Why when I save a photo from photobucket, it's not a JPEG?

[Don Phillipson]

When I save a photo from photobucket, its "corrupted" half the time.
The other half the time it works.
Why?

[Savageduck]

Are you trying to download/save your image files, or the files of
others from Photobucket?

Are you trying to download images somebody is sharing with you?

What method are you using to download & save image files from Photobucket?

From what I can see, if you look on the right side of a photo page you
should see *Options* there you will find *Download* click on that and
the small display image will download as a pretty small, low quality
jpeg. To get the larger, better quality image files you are going to
have to pay the asking price.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Paul]

Provide a link to the one you're having trouble with.

Calculate md5sum or sha1sum on the image, and
present the details. If you don't have tools,
you can try uploading the image to virustotal.com
and have the value calculated there.

Another question would be about your hardware.
Do you have an NVidia chipset motherboard ? That's
the Northbridge and Southbridge chip on the motherboard,
nothing to do with the video card or the company
that made the processor.

One of the NVidia chipsets had a LAN MAC (media access
controller) with fancy acceleration features. There
was some grumbling about a 32 bit corrupted word every
once in a while, on one of those chipsets they made. I
never did hear a resolution on root cause, whether
it could be patched at the driver level or other details
like that.

Other than that, you can try memtest86+ from memtest.org,
and test your RAM. Just in case a bit in the memory
has gone bad over time. I've had RAM fail a couple times,
after it was in usage for 1.5 years. On my current motherboard,
the Northbridge started to act up a couple years after
I bought the motherboard. All it took was boosting Vnb by
a fraction of a volt more, to restore memory stability.
No problems since. So even if you've tested the motherboard
thoroughly at T=0, the board can "age badly" and need
some tweaking later.

Paul

[Savageduck]

On 2015-04-12 22:46:17 +0000, Don Phillipson said:

As this is my second response, I suggest that you check both of the
News Groups you X-Posted to.

In my initial response I wrote:

Are you trying to download/save your image files, or the files of
others from Photobucket?

Be aware you might be trying to download some protected files which
have to be paid for, and some which are shared openly as public domain.

Are you trying to download images somebody is sharing with you?

What method are you using to download & save image files from Photobucket?

From what I can see, if you look on the right side of a photo page you
should see *Options* there you will find *Download* click on that and
the small display image will download as a pretty small, low quality
jpeg. To get the larger, better quality image files you are going to

have to pay the asking price, or contact the owner of the image.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Don Phillipson]

Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote in message mgf2r8$ue4$1...@dont-email.me

> Provide a link to the one you're having trouble with.

It happens frequently, but it just happened today.

0. First I went to this thread:
http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?1762836-timing-guides-replacement-results-at-112k-miles

1. Then, I tried to save the first picture by right clicking in Firefox
and selecting "View Image", which brings me to this photobucket url:
http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/Sm00th_j/media/IMG_8321.jpg.html

2. I get a warning that I ignore about "Adobe Flash" because I have a blocker:
"Allow s1099.photobucket.com to run Adobe Flash?"

3. I right click on the picture in Firefox to select "Save image as":
/tmp/IMG_8321.jpg

4. I try to open the file by doubleclicking on it but I get the error:
Could not load image IMG_8321.jpg
Error interpreting JPEG image file
(Not a JPEG file: starts with 0x3c 0x21)

5. I run a checksum on that image:
$ md5sum IMG_8321.jpg
3bd1bbb33880e6f611aa7b6bb55290e5 IMG_8321.jpg

6. I run a "file" command on that image:
$ file IMG_8321.jpg
IMG_8321.jpg: HTML document, UTF-8 Unicode text, with very long lines, with CRLF, LF line terminator.

7. I try to upload that image to imgur.com for you:
Oh no! We encountered an error:
IMG_8321: Image format not supported, or image is corrupt.

8. I try to run Gimp on that image:
$ gimp IMG_8321.jpg
GIMP Message
Opening /tmp/IMG_8321.jpg failed:
JPEG image plug-In could not open image

9. Thinking that the Flash plugin is somehow involved, I accept the
"Allow" and the "Allow and Remember" Flash plugin questions back at
the photobucket web site:
http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/Sm00th_j/media/IMG_8321.jpg.html

10. The same thing happens.
It "says" it's a JPEG image, and it saved as a JPEG image, but, it's
not a JPEG image (or it's a corrupted JPEG image).

What am I doing wrong?
Note that *some* photobucket files work just fine.
Some do. Some don't.

Why?

[Don Phillipson]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
201504121801322...@REMOVESPAMme.com

> Are you trying to download/save your image files, or the files of
> others from Photobucket?

I do not have a photobucket account, so, these images are all the
files of others. They are mostly car forum images.

Some photobucket images download just fine.
But many do not.
Sometimes, even the same image sometimes downloads fine, but more often,
does not.

I just gave an example, but I repeat it here (shorter).

I tried just now to download one of the images in this thread:
http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?1762836-timing-guides-replacement-results-at-112k-miles

They're all photobucket images, for example:
http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/Sm00th_j/media/IMG_8332.jpg.html

If I right click on that image when the < and > arrows are there,
it saves to IMG_8332.jpg and when I right click when the arrows are
*not* there, it saves to the same file name (IMG_8332.jpg).

If I keep doing it, I eventually get a JPG file, maybe one out of
every three to five times.

$ file IMG_8332.jpg
IMG_8332.jpg: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.02

The rest of the time, I get a different answer:
$ file IMG_8332.jpg
IMG_8332.jpg: HTML document, UTF-8 Unicode text, with very long lines, with CRLF, LF line terminators

It's not consistent.

[Tony Cooper]

You haven't really provided enough information, Don.

First, you've posted this to rec.photo.digital and
alt.os.linux.ubuntu.

I'm a Windows guy, so I don't know anything about linux. If that's
the cause of the problem I wouldn't know.

I used to use Photobucket, but went to Dropbox when it came out. I
think it's a better photo host to work with.

However, here's a old album from my Photobucket account:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/Miami%20Wall%20Art/2010-10-16-15.jpg

Try to save the 9 images in there and see if any are corrupted when
you do. Reply including *how* you saved the images.

While there is a "download" button, you can simply right-click on the
image and choose "save as". Depending on what software you use, you
may be able to use "open with".



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Paul]

If I quickly right-click the presented image and select
"View Image" from the context menu of Firefox (no flash installed),
I get this. (Note - most photo sites do not allow "direct linking"
and they will simply present the main page again, complete
with tons of JavaScript and pests. So no, clicking this
doesn't stop the madness. I'm just reporting the URL for the
fun of it. This URL has no magic characteristics.)

http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g385/Sm00th_j/IMG_8321.jpg

If I then do "Save as", I get

IMG_8321.jpg
134,935 bytes
(Opens in a photo editor)
With a hex editor, "JFIF" is present near the beginning.
There is no HTML code inside the file, indicating you're
getting something other than the image file.

If you wait long enough, that site loads all sorts of
horseshit.

If I use a second browser, one with a Flash plugin, I
still have the opportunity to right-click and "View Image"
If I try to "Save Image", it kinda jams up, like it's
about to try to raise a popup window or something.

Conclusion:

1) Site is clever.
2) You must be a Ninja.
3) Right click image, and select "View Image".
The cleverness stops...
(Do not try "Save As" from that context menu.
Probably doesn't work.)
4) Now that your jangled nerves have settled, see
if you can save the now-stationary image.

All my attempts so far, have yielded consistent values.
First set, MD5SUM, second set SHA1SUM. File size 134,935 bytes.

8f037d4072542a088aae249ed55432da *IMG_8321(2).jpg
8f037d4072542a088aae249ed55432da *IMG_8321(3).jpg
8f037d4072542a088aae249ed55432da *IMG_8321(4).jpg
8f037d4072542a088aae249ed55432da *IMG_8321.jpg

986d2d16bda807b50059c654b1e4778b63ba7c8d IMG_8321(2).jpg
986d2d16bda807b50059c654b1e4778b63ba7c8d IMG_8321(3).jpg
986d2d16bda807b50059c654b1e4778b63ba7c8d IMG_8321(4).jpg
986d2d16bda807b50059c654b1e4778b63ba7c8d IMG_8321.jpg

Think like a Ninja.

HTH,
Paul

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 01:16:00 +0000 (UTC), Don Phillipson
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:

>Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote in message mgf2r8$ue4$1...@dont-email.me
>
>> Provide a link to the one you're having trouble with.
>
>It happens frequently, but it just happened today.
>
>0. First I went to this thread:
>http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?1762836-timing-guides-replacement-results-at-112k-miles
>
>1. Then, I tried to save the first picture by right clicking in Firefox
>and selecting "View Image", which brings me to this photobucket url:
>http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/Sm00th_j/media/IMG_8321.jpg.html
>
>2. I get a warning that I ignore about "Adobe Flash" because I have a blocker:
>"Allow s1099.photobucket.com to run Adobe Flash?"
>
>3. I right click on the picture in Firefox to select "Save image as":
>/tmp/IMG_8321.jpg
>
>4. I try to open the file by doubleclicking on it but I get the error:
>Could not load image IMG_8321.jpg
>Error interpreting JPEG image file
>(Not a JPEG file: starts with 0x3c 0x21)

Followed you to here, and the images saved as instructed with no
problem. It saves a .jpg 1023 x 682.

I then opened it in Photoshop (I don't have Gimp). No problem.

I don't have an Adobe Flash blocker in place.

The problem is your end. It's not a corrupted image.

>8. I try to run Gimp on that image:
>$ gimp IMG_8321.jpg
>GIMP Message
>Opening /tmp/IMG_8321.jpg failed:
>JPEG image plug-In could not open image
>
>9. Thinking that the Flash plugin is somehow involved, I accept the
>"Allow" and the "Allow and Remember" Flash plugin questions back at
>the photobucket web site:
>http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/Sm00th_j/media/IMG_8321.jpg.html
>
>10. The same thing happens.
>It "says" it's a JPEG image, and it saved as a JPEG image, but, it's
>not a JPEG image (or it's a corrupted JPEG image).
>
>What am I doing wrong?
>Note that *some* photobucket files work just fine.
>Some do. Some don't.
>
>Why?

[Savageduck]

On 2015-04-13 01:23:32 +0000, Don Phillipson said:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> 201504121801322...@REMOVESPAMme.com
>
>> Are you trying to download/save your image files, or the files of
>> others from Photobucket?
>
> I do not have a photobucket account, so, these images are all the
> files of others. They are mostly car forum images.
>
> Some photobucket images download just fine.
> But many do not.
> Sometimes, even the same image sometimes downloads fine, but more often,
> does not.
>
> I just gave an example, but I repeat it here (shorter).
>
> I tried just now to download one of the images in this thread:
> http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?1762836-timing-guides-replacement-results-at-112k-miles
>

I tried right clicking and downloading several of those and experienced
no issues.

> They're all photobucket images, for example:
> http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/Sm00th_j/media/IMG_8332.jpg.html
>
> If I right click on that image when the < and > arrows are there,
> it saves to IMG_8332.jpg and when I right click when the arrows are
> *not* there, it saves to the same file name (IMG_8332.jpg).

OK! I have no problem right clicking on the image and downloading that
particular image file as a jpg, IMG_8332.jpg.
...but I am using a Mac, not a Linux machine.

> If I keep doing it, I eventually get a JPG file, maybe one out of
> every three to five times.

Why keep doing it then?

> $ file IMG_8332.jpg
> IMG_8332.jpg: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.02
>
> The rest of the time, I get a different answer:
> $ file IMG_8332.jpg
> IMG_8332.jpg: HTML document, UTF-8 Unicode text, with very long lines,
> with CRLF, LF line terminators
>
> It's not consistent.

I do not use Photobucket, and I do not run a Linux machine,so I suspect
I am not going to be able to provide you with any advice you might find
useful. I have no issues downloading from either of those sources with
OSX.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

Is it just images hosted by Photobucket? Having read through the
thread-to-date, it seems that the images can be successfully saved by
at least a Mac user (SavageDuck) and a Windows user (me), so it would
seem the problem is something involving either linux or Photobucket or
the combination.

You can eliminate two of those from consideration by telling us if
images hosted by other hosts (ie: Dropbox) do or do not cause the
same problem.

[Paul]

Without analysing the web page using "Save As" "Web Page Complete",
my guess is there is a bucketload of evil code on that page.

I have my best luck, by grabbing/manipulating the image before
the page is fully loaded.

Some image hosting sites sport a download button, making it
easy for the user to get the file, and easy to see that
the site intent is that the file be downloadable. Other
sites just seem to lack a download button, and it's up
to your wits (and Ninja-like reflexes), to get
what you want from the page.

Paul

[Savageduck]

If you look closely you will see that the Photobucket page has two
download buttons. So you can put the black pajamas away for a while.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Paul]

This is the page at around the three second mark.

http://i57.tinypic.com/142uag2.jpg

This is the page at the ten second mark. Page has
gone blank. A site called "e.nexac.com" is pretending
to download something important, and the page will
more or less stay blank like that forever.

http://i61.tinypic.com/f591dy.jpg

So as long as I put on the black pajamas, right-click
and "View Image" before ten seconds hits, I get
to see the image. I have basically a 7 second window,
to catch it. If I need to try again, clearing the
browser cache, will afford me the same window of opportunity.

That's my browser which has no plugins, and is a bit
"locked down". I have another browser which is better
equipped and won't do that - but if I use it, the
sites will abuse it (show me Adobe Flash advertising,
try some other popup techniques and so on).

Life is full of tradeoffs.

In the first picture, I assume one of those unlabeled
buttons is a download, but it's not visible there.
I tried scrolling down too.

Paul

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>0. First I went to this thread:
>http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?1762836-timing-guides-replacement-results-at-112k-miles
>
>1. Then, I tried to save the first picture by right clicking in Firefox
>and selecting "View Image", which brings me to this photobucket url:
>http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/Sm00th_j/media/IMG_8321.jpg.html

Note the last four characters on that URL: "html"

It's the page at PhotoBucket that displays a slide show.

If you download that page, you get the "corrupted"
image, because it downloads the html file that is
displaying images, not the images.

When you right click on the image and then select the
"view image" option from the menu it shouldn't have
taken you to the above URL, but to this one:

http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g385/Sm00th_j/IMG_8321.jpg

Saving this URL will produce the image every time. Saving
the above URL never will.

This has nothing to do with anything past the selection
of what to download. The download is working perfectly,
and all of your software is doing what it should, given
the file you are downloading.

I can't see what would cause the html file to be selected
at that point, so I can't even guess at what is happening.
Look for any odd differences up to that point (and ignore
all after).

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com

[Sandman]

In article <mgf5cg$6ce$1...@news.albasani.net>, Don Phillipson wrote:

> Paul <nos...@needed.com>wrote in message mgf2r8$ue4$1...@dont-email.me

> > Paul:

> > Provide a link to the one you're having trouble with.
>
> It happens frequently, but it just happened today.

> 0. First I went to this thread:
> http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?1762836-timing-guides-
replacement-results-at-112k-miles

> 1. Then, I tried to save the first picture by right clicking in
> Firefox and selecting "View Image", which brings me to this
> photobucket url:
> http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/Sm00th_j/media/IMG_8321.jpg.html

> 2. I get a warning that I ignore about "Adobe Flash" because I have
> a blocker: "Allow s1099.photobucket.com to run Adobe Flash?"

> 3. I right click on the picture in Firefox to select "Save image
> as": /tmp/IMG_8321.jpg

> 4. I try to open the file by doubleclicking on it but I get the
> error: Could not load image IMG_8321.jpg Error interpreting JPEG
> image file (Not a JPEG file: starts with 0x3c 0x21)

> 5. I run a checksum on that image: $ md5sum IMG_8321.jpg
> 3bd1bbb33880e6f611aa7b6bb55290e5 IMG_8321.jpg

> 6. I run a "file" command on that image: $ file IMG_8321.jpg
> IMG_8321.jpg: HTML document, UTF-8 Unicode text, with very long
> lines, with CRLF, LF line terminator.

That's why, then. When right-clicking and downloading the file, it downloads a
HTML file, with the extension jpg. Rename it to .html and you can open it
normally and see the code.

To download the image, use the download button over the image. Done.

--
Sandman

[Sandman]

In article <ie8mia9nsj86722ic...@4ax.com>, Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

> > 4. I try to open the file by doubleclicking on it but I get the
> > error: Could not load image IMG_8321.jpg Error interpreting JPEG
> > image file (Not a JPEG file: starts with 0x3c 0x21)
>
> Followed you to here, and the images saved as instructed with no
> problem. It saves a .jpg 1023 x 682.

> I then opened it in Photoshop (I don't have Gimp). No problem.

> I don't have an Adobe Flash blocker in place.

> The problem is your end. It's not a corrupted image.

It's a web browser thing. When you right click and choose download, your web
browser downloads this URL:
<http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g385/Sm00th_j/IMG_8321.jpg>

But, when you access that URL in the browser, it redirects you to this URL:

<http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/Sm00th_j/media/IMG_8321.jpg.html>

Which is the URL we started with. So, it's all a matter of whether or not your
web browser follows redirects when downloading a URL from the page. The OP's web
browser apparently does, while Safari doesn't.

--
Sandman

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Don Phillipson wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote in message mgf2r8$ue4$1...@dont-email.me
>
>> Provide a link to the one you're having trouble with.
>
> It happens frequently, but it just happened today.
>

> 6. I run a "file" command on that image:
> $ file IMG_8321.jpg
> IMG_8321.jpg: HTML document, UTF-8 Unicode text, with very long lines,
> with CRLF, LF line terminator.

Yikes.

> What am I doing wrong?
> Note that *some* photobucket files work just fine.
> Some do. Some don't.
>
> Why?

Probably what you think is an image link is actually a link
to some "active" page where you can view the actual image.

--
BOFH excuse #212:

Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

Op 13-04-15 om 03:16 schreef Don Phillipson:

> Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote in message mgf2r8$ue4$1...@dont-email.me
>
>> Provide a link to the one you're having trouble with.
>
> It happens frequently, but it just happened today.
>
> 0. First I went to this thread:
> http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?1762836-timing-guides-replacement-results-at-112k-miles

Here Kubuntu and Firefox with the KDE extensions for mime handling.
Right click the image and select Save, no problem.
View pic and right click to save, again no problem.

I have Flashblock and Adblock+ installed.

So it seems to be a problem on your end.

Give it a try with the Chromium browser, that is Chrome without the spyware.

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

Op 13-04-15 om 03:23 schreef Don Phillipson:

> They're all photobucket images, for example:
> http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/Sm00th_j/media/IMG_8332.jpg.html
>
> If I right click on that image when the < and > arrows are there,
> it saves to IMG_8332.jpg and when I right click when the arrows are
> *not* there, it saves to the same file name (IMG_8332.jpg).

Ah yes, this is a matter of right clicking in the middle of the photo,
not on the arrows.

Works fine.

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

Op 13-04-15 om 09:23 schreef Paul:

Install Adblock Plus.

[Don Phillipson]

Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
mgesjo$vkm$1...@news.albasani.net

> When I save a photo from photobucket, its "corrupted" half the time.
> The other half the time it works.
> Why?

It's still happening.
I just tried saving this picture by right clicking on it and saving the
image as 116-1645_IMG.jpg but it's corrupted every time.
http://s40.photobucket.com/user/Jackcat559/media/116-1645_IMG.jpg.html

[Lew Pitcher]

On Friday April 17 2015 08:55, in alt.os.linux.ubuntu, "Don Phillipson"

Do you mean that the picture shown on that page can't be "saved" through
your web browser? Because, it looks like photobucket puts a css/javascript
block over the photo, to prevent you from being able to right-click access
it directly from that page.

However, if you look for it, you can find a link to the photo itself, which
you can then save as a JPG:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e235/Jackcat559/116-1645_IMG.jpg

HTH
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request

[Tony Cooper]

\
It's you, Don, you. The gods of right-click don't like you. You've
offended them somehow. I saved the image without a problem.

Perhaps you should start using screen shots of the images.

[Savageduck]

No problem here; Mac OSX 10.10.3 & Safari. Right click - save as.
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/116-1645_IMG.jpg>

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Jonathan N. Little]

Okay I think you have been told already that the right-click menu is
being blocked as a protection scheme by the website. But I must ask what
is so hard in clicking the *Download* link in *OPTIONS* to the right of
the image?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:51:04 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Don Phillipson wrote:
>> Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
>> mgesjo$vkm$1...@news.albasani.net
>>
>>> When I save a photo from photobucket, its "corrupted" half the time.
>>> The other half the time it works.
>>> Why?
>>
>> It's still happening.
>> I just tried saving this picture by right clicking on it and saving the
>> image as 116-1645_IMG.jpg but it's corrupted every time.
>> http://s40.photobucket.com/user/Jackcat559/media/116-1645_IMG.jpg.html
>>
>
>Okay I think you have been told already that the right-click menu is
>being blocked as a protection scheme by the website. But I must ask what
>is so hard in clicking the *Download* link in *OPTIONS* to the right of
>the image?

I right-clicked and saved the image. (Windows/Firefox) The right-click
menu is *not* disabled. It may be disabled for certain users based on
OS or the presence or lack of other "features", but it is not blocked.

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

Op 17-04-15 om 14:55 schreef Don Phillipson:

Sorry but this right click save just works for me...
Kubuntu 14.10 with FF34 including Ghostery, Flashblock, Adblock Plus and
Facebook Blocker.

As others pointed out the Download button also works.

Maybe you should temporarily rename your Firefox profile and try with a
fresh one.

You do use Firefox, right?

[Lew Pitcher]

On Friday April 17 2015 12:16, in alt.os.linux.ubuntu, "Dirk T. Verbeek"

This is a puzzler for me.
Using the URL above, I get a page that (with a right click on the image)
offers only "Save Page As" and "Send Link"

The page offers some controls, to the right of the top of the image.
Clicking on the magnifying glass icon, I am transferred to
http://s40.photobucket.com/user/Jackcat559/media/116-1645_IMG.jpg.html
which is, apparently, the same page, but without the controls.

When I right click the image on /this/ page, I get "Save Image", "Save Image
As" and "View Image Info".

It appears to me that the ability to save the image from that page is
context sensitive.

FWIW, I use Firefox.

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

Op 17-04-15 om 18:23 schreef Lew Pitcher:

Weird, yes the magnifying glass gives a view with less clutter.
But on my computer the right click options are exactly the same full
gamut...

[Allodoxaphobia]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:23:26 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Friday April 17 2015 12:16, "Dirk T. Verbeek" wrote:

WFM -- both in Chrome and FireFox -- with and without Ghostery truned on
-- both right-clicking to [Save As] and/or [View Image].

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | Marvin | W3DHJ | linux
38.238N 104.547W | @ jonz.net | Jonesy | OS/2
* Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm

[Don Phillipson]

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
9o92jalnmpfcmrifh...@4ax.com

> I right-clicked and saved the image. (Windows/Firefox) The right-click
> menu is *not* disabled. It may be disabled for certain users based on
> OS or the presence or lack of other "features", but it is not blocked.

I agree.
I have no problem right clicking and saving a "file".
I'm using the standard Firefox 37.0 on Kubuntu.
It's easy to save it.
It saves just like any other JPEG would save.
It's just that the saved file is 'corrupt'.

[Paul]

Here's a picture of me doing a Save As,
using a relatively recent copy of Firefox.

I had to use movie screen capture to get this
picture, as regular timed screenshots kept jamming up.
The resulting picture is of poor quality.

http://i61.tinypic.com/2wok9b6.jpg

The information in the right of the photo, is to
show I got a real JPEG. It's a bit of hex editor
capture from the beginning of the downloaded file.

And I did notice, if I waited long enough, I might
be prevented from doing Save As. You gotta be
a Ninja with this stuff. Hy Yaa. And so on...

*******

And there is a Download button off on the right,
but that's only going to be there if the page
finished rendering properly. A function of
your browser version and javascript setting
(or blocker addons).

http://i60.tinypic.com/era3xd.jpg

Paul

[Savageduck]

On 2015-04-17 20:24:40 +0000, Paul said:

> Don Phillipson wrote:
>> Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
>> mgesjo$vkm$1...@news.albasani.net
>>
>>> When I save a photo from photobucket, its "corrupted" half the time.
>>> The other half the time it works.
>>> Why?
>>
>> It's still happening.
>> I just tried saving this picture by right clicking on it and saving the
>> image as 116-1645_IMG.jpg but it's corrupted every time.
>> http://s40.photobucket.com/user/Jackcat559/media/116-1645_IMG.jpg.html
>
> Here's a picture of me doing a Save As,
> using a relatively recent copy of Firefox.
>
> I had to use movie screen capture to get this
> picture, as regular timed screenshots kept jamming up.
> The resulting picture is of poor quality.
>
> http://i61.tinypic.com/2wok9b6.jpg
>
> The information in the right of the photo, is to
> show I got a real JPEG. It's a bit of hex editor
> capture from the beginning of the downloaded file.
>
> And I did notice, if I waited long enough, I might
> be prevented from doing Save As. You gotta be
> a Ninja with this stuff. Hy Yaa. And so on...

Naah! All you have to do is dump that Linux stuff and get yourself a
Mac or Windows machine. Perhaps just clan up what you have.
<https://db.tt/1ideLY1Y>

They seem to work just fine without the complications you are experiencing.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

In case he does clan up with Macintosh, here's the clan tartan:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/MacKintosh_tartan_%28Vestiarium_Scoticum%29.png

[Savageduck]

Phinggrr phawlt. :-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[sid]

Savageduck wrote:


> Naah! All you have to do is dump that Linux stuff and get yourself a
> Mac or Windows machine. Perhaps just clan up what you have.
> <https://db.tt/1ideLY1Y>

If someone were to post a similar comment in relation to OSX to this group,
it would be the start of a multi hundred post defence campaign led by you
and nospam. Your anti linux bias is ridiculous. As is, btw, your cross
posting hypocrisy.

> They seem to work just fine without the complications you are
> experiencing.

Whatever complications he is experiencing are self inflicted, nothing to do
with the OS on his computer.

--
sid

[Savageduck]

On 2015-04-18 08:19:25 +0000, sid said:

> Savageduck wrote:
>
>> Naah! All you have to do is dump that Linux stuff and get yourself a

>> Mac or Windows machine. Perhaps just clean up what you have.

>> <https://db.tt/1ideLY1Y>
>
> If someone were to post a similar comment in relation to OSX to this group,
> it would be the start of a multi hundred post defence campaign led by you
> and nospam.

That would be pure nospam bait.

> Your anti linux bias is ridiculous.

Perhaps.

> As is, btw, your cross posting hypocrisy.

What X-posting hypocrisy would that be?

It was the OP, Don Phillpson, a Linux user with problems of his own
making who initiated the X-post. You might have noticed, this post of
mine which you chose to respond to was not X-posted. I doubt that the
OP even monitors rec.photo.digital.

Was I supposed to maintain his X-post, or not?

>> They seem to work just fine without the complications you are
>> experiencing.
>
> Whatever complications he is experiencing are self inflicted, nothing to do
> with the OS on his computer.

Maybe so. However, he seems to remain oblivious of that, regardless of
that being explained/demonstrated to him.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2015-04-18 08:19:25 +0000, sid said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>> Naah! All you have to do is dump that Linux stuff and get yourself a
>>> Mac or Windows machine. Perhaps just clean up what you have.
>>> <https://db.tt/1ideLY1Y>
>> If someone were to post a similar comment in relation to OSX to this group,
>> it would be the start of a multi hundred post defence campaign led by you
>> and nospam.
>
>That would be pure nospam bait.
>
>> Your anti linux bias is ridiculous.
>
>Perhaps.

Ignorant.

>> As is, btw, your cross posting hypocrisy.
>
>What X-posting hypocrisy would that be?

Look at what you did!

>It was the OP, Don Phillpson, a Linux user with problems of his own making who initiated the X-post. You might have
>noticed, this post of mine which you chose to respond to was not X-posted. I doubt that the OP even monitors
>rec.photo.digital.
>
>Was I supposed to maintain his X-post, or not?

What purpose is there in cutting the OP and the poster
you respond to out of the loop? You just wanted to post
a ridiculous rant to hear yourself talk?

>>> They seem to work just fine without the complications you are
>>> experiencing.
>> Whatever complications he is experiencing are self inflicted, nothing to do
>> with the OS on his computer.
>
>Maybe so. However, he seems to remain oblivious of that, regardless of that being explained/demonstrated to him.

Reminds me of you!

Lets put the other newsgroup back in, and let them enjoy
the hoot too.

[highlandham]

Floyd , Very nice and interesting Barrow-Alaska photo gallery ....thanks

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Thank you!

It just happens that all of it was processed to start
with on Linux systems, and in the end (like most web
sites) it is also hosted on a Linux system. And distributed
via the Internet on Linux too. :-)

All of that causes significant chagrin to certain of the
less technically astute fanbois on rec.photo.digital.

[Savageduck]

Now that you have entered this thread, perhaps you could add your
technical wisdom & sage advice to the mix, and provide the OP, Don
Phillipson a solution to his problem.
I will leave you to it as I am obviously just not your equal in these things.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Shadow]

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 01:16:00 +0000 (UTC), Don Phillipson
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:

>Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote in message mgf2r8$ue4$1...@dont-email.me
>
>> Provide a link to the one you're having trouble with

......

>1. Then, I tried to save the first picture by right clicking in Firefox
>and selecting "View Image", which brings me to this photobucket url:
>http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/Sm00th_j/media/IMG_8321.jpg.html
>
>2. I get a warning that I ignore about "Adobe Flash" because I have a blocker:
>"Allow s1099.photobucket.com to run Adobe Flash?"
>
>3. I right click on the picture in Firefox to select "Save image as":
>/tmp/IMG_8321.jpg

http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g385/Sm00th_j/IMG_8321.jpg

>
>4. I try to open the file by doubleclicking on it but I get the error:
>Could not load image IMG_8321.jpg
>Error interpreting JPEG image file
>(Not a JPEG file: starts with 0x3c 0x21)
>
>5. I run a checksum on that image:
>$ md5sum IMG_8321.jpg
>3bd1bbb33880e6f611aa7b6bb55290e5 IMG_8321.jpg

MD5: 8F037D4072542A088AAE249ED55432DA
SHA-1: 986D2D16BDA807B50059C654B1E4778B63BA7C8D

It's a jpg file. I don't allow adobe or scripting, rather
deduce the path by looking at the source code of the page.
CTRL-U in Firefox.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[Shadow]

And I just noticed the image has quite extensive EXIF info. I
would have thought the site would have stripped that by default to
prevent stalking and other nasty black-hat stuff.

[sid]

Savageduck wrote:

>> As is, btw, your cross posting hypocrisy.
>
> What X-posting hypocrisy would that be?
>
> It was the OP, Don Phillpson, a Linux user with problems of his own
> making who initiated the X-post. You might have noticed, this post of
> mine which you chose to respond to was not X-posted. I doubt that the
> OP even monitors rec.photo.digital.
>
> Was I supposed to maintain his X-post, or not?

I'll leave the answer to that as an exercise for your own memory seeing as I
can't find the post where you called me an asshole for doing what you have
done here.

--
sid

[Sandman]

In article <2189177.q...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid wrote:

> > > sid:

> > > As is, btw, your cross posting hypocrisy.
> >

> > Savageduck:

> > What X-posting hypocrisy would that be?
>
> > It was the OP, Don Phillpson, a Linux user with problems of his
> > own making who initiated the X-post. You might have noticed, this
> > post of mine which you chose to respond to was not X-posted. I
> > doubt that the OP even monitors rec.photo.digital.
>
> > Was I supposed to maintain his X-post, or not?
>
> I'll leave the answer to that as an exercise for your own memory
> seeing as I can't find the post where you called me an asshole for
> doing what you have done here.

Then you should retract your statement. But we know you will never do that.

Here is the post you're in reference to, however:

Savageduck
Re: Playing with LR5
11/17/2013 <2013111710143352786-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>

"Do you always fuck with followups in the headers, or do you
just want all of us to easily ID you as an asshole?"

Almost two years ago, must have burnt you really bad.

But that was in response to you setting the follow-up of your post to something
invalid, not a remark of you removing a group from the cross post.

Ironic.

--
Sandman

[Sandman]

In article <87r3rh7...@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> > highlandham:

> > Floyd , Very nice and interesting Barrow-Alaska photo gallery
> > ....thanks
>
> Thank you!

> It just happens that all of it was processed to start with on Linux
> systems, and in the end (like most web sites) it is also hosted on a
> Linux system. And distributed via the Internet on Linux too. :-)

> All of that causes significant chagrin to certain of the less
> technically astute fanbois on rec.photo.digital.

Of course not. Your photos aren't bad because they are processed with Linux,
they're bad because you're not a very good photographer. We couldn't care less
about what post processing tools you use. We do expose your mind-numbing
ignorance when you make comments about modern tools you have never used, and
can't use.

--
Sandman

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Any of the other less than astute want to get in line with Sandman?

[PeterN]

Who is we. Don't you dare speak for me, troll.

EOD

--
PeterN

[Sandman]

In article <mh2s5...@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN wrote:

> > > > highlandham:
> > > > Floyd , Very nice and interesting Barrow-Alaska
> > > > photo gallery ....thanks
> > >

> > > Floyd L. Davidson:

> > > Thank you!
> >
> > > It just happens that all of it was processed to start with on
> > > Linux systems, and in the end (like most web sites) it is also
> > > hosted on a Linux system. And distributed via the Internet on
> > > Linux too. :-)
> >
> > > All of that causes significant chagrin to certain of the less
> > > technically astute fanbois on rec.photo.digital.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Of course not. Your photos aren't bad because they are processed
> > with Linux, they're bad because you're not a very good
> > photographer. We couldn't care less about what post processing
> > tools you use. We do expose your mind-numbing ignorance when you
> > make comments about modern tools you have never used, and can't
> > use.
>
> Who is we.

The ones that keep correcting Floyd's misinformation.

> Don't you dare speak for me

You have yet to correct any misinformation in this group, least of all your own.

--
Sandman

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Projection. Most people when they take it upon
themselves to try making up insults have no knowledge of
the person they want to insult, and end up projecting
their own characteristics on the target.

Almost everyone here does better photography and posts
less misinformation than Sandman. And few bother trying
to correct the vast majority of his trash.

It's fun to poke him with sharp stick now and then though!

Go ahead Jonas, tell is we misunderstood because we just
don't know English well enough...

[Sandman]

In article <87oamij...@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > You have yet to correct any misinformation in this group, least of
> > all your own.
>
> Projection. Most people when they take it upon themselves to try
> making up insults have no knowledge of the person they want to
> insult, and end up projecting their own characteristics on the
> target.

No insult intended, my apologies if you were insulted.

> Almost everyone here does better photography and posts less
> misinformation than Sandman. And few bother trying to correct the
> vast majority of his trash.

See what I mean? It's hilarious to see the trolls talk about projection and then
post bullshit like this :-D



--
Sandman

[Tony Cooper]

I've seen the "lows" in this group, but Sandman's post has set a new
low. To say that Floyd is not a very good photographer is rude,
ignorant, and demonstrates an abysmal lack of understanding of what is
good photography.

Floyd is as scratchy as woolen underwear, and some of his technical
comments are certainly debatable, but to impugn his photographic
ability is completely undeserved.

I invite anyone to review the images at: http://www.apaflo.com/ and
find the work of a "not very good photographer".

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Well that one knocked me over. Thank you!

[sid]

Sandman wrote:

> In article <2189177.q...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid wrote:
>
>> > > sid:
>> > > As is, btw, your cross posting hypocrisy.
>> >
>> > Savageduck:
>> > What X-posting hypocrisy would that be?
>>
>> > It was the OP, Don Phillpson, a Linux user with problems of his
>> > own making who initiated the X-post. You might have noticed, this
>> > post of mine which you chose to respond to was not X-posted. I
>> > doubt that the OP even monitors rec.photo.digital.
>>
>> > Was I supposed to maintain his X-post, or not?
>>
>> I'll leave the answer to that as an exercise for your own memory
>> seeing as I can't find the post where you called me an asshole for
>> doing what you have done here.
>
> Then you should retract your statement.

No I shouldn't, if he argues that cross posting is good and should not be
messed around with and then does exactly that, it is hypocritical.

> But we know you will never do
> that.

Who is this we you are talking about, are you the representative of some
larger group that just yourself now?

> Here is the post you're in reference to, however:
>
> Savageduck
> Re: Playing with LR5
> 11/17/2013 <2013111710143352786-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>
>
> "Do you always fuck with followups in the headers, or do you
> just want all of us to easily ID you as an asshole?"
>
> Almost two years ago, must have burnt you really bad.
>
> But that was in response to you setting the follow-up of your post to
> something invalid, not a remark of you removing a group from the cross
> post.

Regardless of how you, in your strange Swedish fashion, interpret that
conversation, and a conversation is more than just one post, the bottom line
is that Savageduck argued for cross posting and maintaining his cross post
and then later on did the opposite.

> Ironic.

You *still* don't understand when to use that word.

And, anyway, why *are* you sticking your oar in here if not to try and
provoke another of your ridiculous misunderstanding English threads?
Rhetorical, if you were wondering.

--
sid

[Sandman]

In article <1621996.h...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid wrote:

> > > > > sid:
> > > > > As is, btw, your cross posting hypocrisy.
> > > >
> > > > Savageduck:
> > > > What X-posting hypocrisy would that be?
> > >
> > > > It was the OP, Don Phillpson, a Linux user with problems of
> > > > his own making who initiated the X-post. You might have
> > > > noticed, this post of mine which you chose to respond to was
> > > > not X-posted. I doubt that the OP even monitors
> > > > rec.photo.digital.
> > >
> > > > Was I supposed to maintain his X-post, or not?
> > >

> > > sid:

> > > I'll leave the answer to that as an exercise for your own memory
> > > seeing as I can't find the post where you called me an asshole
> > > for doing what you have done here.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Then you should retract your statement.
>
> No I shouldn't, if he argues that cross posting is good and should
> not be messed around with and then does exactly that, it is
> hypocritical.

That's your "if" that is yet to be substantiated, and since you can't and won't
substantiate it, you should retract it.

> > Sandman:

> > Here is the post you're in reference to, however:
>
> > Savageduck Re: Playing with LR5 11/17/2013
> > <2013111710143352786-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>
>
> > "Do you always fuck with followups in the headers, or do you just
> > want all of us to easily ID you as an asshole?"
>
> > Almost two years ago, must have burnt you really bad.
>
> > But that was in response to you setting the follow-up of your post
> > to something invalid, not a remark of you removing a group from
> > the cross post.
>
> Regardless of how you, in your strange Swedish fashion, interpret
> that conversation, and a conversation is more than just one post,
> the bottom line is that Savageduck argued for cross posting and
> maintaining his cross post and then later on did the opposite.

So we have:

1. Savageduck complained about an invalid follow-up you set
2. Savageduck removing crossposting from his followup

And then we have Sid that concludes that this is "hypocrisy" on Savageduck's
part. Hilarious.

> > Sandman:

> > Ironic.
>
> You *still* don't understand when to use that word.

Of course I do. I find it very ironic that you're all high and mighty and you
can't support your claim and when I bring up the information, it shows nothing
of what you said it would.

> And, anyway, why *are* you sticking your oar in here if not to try
> and provoke another of your ridiculous misunderstanding English
> threads? Rhetorical, if you were wondering.

I am, as usual, pointing out misinformation on your part, Sid. You do it a lot,
so here I am. :)

--
Sandman

[Sandman]

In article <8e0ajappi5qnr1gr1...@4ax.com>, Andreas Skitsnack

wrote:

> > > > > highlandham:
> > > > > Floyd , Very nice and interesting Barrow-Alaska
> > > > > photo gallery ....thanks
> > > >

> > > > Floyd L. Davidson:

> > > > Thank you!
> > >
> > > > It just happens that all of it was processed to start with on
> > > > Linux systems, and in the end (like most web sites) it is also
> > > > hosted on a Linux system. And distributed via the Internet on
> > > > Linux too. :-)
> > >
> > > > All of that causes significant chagrin to certain of the less
> > > > technically astute fanbois on rec.photo.digital.
> > >

> > > Sandman:

> > > Of course not. Your photos aren't bad because they are processed
> > > with Linux, they're bad because you're not a very good
> > > photographer. We couldn't care less about what post processing
> > > tools you use. We do expose your mind-numbing ignorance when you
> > > make comments about modern tools you have never used, and can't
> > > use.
> >

> > Floyd L. Davidson:

> > Any of the other less than astute want to get in line with
> > Sandman?
>
> I've seen the "lows" in this group, but Sandman's post has set a new
> low. To say that Floyd is not a very good photographer is rude,
> ignorant, and demonstrates an abysmal lack of understanding of what
> is good photography.

Haha!

> Floyd is as scratchy as woolen underwear, and some of his technical
> comments are certainly debatable, but to impugn his photographic
> ability is completely undeserved.

How so? It's not like he hasn't done that himself a million times. He's an
asshole that knows next to nothing about photography, but the point was that
it's not due to him using Linux.

> I invite anyone to review the images at: http://www.apaflo.com/ and
> find the work of a "not very good photographer".

Uh, yeah, I already did that, remember? It was even as a response to you. I
linked to some of his photos which had been really poorly shot and really
poorly post-processed. The photos I "picked" were just the first ones I picked
at random, not going through his site to try to find bad ones.

His reply? Well, that they are were really good photographs, calling them "Nice
shot!" as some form of self-encouragement. Of course, in the end I didn't
"understand" the photos and in what supposed way they were great, which had me
chuckling for a while.

Here are his words about his really poor photographs:

"Nice shot!"

"A pretty nice photograph!"

"It is a very good photography [sic]"

Never seen anyone self-promote his own poorly shot and processed images in such
a fashion.


Oh, and if you're wondering why I would complain "unprovoked" about his images,
well there is Floyd's general idiocy and ignorance to account for, as well as
him being a huge asshole that can't post a single post without an insult. As
you are well aware, the post I replied to was about a group of people I belong
to (according to him) so it wasn't unprovoked.

And also, he is treated the way he treats others, simple logic. He has on
occasion - and totally unprovoked by anyone - called photos shitty or bad
without justifying it. It's not like he "deserves" to be treated in any
particular fashion, he spent all the money in that account years ago.

--
Sandman

[sid]

Sandman wrote:

> In article <1621996.h...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid wrote:
>
>> > > > > sid:
>> > > > > As is, btw, your cross posting hypocrisy.
>> > > >
>> > > > Savageduck:
>> > > > What X-posting hypocrisy would that be?
>> > >
>> > > > It was the OP, Don Phillpson, a Linux user with problems of
>> > > > his own making who initiated the X-post. You might have
>> > > > noticed, this post of mine which you chose to respond to was
>> > > > not X-posted. I doubt that the OP even monitors
>> > > > rec.photo.digital.
>> > >
>> > > > Was I supposed to maintain his X-post, or not?
>> > >
>> > > sid:
>> > > I'll leave the answer to that as an exercise for your own memory
>> > > seeing as I can't find the post where you called me an asshole
>> > > for doing what you have done here.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > Then you should retract your statement.
>>
>> No I shouldn't, if he argues that cross posting is good and should
>> not be messed around with and then does exactly that, it is
>> hypocritical.
>
> That's your "if" that is yet to be substantiated, and since you can't and
> won't substantiate it, you should retract it.

Slow day at the office today trollboy? If the poster that I directed my
first post in this thread to wants to discuss it further I will be pleased
to do so with him, however I have no desire to spend any more time arguing
with a troll that refuses to even read the discussion he purports to be in
reference to.

Ta ta.


--
sid

[Savageduck]

On 2015-04-21 10:09:42 +0000, sid said:

> Slow day at the office today trollboy? If the poster that I directed my
> first post in this thread to wants to discuss it further I will be pleased
> to do so with him, however I have no desire to spend any more time arguing
> with a troll that refuses to even read the discussion he purports to be in
> reference to.
>
> Ta ta.

While I appreciate Jonas' support in this, I see little point by
engaging in an endless flamewar cycle.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Sandman]

In article <2770251.T...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid wrote:

> > > > > > > sid:
> > > > > > > As is, btw, your cross posting hypocrisy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Savageduck:
> > > > > > What X-posting hypocrisy would that be?
> > > > >
> > > > > > It was the OP, Don Phillpson, a Linux user with problems
> > > > > > of his own making who initiated the X-post. You might have
> > > > > > noticed, this post of mine which you chose to respond to
> > > > > > was not X-posted. I doubt that the OP even monitors
> > > > > > rec.photo.digital.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Was I supposed to maintain his X-post, or not?
> > > > >
> > > > > sid:
> > > > > I'll leave the answer to that as an exercise for your
> > > > > own memory seeing as I can't find the post where you called
> > > > > me an asshole for doing what you have done here.
> > > >
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Then you should retract your statement.
> > >

> > > sid:

> > > No I shouldn't, if he argues that cross posting is good and
> > > should not be messed around with and then does exactly that, it
> > > is hypocritical.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > That's your "if" that is yet to be substantiated, and since you
> > can't and won't substantiate it, you should retract it.
>
> Slow day at the office today trollboy? If the poster that I directed
> my first post in this thread to wants to discuss it further I will
> be pleased to do so with him, however I have no desire to spend any
> more time arguing with a troll that refuses to even read the
> discussion he purports to be in reference to.

> Ta ta.

"Discuss" something with you, Sid? Haha, that's a funny one!

--
Sandman

[Tony Cooper]

On 21 Apr 2015 09:23:42 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:


>> Floyd is as scratchy as woolen underwear, and some of his technical
>> comments are certainly debatable, but to impugn his photographic
>> ability is completely undeserved.
>
>How so? It's not like he hasn't done that himself a million times. He's an
>asshole that knows next to nothing about photography, but the point was that
>it's not due to him using Linux.
>
>> I invite anyone to review the images at: http://www.apaflo.com/ and
>> find the work of a "not very good photographer".
>
>Uh, yeah, I already did that, remember? It was even as a response to you. I
>linked to some of his photos which had been really poorly shot and really
>poorly post-processed. The photos I "picked" were just the first ones I picked
>at random, not going through his site to try to find bad ones.

You can look at anyone's portfolio of shots and find some you don't
like. What you don't like, though, is not necessarily an indication
of bad photography. It's an indication of a style to which you don't
subscribe. Also, it can be a result of a predisposition to find
fault. That, I think, factors in greatly in this case.

"Poorly post-processed" is very subjective. Again, it's more a matter
of liking the style or not.

>His reply? Well, that they are were really good photographs, calling them "Nice
>shot!" as some form of self-encouragement. Of course, in the end I didn't
>"understand" the photos and in what supposed way they were great, which had me
>chuckling for a while.

Of course he would. You would defend a criticized effort of yours.
You had something in mind when you shot the image, and something in
mind when you did the post. What you had in mind might not come
across to the viewer.

Your comment was rude, boorish, and undeserved. If you want to
continue the tit for tat game and question his technical expertise,
that's up to you. But, to claim he's not a good photographer exposes
your inadequacies, not his.

[Sandman]

In article <tnmdja529ueiev2hi...@4ax.com>, Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

> > > Andreas Skitsnack:

> > > Floyd is as scratchy as woolen underwear, and some of his
> > > technical comments are certainly debatable, but to impugn his
> > > photographic ability is completely undeserved.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > How so? It's not like he hasn't done that himself a million times.
> > He's an asshole that knows next to nothing about photography, but
> > the point was that it's not due to him using Linux.
>

> > > Andreas Skitsnack:

> > > I invite anyone to review the images at: http://www.apaflo.com/
> > > and find the work of a "not very good photographer".
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Uh, yeah, I already did that, remember? It was even as a response
> > to you. I linked to some of his photos which had been really
> > poorly shot and really poorly post-processed. The photos I
> > "picked" were just the first ones I picked at random, not going
> > through his site to try to find bad ones.
>
> You can look at anyone's portfolio of shots and find some you don't
> like.

With Floyd, I didn't, as I just wrote above. I didn't "find" photos. I took
random photos from several galleries. Not cherry-picking bad ones. In fact,
when randomly choosing galleries, I was totally unable to find one good photo.

> What you don't like, though, is not necessarily an indication
> of bad photography.

This isn't about what I "like". I was in reference to particular photos that
was poorly shot and poorly post-processed. Again, like I said above. I didn't
go there and found photos which I personally disliked.

> It's an indication of a style to which you
> don't subscribe.

No, this isn't about "style". It's about not being able to handle the equipment
and the post processing of photographs.

> Also, it can be a result of a predisposition to
> find fault. That, I think, factors in greatly in this case.

At the time, I wasn't trying to find fault. I was questioning your apparent
admiration of his photos, and I picked some photos at random and asked you just
what about them you thought were so great, I was unable to find something great
with them.

> "Poorly post-processed" is very subjective. Again, it's more a
> matter of liking the style or not.

No, not in this case, where the post-processing was shoddily executed on a
technical level, where blurring and sharpening had been used inappropriately
and in a sub-standard way.

> > Sandman:

> > His reply? Well, that they are were really good photographs,
> > calling them "Nice shot!" as some form of self-encouragement. Of
> > course, in the end I didn't "understand" the photos and in what
> > supposed way they were great, which had me chuckling for a while.
>
> Of course he would. You would defend a criticized effort of yours.

Haha, no I wouldn't. If I were to post photos I've taken and someone were to
claim they are bad, I wouldn't go "Nah, they're great photos!" as a response. I
leave that to people like Floyd who seems to think he's a master photographer.

> You had something in mind when you shot the image, and something in
> mind when you did the post. What you had in mind might not come
> across to the viewer.

What Floyd supposedly had "in mind" is of no relevancy here, I am in reference
to a lot of his photos not being very good on a technical viewpoint, and a
post-processing viewpoint.

> Your comment was rude, boorish, and undeserved.

It was neither of those things.

> If you want to
> continue the tit for tat game and question his technical expertise,
> that's up to you. But, to claim he's not a good photographer
> exposes your inadequacies, not his.

Keep telling yourself that.

Remember, I responded to a post where he called me (and nospam) "less
technically astute fanboy" and I responded in kind, where I just let him know
that we're not complaining about his photographs because he uses Linux, but
because he's not a very good photographer.

Sure, the reason why his post processing is so bad might be due to him using
Linux, but I'm sure a proficient photographer could use Linux and post-process
photos a lot better than he does.

--
Sandman

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

Op 22-04-15 om 07:53 schreef Sandman:

So refreshing to see that bitching and trolling is not reserved to the
Linux users (or haters) :)

[Savageduck]

We run equal opportunity flame wars in the photo groups. Name your
battle ground, from image processing software, to camera manufacturers
& camera type, to HDR, to B&W vs. color, to subject choice, image
sharing services, etc. Then there is the issue of favored OS, all of
the usual suspects are to be found here in the photo groups Win, OSX,
and the Linux flavor of the day.

...and strangely enough, each one of us is burdened with our personal
biases, and prejudices deeply imbedded to justify our positions.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Sandman is just jealous.

[Sandman]

In article <87sibrh...@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


> > Dirk T. Verbeek:

> > So refreshing to see that bitching and trolling is not reserved to
> > the Linux users (or haters) :)
>
> Sandman is just jealous.

That literally had me laughing out loud! Just the idea that you would even
entertain the idea that anyone would be "jealous" of... *you*? Hahaha!

--
Sandman

[Floyd L. Davidson]

It's an English word you don't seem to understand, yet.
Ask Tony about it (or actually any native English
speaker that works with words). But to really get the
gist of it, next time the psychiatrist has a chat with
you, ask about how it manifests...

And rest assured that you've "literally had" everyone
laughing.

[Sandman]

In article <87k2x3g...@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> > > > Dirk T. Verbeek:
> > > > So refreshing to see that bitching and
> > > > trolling is not reserved to the Linux users (or haters) :)
> > >

> > > Floyd L. Davidson:
> > > Sandman is just jealous.
> >
> > Sandman:

> > That literally had me laughing out loud! Just the idea that you
> > would even entertain the idea that anyone would be "jealous" of...
> > *you*? Hahaha!
>
> It's an English word you don't seem to understand, yet. Ask Tony
> about it (or actually any native English speaker that works with
> words). But to really get the gist of it, next time the
> psychiatrist has a chat with you, ask about how it manifests...

> And rest assured that you've "literally had" everyone laughing.

You're like a duracell bunny stuck running face-first in to a concrete wall over
and over again. Never stop, Floyd! You're the reason why this group is so
entertaining!

--
Sandman