, and had
received very positive comments. Yet you refuse to post a URL so that we
too can see your magnificent work. Therefore, since you won't post
anything but bluster, I have to assume that you can't because no such
photos exist, and furthermore, I conclude from that, and other things
that you have claimed over the months that you have infested this NG,
that you are a LIAR. SIMPLY A FUCKING LIAR!
As to the Mac "just working", it's your argument that holds no water,
not ours. You seem to think that in order for the phrase "Macs just
work" to be true, that the platform MUST be perfect, while all of the
SANE people in this NG realize that the only criterion it must meet in
reality, is to be better than the alternative - that being WindBlows.
And the most assuredly Mac is BETTER. So there's a site called
macfixit.com. So what? It's a good resource. No computer is perfect,
nobody has ever said that they were (except you about your three XP
PCs), but a point you seem to purposely ignore in post after post is
that there are HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS such sites for Windows
problems. Not only that, but there are daily TV show, weekly radio shows
and monthly magazines filled with NOTHING but people trying desperately
to solve their XP problems. Also, it's not Macs which have cost large
corporations BILLIONS of $ in lost revenues due to virus and Trojan
Horse attacks, it's WINDOWS XP. So, no matter what scenario of 'winning"
you have constructed in your own malevolent little mind, you have lost
this particular argument (as you lose all arguments) and lost BIGTIME.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
George Graves
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>>> to accomplish every day is try to tack fresh Jello® to a wall.
You have only proved your own stupidity, time and time again.