 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / August 2007Images, Photographs or pictures?
Yesterday I overheard someone describe the items they were selling (framed pictures with poems superimposed) as "Images". I have always considered an "Image" as the facsimile of a 3D scene which you see when you look at a computer monitor and a Photograph as a positive print of a scene. A picture as a rather loose description of anything resembling - well, a picture. As photography becomes more closely entwined with binary data files, I thought a discussion as to the correct descriptions for the pictures we take might be timely. Many people posting to the "photo" groups have claimed in recent times to have "seen" my photos. Presuming "photos" is an abbreviation of Photograph, they have not. All they've seen is 640 pixel wide images and these as we all know, can look vastly different from one monitor to another. Is there any interest in this matter? JA > Yesterday I overheard someone describe the items they were selling > (framed pictures with poems superimposed) as "Images". I have always > considered an "Image" as the facsimile of a 3D scene which you see > when you look at a computer monitor and a Photograph as a positive > print of a scene. A picture as a rather loose description of anything > resembling - well, a picture. Do you, Doug? That's nice. May I recommend a dictionary? > As photography becomes more closely entwined with binary data files, I > thought a discussion as to the correct descriptions for the pictures > we take might be timely. Good for you. > Many people posting to the "photo" groups have claimed in recent times > to have "seen" my photos. Presuming "photos" is an abbreviation of > Photograph, they have not. I'll wager they have according to the OED's definition of "photograph". > All they've seen is 640 pixel wide images > and these as we all know, can look vastly different from one monitor > to another. Is there any interest in this matter? Not really, Doug. > Many people posting to the "photo" groups have claimed in recent times > to have "seen" my photos.... > Is there any interest in this matter? Forgive me for stating the obvious - it is up to the *vendor* to display their chosen work in the best way possible, assuming a reasonably calibrated screen. No rocket science there. If they fail to do so, they wear the consequences. And if they screw up and don't improve and/or don't listen, they will gain a richly deserved reputation. Sound familiar? So in essence, if the stuff you post doesn't represent your work, then wtf did you post it for? I was going to point to a classic image, here at: http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm ..to show an example of someone who doesn't have a decent screen and can't see the mess they are making - but of course, it's been pulled. (o; - but the irony is lost on Doug, methinks..) So, yep, apart from all that, I'm with Richard. No interest. (O; > I was going to point to a classic image, here at: > http://www.ryadia.com/POD/June/2-06-07.htm > ..to show an example of someone who doesn't have a decent screen and > can't see the mess they are making - but of course, it's been pulled. > (o; - but the irony is lost on Doug, methinks..) You've lost the plot (AGAIN). Or did you never understand it in the first place? Maybe you just thought you'd do a little "Doug bashing" for your own amusement? I'll save you the trouble. The image is still on the site, just archived with the rest for the 2 month period... DUH! Compressing a 32 megabyte image down to a 720 pixel wide will often cause clear steps in graduated areas of an image. Nothing to do with monitors... But you'd never comprehend that, would you? I believe you'd rather bash up on the image poster before admitting that old CRT screen of yours is no match for basic (much less decent) LCD screens like we use. Just like the idiot you made out of yourself last night trying to score a few points against me with the calendars... I guess you also lied when you said you once worked at ASIC. Otherwise you'd have discovered the truth about all those lies you posted about me but then... That's just your style, isn't it? http://www.ryadia.com/POD/July/31-07-07.htm BTW. The Picture For The Day (POD) project is still going strong. Sorry to disappoint you and your sheep, you had no success in getting rid of me there either. Doug > <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Doug ------------------ Just as an after thought... Have you ever bothered to read the index to Photo Of The Day Mark? Clear instructions in English are there... Every two months the images will be archived. If you intend to take me on, at least get it right or you'll continue to make a fool out of yourself while providing more evidence of your stalking. http://www.ryadia.com/POD/index.htm Off topic. On Jul 31, 8:58 am, parallel.dream...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, who is this now? > Just as an after thought... Have you ever bothered to read the index > to Photo Of The Day Mark? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to make a fool out of yourself while providing more evidence of your > stalking.http://www.ryadia.com/POD/index.htm So post a simple link to the image I mentioned above. Read my lips, you moron - you CHANGED THE LINK, so anyone reading the old threads won't see the evidence of your incompetence. And then I notice that when you 're-archived' them, you also managed to largely fix the posterisation problem (bravo!) -- but I don't understand, you said there wasn't any...(funny how it was worth altering later). What a slimeball. Would you like me to post the before and after shots? - for sarcasm, natch.. By the way, I can't help but note that you are still batting ZERO for supporters (well deserved effort), you now admit that none of your calendars can be found anywhere, and of course you lied about your photo of the day discontinuance as Willa pointed out. The smell remains. > By the way, I can't help but note that you are still batting ZERO for > supporters (well deserved effort), you now admit that none of your > calendars can be found anywhere, and of course you lied about your > photo of the day discontinuance as Willa pointed out. The smell > remains. There's the difference. You seek support, I don't need any. > BTW. The Picture For The Day (POD) project is still going > strong. Sorry to disappoint you and your sheep, you had no > success in getting rid of me there either. > > Doug As I recall, you packed up your POS, oops, "POD" (more properly, per Douggie himself, it should be PFTD... where'd the "O" come from??), project yourself. Of course, you blamed your various, self-inflicted enemies for ending your project. And I quote: >>My Photo For The day [sic] started on 22nd May. >>It will end on 22 [sic] June. One month. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >>Douglas Quoting Douggie leaves me sic [sic] to my stomach. Please note, 1-for-2 on proper use of "it's/its" in the quote above, pretty good score for Douggie. Please also note the "death wish" to all who "bullied" him. Scoring off the chart in "Irony", not so well in "Sanity". Please stay tuned for the swimsuit competition! Willa  Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/willarojo “I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.” Thoreau, Civil Disobedience “We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.” Thoreau, Walden ****** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder > > BTW. The Picture For The Day (POD) project is still going > > strong. Sorry to disappoint you and your sheep, you had no [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Actually your reading and comprehension skills match your social skills Willa. Where in that message did it say I would not continue my project off the groups? The difference between you and me Willa is more than cultural. One day when you have no choice but to continue with something you start - regardless of the personal or financial cost, you'll discover (or not as the case may be) that starting anything you don't have the fortitude to keep going is a really bad idea. Regardless of how good or bad your 10D photos are/were. You should look closely at why on earth you thought you could keep up with a picture every day in the first place. If I gave up just because a few anal retentive idiots thought I was a dud photographer, I'd never be in business and never have reached the finals of the "Small Business Achiever's awards". I recognize some of my daily images are less than stellar but the important point is that I remain true to myself and stick with the plan. The seeds I sow in the minds of others provide me with feedback on what other photographers expect a picture to be. Last year I discovered more about why people buy my calendars than the sheep will ever know. I discovered the pictures I liked best - which proved for the rest of the year to be significant sellers as large canvas wall prints, were the very ones the sheep passed negative comments about. The only time I have an issue with anything anyone says is when it a personal comment. No one in these groups has ever met me, ever dined with me or ever been a client of mine. Because of this, none of you have any right to make personal and often insulting remarks about me or my business interests. When you do, I'll pay out on you in retaliation. So why don't you end your personal insults now and we'll get along? Keep them going and you'll just end up a nasty fool following in the footsteps of mongrels like the couple who are doing their best to destroy what they came to enjoy. > If I gave up just because a few > anal retentive idiots thought I was a dud photographer, I'd never be > in business and never have reached the finals of the "Small Business > Achiever's awards". Look, he's D-Mac ... no wait, he's Julian, again! Sanity takes a holiday. We can all agree that you should get an award for being a Small Achiever. Also, you've proven to be the biggest liar on Usenet so maybe you should get an award for that as well. > I recognize some of my daily images are less than stellar but the > important point is that I remain true to myself and stick with the > plan. "Less than Stellar" .... that should be your next screen name. It's about the only truthful thing you've said this week. You first said you were going to take and post a photo every day. Then you started posting archived images. Then you said you were going to quit the POTD and had some death wishes for all your "bullies." Now you say the POTD is still going strong. Hell, D-Mac, you can't even keep up with your own lies. > Actually your reading and comprehension skills match your social > skills Willa. > Where in that message did it say I would not continue my project off > the groups? Hang on, I'm confused - a while back whenever someone responded to a Julian post by calling you "doug" you'd respond by saying that you are Julian and not Doug. Now you are talking about continuing the picture of the day project (which was doug's project) as if it were your own - implying that indeed Doug and Julian are one and the same. You've posted recently about Bret attempting to hack into your ebay account - so did he try to do it to both Doug and Julian, or just Doug, and you forgot you were posting as Julian when you said it? > The only time I have an issue with anything anyone says is when it a > personal comment. No one in these groups has ever met me, ever dined > with me or ever been a client of mine. Because of this, none of you > have any right to make personal and often insulting remarks about me > or my business interests. When you do, I'll pay out on you in > retaliation. Then I suggest you follow your own advice about personal insults. I've followed a lot of these threads where you start mudslinging, and it is _always_ you that is the first to start the personal insults. You've made personal insults and racist remarks against numerous posters here, when all they've done is criticised some of your photography. If indeed your real life persona is different to your online persona then good for you - I hope it bloody well is, because your online persona is that of a crazed, demented, malicious, lieing, psychotic, self-absorbed, delusional, paranoid, dickhead. The Australian vernacular term is "cockhead" or "w.nker". If I had to associate with your online persona in real life I would probably find it hard to not thump you. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your real life persona is something different. I suspect that what you have written above which indicates that your real-life personality is different, is true. I have noticed some of your posts, when your not trying to push your barrow of persecution by mark & bret, and you sometimes do have some sensible things to say. I am assuming that this is some of the real-life doug showing through. > So why don't you end your personal insults now and we'll get along? Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt - and assume that all the crap that you post is just your online persona, so if I ever attack you, I'm attacking "Doug", "Julian", "Dmac", ".." or whatever else you type in here, I'm not attacking Mr Douglas J MacDonald. > Keep them going and you'll just end up a nasty fool following in the > footsteps of mongrels like the couple who are doing their best to > destroy what they came to enjoy. Whether they are justified in what they are doing, I cannot say. What I can say though is that in this ongoing fight, is that you are the one who is looking more like a "nasty fool". If they are indeed "mongrels", then your use of the term is indicates the best way to handle them. I'm sure you'd be aware that when dealing with a mongrel dog, providing reward for negative behaviour will only make the dog behave worse. You say you are the bigger person, well put your typing where your mouth is - I challenge you to leave alone any posts made by markt or annika, and not make any posts of your own commenting about them. When one of them says your photo sucks, I challenge you to ignore their comment and not arc up at it. I challenge you to not make posts saying how you are commencing legal challenges etc. See if you can do it dmac - see if you can become an honourable contributor to rpe35. If what you imply above is true - that your real life persona is a good bloke - then you should find that becoming an online good bloke is relatively easy. > > Actually your reading and comprehension skills match your social > > skills Willa. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Some how, Doug (God that sounds stupid) I agree with you. Right up to point where I imagine that absolute swine of a person - Bret Douglas, getting away with the damage he's done and that is simply not going to happen. Even today, he has created site number 3 or 4 using my photos and in a email last week, refused point blank to end it all by deleting my images from all his storage devices and agreeing not to attempt the same stunts again. From where I sit, that's a declaration of war from the arsehole who started it. It's only going downhill from here for this group Doug. Maybe from the ashes left after he's finished, someone might recover the group but make no bones about it, he's the one responsible for starting it. I'm just the last in a long line and the only one who refused to take his crap. Others have tried to reason with him and failed. He's just a childish and very stupid idiot. If you think for a single moment he's going to get off Scot free, you don't understand the nature of business and why he can't be allowed to get away with it. Read it all on http://www.annika1980.com and when you've finished, consider his photography might look OK on your monitor but when it comes to shooting real people, he's a rank loser. http://geocities.com/bret_douglas/ Doug > Maybe from the ashes left after he's > finished, someone might recover the group but make no bones about it, > he's the one responsible for starting it. "But Mommy, he started it !!!" I'm also the only one with the power to end it. Sucks to be you, D-Mac. > consider his photography might look OK on > your monitor but when it comes to shooting real people, he's a rank > loser. I can only hope to be as great as you someday so I can take awesome people shots like these: http://www.pbase.com/figgy/image/82617070 http://www.pbase.com/figgy/image/82617069 http://www.pbase.com/figgy/image/82600455 http://www.pbase.com/figgy/image/82617072 >> Maybe from the ashes left after he's >> finished, someone might recover the group but make no bones about it, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm also the only one with the power to end it. > Sucks to be you, D-Mac. Brett, to be blunt, you D-Mac & Mark are like 3 drunks having a pissing contest, you all think you are pissing higher than the others, but really all that's happening is the 3 of you are getting covered in piss. Lets get back to photography - the 3 of you have posted some very good photos (yes even D-Mac), and the 3 of you have all posted some shockers (yes even you). I challenged D-Mac to be mature about it, I'm going to challenge you too - ignore the crap. > Brett, to be blunt, you D-Mac & Mark are like 3 drunks having a pissing > contest, you all think you are pissing higher than the others, but really [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > even you). I challenged D-Mac to be mature about it, I'm going to challenge > you too - ignore the crap. How about a better solution? Since us 3 drunks seem to like the crap, why don't you, John, and anybody else who doesn't want to read it simply ignore those threads? It seems that you yourself had a long reply to Doug-Julian just a few posts up. >> Brett, to be blunt, you D-Mac & Mark are like 3 drunks having a pissing >> contest, you all think you are pissing higher than the others, but really [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > simply ignore those threads? It seems that you yourself had a long > reply to Doug-Julian just a few posts up. Of course you all like it a lot; it's part of your individual psyches. But I wonder if any of you can think beyond yourselves (and me, whoever) and think what it does to the NG as a whole. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > Of course you all like it a lot; it's part of your individual psyches. > > But I wonder if any of you can think beyond yourselves (and me, whoever) > and think what it does to the NG as a whole. This NG as a whole has been dead for some time. Don't blame me and D- Mac for that. I play with D-Mac like a cat toys with string ... it's just entertainment to me. And now I'll let you in on the real secret .... it is just entertainment to him, too. He's been trolling all of you for years. You don't really believe all that crap he writes, do ya? For all you know, D-Mac, Mark T, and myself are all really pals having a good laugh ("getting into you") at your expense. You've just been bitching about the latest act in an online play. Now think about that one for a minute. Then you will know .... WHO RULES ??? >> Brett, to be blunt, you D-Mac & Mark are like 3 drunks having a pissing >> contest, you all think you are pissing higher than the others, but really [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > simply ignore those threads? It seems that you yourself had a long > reply to Doug-Julian just a few posts up. I'm not keen to just kill-file you all, because hidden amongst the crap, you all do have positive contributions to the group. But threads that start out harmless get turned into crap, and (less frequently) sometimes a thread that has turned to crap turns back into a meaninful thread. Yes I had a long reply to Ju-doug-lian, and had some harsh words to him - harsher than what I threw at you. I wasn't going to get involved in this tiff, but decided to when I thought about how the tiff has changed over the last few months. There was a time when these threads were humerous, the to-ing and fro-ing was quite comical, but now it has got beyond that. There was a time when it seemed d-mac was just a plain idiot, and you were exposing him, but now it seems that you have been dragged down almost to his level. There was a time when I thought you were doing the right thing with the way you were demonstrating his photos etc to be poor, now I think his term of "internet bully" might actually apply. Don't misinterpret me, in no way am I "taking d-mac's side" so to speak, but I'm no longer taking yours either. That probably doesn't bother you, but you frequently comment that no-one supports d-mac - well now there is one less supporting you too. Keep this vendetta up against d-mac and you will find that no-one supports you. I don't particularly want to see you become the village idiot of rpe35, because you do post (mostly) good photographs, often touched with good humour. Anyway, I'm signing out of the _argument_. >>> Brett, to be blunt, you D-Mac & Mark are like 3 drunks having a pissing >>> contest, you all think you are pissing higher than the others, but [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > humour. > Anyway, I'm signing out of the _argument_. Hey! - You guys should label these threads, "On topic", so I won't be suckered into reading them....I thought this was a political post until I had finished reading it..... > On Jul 31, 10:39 am, Willarojo <macropho...@SPAMyahooLESS.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > following in the footsteps of mongrels like the couple who are > doing their best to destroy what they came to enjoy. And where in my reply did I suggest you might not have continued it off-net? I was just thankful you had stopped, oh so briefly, posting lame pics. Granted, some were interesting--again, the printer cartridge pic as an example--but many were blah. By its nature, a POD project is likely to include many dogs, nothing wrong with that, but you continue to pretend that you cannot shoot lame pics. And I pointed out that I too have continued shooting, though not every day, since I stopped posting. Posting led to some good conversations, but also distracted me from shooting & editing. I still post, thoug not daily, at my PBase site. I'll readily admit that shooting & posting everyday can be exhausting, but I don't have any testosterone invested in pretending I'm a big man that can shoot every day. Kudos for continuing your project Doug, and not every shot needs to be a masterpiece, but you're the one who continues to claim greatness while displaying, at best, a mix of crap and decent shots. Keep this in mind Doug: you've been shooting longer than I've been alive, if your professional history is to be believed, and I won't even argue that you might very well be better than I, but you still post too much sh.t for me to believe that. I didn't "give up" my Plus-or-Minus because of any detractors, nor did I need to make a grand announcement that I was stopping because I was being bullied (because I wasn't, nor were you), nor did I later deny that I had stopped it of my own accord. I did stop posting daily because it consumed time I wanted to spend elsewhere. See, Doug, I don't need to blame "bullies" when I change a project. And I never thought I should get kudos for trying to shoot and post everyday, I tried it because I wanted to. One thing you clearly have jumbled in your mind is the difference between "saleable images" and "good images". If scads of photogs tell you many of your photos suck, but people still buy them, that probably means that your photos are both "poor" and "saleable". But just because they're "saleable", don't think they're actually good. The two values are not mutually exclusive, nor necessarily even related. As for social skills, I have been vulgar a few times, told you to get f.cked a few times, but I don't recall ever making a comment to you, or anyone else here, along the lines of "you're father should have worn a condom". Pretty harsh, even if funny in a sociopathic, dickless sort of way. Whoops, did I just call you "dickless"? Yup, I think I did. Douggie, the only things I know about you are based on observation, and then interpretation, from your behavior in this NG. In fact, only this NG, because I can't get aus.photo, which I understand you frequent also. If you really want to understand what people must think of you Doug, here's a challenge: Refresh all your headers, back to, let's say, January 1st this year, and reread all of, and *only*, your posts. Read all of your different personas' posts, heck, if you want to maintain the illusion, read all of your Samoan assistant's posts, and try to think about what someone who knew you **only** from these posts and your photos would think of you. It's kinda the NG equivalent of Googling yourself. If you're honest, and thorough, I think it will be a real eye-opener for you. BTW, where was I insulting in the post you replied to? I made comments that I feel had sufficient evididence... truth is an insult only if you feel guilty about what's being pointed out. Lastly, I respond so vehemently to some of your comments partly because I was bullied a bit when I was a kid, until I just about choked to death one of the bullies, so I'm a firm believer that bullies need to get their teeth bashed. However, I also take offense to your self-declared "best wedding photog in Brisbane" and similar claims, because newbies can't always recognize what's bullshit and what's not, so someone who is clearly giving bad advice (which you have on occasion) needs to be contradicted, or at least a dialog opened, so that newbies can make judgments on their own, with as many relevant facts as possible. Think about it Doug, you mention quite often how good (saleable :) ) you are, how long you've been shooting, yet you still post some poor quality images and tout them as brilliant. Willa Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/willarojo “I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.” Thoreau, Civil Disobedience “We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.” Thoreau, Walden ****** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder > Douggie, the only things I know about you are based on observation, > and then interpretation, from your behavior in this NG. In fact, > only this NG, because I can't get aus.photo, which I understand you > frequent also. That's too bad. They really hate him over there. He's been pissing off folks over there longer than I have over here on rpe35mm. >... truth is an insult only if you feel guilty about what's being pointed out. Well said. PS > Compressing a 32 megabyte image down to a 720 pixel wide will often cause > clear steps in graduated areas of an image. Nothing to do with monitors... > But you'd never comprehend that, would you? That's because it isn't true, you moron. Given a decent (unposterised) original, problems will *only* occur if you are *incompetent* at your post processing. ... Which explains it perfectly. > PS > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ... Which explains it perfectly. There is one idiot in this thread who cuts and pastes his photographic knowledge in hope no one will notice. His name used to be Charles Stevens. He posted his original lies and personal vilification from a government computer in SA. Now he's really pissed off because Marty over at Usenet.com.au black listed him from using the service to stalk me so he's resorted to his old trick of personal vilification in an attempt to conceal his own stupidity for not reading what is in plain English and unaltered since the site was created. I'd wager he's even more pissed off I created the archive in "Flash" and he can't figure out how to use a single image in it to get his jollies knocking. Congratulation Markie boy. You mum would have been proud of you. I recon being as predictable as you are would be a real disadvantage in a marriage. That probably answers why you get so agro with your keyboard. Go on Markie, tap it harder, it won't bit back. Sent me your address to get the calendars yet? Doug Off topic. Just pointing out where Douglas is fantasising again. > <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> Compressing a 32 megabyte image down to a 720 pixel wide will often cause [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > ... Which explains it perfectly. First of all I note that Douglas has not tried to defend his ridiculous and completely incorrect statement about posterisation being caused by downsizing. That statement could only be made by someone with a WOEFUL knowledge of digital imaging. Which is, indeed, Doug. > There is one idiot in this thread who cuts and pastes his photographic > knowledge in hope no one will notice. It is sadly ironic that the person referring to me as an idiot, made a glaring error above, that he is now carefully avoiding. > Now he's really pissed off because Marty over at Usenet.com.au black listed > him from using the service to stalk me ??? Fascinating fantasies from our Douglas. As anyone who cares can easily verify, I have only ever posted on usenet using two names - chrlzatgo.com and then, when go.com dropped their email service, this one. My email address is valid. I don't sockpuppet and never have - I don't need to because I don't LIE. I have never heard of 'Marty'. Douglas - you have made this allegation, so now: > I'd wager he's even more pissed off I created the archive in "Flash" YOU changed the image's location, and you changed the image itself. I couldn't give a toss what you used. > and he can't figure out how to use a single image in it to get his jollies If anyone actually wanted any of them at such small sizes, they could simply use PrtSc. Not familiar with that concept, Doug? Yeah, it's tricky stuff. If you still wish to believe that you stop anyone copying your web images, feel free to pursue your dream. I know it makes you feel good fantasising that people actually WANT those images. You've made many claims of people stealing them, but haven't actually given one single example. > Congratulation Markie boy. You mum would have been proud of you. I > recon being as predictable as you are would be a real disadvantage in a > marriage. That probably answers why you get so agro with your keyboard. Go > on Markie, tap it harder, it won't bit back. It is not lost on anyone here just *who* is 'aggro'. The comments about mother/marriage could only be regarded as bullying. You seem to be an expert there. > Sent me your address to get the > calendars yet? Why would I want something I can do myself, with far better quality levels? I've seen your work... Sent me your solicitor's address yet? > I believe you'd rather bash up on the image poster before admitting that old > CRT screen of yours is no match for basic (much less decent) LCD screens > like we use. What? What on earth makes you think an LCD is a match for a CRT? Hell, I use LCDs exclusively these days, but serious digital labs and design studios use CRTs. >> I believe you'd rather bash up on the image poster before admitting that >> old CRT screen of yours is no match for basic (much less decent) LCD [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hell, I use LCDs exclusively these days, but serious digital labs and > design studios use CRTs. What planet are you living on Richard? Sony stoped making CRT screens years ago. The days when Trinatron ruled the graphics desktop are long gone. >>> I believe you'd rather bash up on the image poster before admitting that >>> old CRT screen of yours is no match for basic (much less decent) LCD [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sony stoped making CRT screens years ago. > The days when Trinatron ruled the graphics desktop are long gone. You do realise don't you that there are screen manufacturers other than Sony? Frankly, I'd put most budget CRT's a long way ahead of high end TFT for photo work. Even the high end Sony monitors, that are roughly thrice the price of the consumer brands, can't match it with a budget CRT for true blacks, and consistent colours. Ever noticed that a TFT changes contrast depending on angle of view? How is that supposed to deliver accurate photo editing when the colours will change if you move your chair by 3 inches? > I have always > considered an "Image" as the facsimile of a 3D scene which you see > when you look at a computer monitor and a Photograph as a positive > print of a scene. Since you are the only one who thinks that way I guess it really does suck to be you, D-Mac! > Yesterday I overheard someone describe the items they were selling > (framed pictures with poems superimposed) as "Images". I have always > considered an "Image" as the facsimile of a 3D scene which you see > when you look at a computer monitor and a Photograph as a positive > print of a scene. A picture as a rather loose description of anything > resembling - well, a picture. "A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface . . ." Your words from a post on April 18. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" God, via translation (circa 1611) of a description of text divinely engraved in stone shortly after Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt around 1648 to 1400 BCE (the date is apparently not certain). So either God was referring to a different definition of "image" than your most recent one or He was giving everyone a very early warning against making certain types of computer graphics. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com > Yesterday I overheard someone describe the items they were selling > (framed pictures with poems superimposed) as "Images". I have always [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > JA A 'picture' is a painting, and not an optical image. > > Yesterday I overheard someone describe the items they were selling > > (framed pictures with poems superimposed) as "Images". I have always [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If it is not an "optical image" then it must be made out of sound. Sheesh. WTF Draco Getting even isn't good enough. It is imperative. >> Yesterday I overheard someone describe the items they were selling >> (framed pictures with poems superimposed) as "Images". I have always [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > A 'picture' is a painting, and not an optical image. There are two fundamental problems with this definition: 1) A painting is an optical image, and 2) It's wrong. I recommended Doug get himself a dictionary. Perhaps you ought to also. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.