 |
 | 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 / May 2008Big cat really quite small
It's odd how you can stand beside the hull of a big cat in dry dock and it towers over you ...yet when it's in the water surrounded by the really 'big boys' toys... It can look so small... http://www.douglasjames.com.au/previews/the_cat.htm Interesting exercise in digital imagery. Shot with a 40D Canon and 17 - 85 kit lens. DxO optix pro software removed the generous CA this lens produces and corrected the other image anomolies you'd expect for a cheap lens (cheap as in $600???). What it couldn't do is take away the distint blue colour cast in the shadows when the shot is otherwise correctly white balanced. Nikon's don't do that incidentally. I had to use Photoshop to do it and even then, it's not a quick exercise. As far back as the 10D I can remember this happening. Canon might have changed their models but they havent altered their stripes ! > It's odd how you can stand beside the hull of a big cat in dry dock and it > towers over you ...yet when it's in the water surrounded by the really 'big [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > As far back as the 10D I can remember this happening. Canon might have > changed their models but they havent altered their stripes ! Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/previews/the_cat.htm Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing Douglas' images. Oh well, I tried to be nice. Draco On May 12, 1:30 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail.com> wrote: > It's odd how you can stand beside the hull of a big cat in dry dock and it > towers over you ...yet when it's in the water surrounded by the really > 'big > boys' toys... It can look so > small...http://www.douglasjames.com.au/previews/the_cat.htm ----------------------- Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/previews/the_cat.htm Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing Douglas' images. Oh well, I tried to be nice. Draco --------------- This is where one bad apple ruins the whole box Draco. Your thieving mate: anniika1980 and Paul Furman are the ones to blame for it. Bret repeatedly took my copyright images and pasted his revolting pornography into them and thought it a great joke... I've had enough and I'm doing something about it. Paul Furman is probably the luckiest fellow in the USA today. He escaped a significant legal suit by just minutes when his bigoted attitude kept him from recognizing his theft of my images was serious. His host was a lot more proactive (and apologetic) when they got the court papers. The fact you support Bret Douglas' other photographic endeavours does not alter the fact you associate with and provide support for a self confessed paedophile and porn peddler. Are you really that broad minded? After Bell South got my court papers and gave him the flick ...he moved to EPB Telecom, Verizon's IP range in Arlington seemed to be too close to Chattanooga's Range to filter accurately on. I did ask for information here about local call rates to Virginia and such, mindful if I did block the hillbilly state, I'd probably block you and a few others too. I'd suggest Draco, you look closely at your associations and to whom you offer public support for. You are seen not only by what you say and do but by the company you keep. If you keep company with criminals, you'll be considered one yourself. This group is total disarray. The resuscitated "shootin" is hardly a glowing example of rebuilding public confidence in the group. People like Bret Douglas are destroying Usenet and people like you sit idly by, watching them destroy what you really came to enjoy. Think about it mate... Sooner or later you'll be faced with making a decision. Stand up for decency or let the whole thing slide into the control of depraved lunatic. Bleh! The way it works: if someone files a complaint, your hosting service won't look at the legal details, the new US legislation says you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent... and a 2 year old usenet spat over silliness certainly isn't worth my time to fight. > Bleh! > > The way it works: if someone files a complaint, your hosting service won't > look at the legal details, the new US legislation says you are guilty > until you prove yourself innocent... and a 2 year old usenet spat over > silliness certainly isn't worth my time to fight. And who dragged it out for 2 years? You stole my work and plagiarised it then tried to contradict me with the doctored images. Not just a 2 year old spat but fraud and copyright theft by you. All you had to do was apologize but no... You wanted to make as a.s out of yourself and discover along the way that you simply can't go around behaving as if nothing you do is illegal until you get caught. You got caught. Live with it or not but you still owe me an apology... And $687 for lawyers fees. >> Bleh! >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And who dragged it out for 2 years? That would be you Douglas, same as usual. > You stole my work and plagiarised it Who in their right mind would steal your work and claim it as their own ? then tried to contradict me with the > doctored images. You mean he used your photos to prove you wrong ! Get over it cry baby. Not just a 2 year old spat but fraud and copyright theft by > you. > > All you had to do was apologize but no... Apologize for what ? >You wanted to make as a.s out of yourself No, he made an a.s out of you ! >and discover along the way that you simply can't go around behaving as if >nothing you do is illegal until you get caught. You got caught. Got any proof that this isn't just another one of your insane rants ???? > Live with it or not but you still owe me an apology... And $687 for lawyers > fees. Bet you had to take out a loan for that large a sum. That really proves what an idiot you are. > On May 12, 1:30 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail.com> wrote:> It's odd how you can stand beside the hull of a big cat in dry dock and it > > towers over you ...yet when it's in the water surrounded by the really [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > decision. Stand up for decency or let the whole thing slide into the control > of depraved lunatic. Douglas, From my point of view ( which has been from the side lines) it has appeared to me that Bret has appolgized and you slapped him in the face. He had responded to your attempts at bullying and name calling by jumping into that mud filled pit. You had made claims of being a surpurb photographer and no one could better you in image making. Well everyone can be beat in what ever they do. No one remains the very best. You also claimed that you created a program that allowed you to create huge prints (30 by 36 inch) from one or two megabyte files that were sharp and clean of artifacts. Then when you were called to the floor on it, you claimed that everyone was out to get you and no one had any right to see how you created the images. You didn't have to provide the entire working program, just enough information to show that it works. Then folks would have been beating a path to your doorway to buy it. Yes this group is in "...disarray..." and not because of just Bret. You have to accept blame as well as others. Your long posts and attacks on people who disagree with you has sent many folks screaming from the news group. Not only did Your attacks sour people on making comments on images but, these spammers who have flooded the groups with sales and nasty posts have done more harm than you or Bret could ever do. Having the shoot-in again is not a contest to see who is a better photographer. It is a way for photographers to extend and improve their skills of the craft they( we all) love. It is a way for photographers around the world to see how the other folks do their work. See other images of far away places and how the photographers see their home. I have thought about it "mate". The amount of "decency" that has been shown by you pales in comparision to that of a pack of dingos to a cat. I stand by these folks who give helpful comments to others and shows them a different way of seeing the image. If that make me a criminal in your eyes, then you need a new pair of glasses, old son. You say, "...Stand up for decency or let the whole thing slide into the control of depraved lunatic..." From where I am the "...lunatic..." I see is the one I am responding to and you have tried to control this group. I guess that is why no one in AUS.PHOTO will talk with you any more. All of the above is my own opinion and I just don't give a rats backside any longer. Draco You also claimed that you created a program that allowed you to create huge prints (30 by 36 inch) from one or two megabyte files that were sharp and clean of artifacts. Then when you were called to the floor on it, you claimed that everyone was out to get you and no one had any right to see how you created the images. You didn't have to provide the entire working program, just enough information to show that it works. Then folks would have been beating a path to your doorway to buy it. Yes this group is in "...disarray..." and not because of just Bret. ----------------------- Well now Draco... It looks like you've been fed another load of stale bullshit... I actually provided Alan Browne with a 24" x 36" print of an enlargement I made from a 10D file AND the 10D raw file for forensic verification. He challenged me when I claimed I could make an enlargement that size from the 10D image and it would rival a Medium format print. To keep him honest in his appraisal of the enlargement, I insisted a recognized working professional also get an identical package. Alan nominated Gordon Moat from San Diego, a world recognized professional photographer specializing in medium format photography. Part of what Gordon wrote: "The initial test prints, and information, came from a company called Techno Aussie. Two example prints were sent to me from Australia by Douglas MacDonald. Included was a short explanation of camera gear used, and the printer used. Techno Aussie use a proprietary upsizing algorithm to take small image files, and match them closer to larger printed output sizes. The printer used for the images is an AGFA Sherpa, which is quite a good system, though not the latest in technology. The cameras used to originate the files for the test images were the Canon 10D and Canon 20D. The algorithm he developed and used pushed the files from 8 MP to around 50 MP (approx. printed output), and due to commercial reasons the specific aspects of the algorithm are not available." So quite apart from you being treated as a mushroom (kept in the dark and fed bullshit) by your thieving mate, The truth is: I did in fact respond to the challenge and as Gordon confirmed... Could do exactly what I claimed to be able to do. Idiots like Charlie Stevens and Bret Douglas are so jealous of anyone who can do something they can't, they set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a package of truth. You know Drago... People who never amount to anything and live their lives out in a fantasy, are the ones you really need to be wary of. Pricks like you associate yourself with have a habit of turning like rabid dogs and attacking you if you happen to point out their pictures are so heavily cropped and over worked, they have no commercial value... Bret Douglas can't handle that truth so he shows his true colours and attacks anyone who tells him. When you want the truth, Bret Douglas is absolutely to wrong person to ask for it. Alan Browne and me are like fire and water. I still think he'd have no reason to lie if you asked his opinion about the enlargement package I sent him. And yes... I get mighty pissed off at a couple of red necked idiots who refuse to accept any proof, (I offered to send the Chattanooga swine a poster) and then set about making mischief and engaging in criminal behaviour because they fear I might just be right. You have some nice mates Draco... Watch you back mate. >The truth is: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a > package of truth. Bullshit. You later admitted that the image you sent them was made from a stitched image and not the original shot. Guess you forgot about that, eh Gramps? I'm sure Mark has the appropriate cites for you in his files. >People who never amount to anything and live their lives >out in a fantasy, are the ones you really need to be wary of. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >handle that truth so he shows his true colours and attacks anyone >who tells him. D-Mac, at the risk of throwing you into another jealous rage I should tell you that this month's issue of Diversity, Inc. magazine features a photo of mine. It is the Kelly Tilghman photo that leads off the article. http://www.diversityinc.com/public/department86.cfm And yes, I was paid for the use of the photo so please don't lecture me about commercial value. I've had my pics published in 3 magazines so far. I'm guessing that's 3 more than you have, unless you count CRAP ILLUSTRATED. So f.ck off, loser. I'll keep selling my pics to magazines and you keep printing yours on your imaginary printers to sell to imaginary clients from your imaginary companies. Then you can go sailing on your imaginary boat. On May 13, 6:49 pm, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail.com> wrote: >The truth is: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a > package of truth. Bullshit. You later admitted that the image you sent them was made from a stitched image and not the original shot. Guess you forgot about that, eh Gramps? I'm sure Mark has the appropriate cites for you in his files. -------------------------------------------------- OOOOH ! Caught in another lie Douglas. Can't you ever be trusted to just tell the truth ? I guess that would be wishing for too much. And you wonder why nobody believes you ! >People who never amount to anything and live their lives >out in a fantasy, are the ones you really need to be wary of. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >handle that truth so he shows his true colours and attacks anyone >who tells him. D-Mac, at the risk of throwing you into another jealous rage I should tell you that this month's issue of Diversity, Inc. magazine features a photo of mine. It is the Kelly Tilghman photo that leads off the article. http://www.diversityinc.com/public/department86.cfm And yes, I was paid for the use of the photo so please don't lecture me about commercial value. I've had my pics published in 3 magazines so far. I'm guessing that's 3 more than you have, unless you count CRAP ILLUSTRATED. ----------------------------------------------- Congrats Bret. Keep up the good work. So f.ck off, loser. I'll keep selling my pics to magazines and you keep printing yours on your imaginary printers to sell to imaginary clients from your imaginary companies. Then you can go sailing on your imaginary boat. ------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas can only dream that someday he may have one of his crap photos published. On May 13, 6:49 pm, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail.com> wrote: >The truth is: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a > package of truth. Bullshit. You later admitted that the image you sent them was made from a stitched image and not the original shot. Guess you forgot about that, eh Gramps? I'm sure Mark has the appropriate cites for you in his files. ------------------------------------ If you are going to be a liar, learn how to remember things fool. Mark is actually Charles and from his history of moving around changing his identity, I'd say he has more to worry about right now than finding a vague reference on Google. I told ColinD the image I sent him was from a composite... Some 2 years after you started your pedantic bullshit and the Alan Browne saga. What's up? You have a problem with honesty? I also told him the size of the composite ... Fuching WALL FILLING. His print equaled one frame of a 20D. More truth so put your hands over your ears to stop them burning. Since then you've tried to impersonate me (Criminal Fraud) Hack my sellers account on Ebay (identy theft) pasted porn into my images and gotten your fake slut to post the link to it and after all these were taken down by the hosts you scammed, you put em back on AOL. What disgusting perverted fool you are. The nice little record on http://www.annika1980.com is about to be updated too. Don't forget that old codger you shot some pics of... Get him on the job mate. In fact I think I'll send him some information and see if he'll do the court work in Chatanooga for me. That other idiot across the road from him is more interested in divorces and taking my money for nothing I couldn't have gotten from the 'net. Keep off the porn for a while and your memory might return. Hasn't your mother told you about blindness and what you're doing? Believe this fool. You have more than just my attention in what you do now. Behave yourself for a change. Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh? Excellent stuff. Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like I do but a lot better than posting all those worthless stamp size images you've been wasting your time with. Still, I suppose a dodo like you has to learn somehow. You certainly aren't going to make any friends amongst those who offered to help you with that bloody great chip on your sholder. Learn by mistakes is a slow process as you are discovering. Maybe I could interest you in one of my 2009 calendars? I just ordered 10,000 of them for the coming season. Let's see now, that makes the score a little unbalanced for you doesn't it? 13 photos per calendar X 8 regions. Hmmm. Forgetting all the images in my wedding magazines, that makes over a 100 published photos for me so far this year. Add the magazine shots and seriously Bret... You are a babe in the woods. Don't worry matey... You won't ever catch up to me but if you keep at it, I'm sure you'll soon enough get to number 4 and then 5 and so it will go until you start to get paid for your effort in excess of the cost of your gear and can then claim to be a professional. Maybe then you'll know why it just isn't profitable to mess around with a single pic the way you do. Until then, stick to minding your own business because when you interfer with mine, you are going to get more unwanted attention than a bloke in your line of business really wants to have. The eyes of the world are on you now son, let's see you apply yourself to getting out of the sh.t hole you live in and make something of yourself for a change. Firstly, may I observe that the image Douglas posted is up to his usual standards - boring, pointless and uninteresting, insipid colours, uninspiring composition (although the chopped off mast head is probably a master stroke I am incapable of understanding) and inexplicably poor choice of time of day - why on earth shoot in such flat, horrid light? And one would have to question a 'pro's' use of a lens that is allegedly so bad the CA had to be processed out of what is a greatly reduced image, shot in circumstances that shouldn't elicit much CA at all. This is not exactly a challenging scene, altho for Doug perhaps it would be... Now, going a little off-topic and to pick up on Douglas and his usual pack of LIES. >> The truth is: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a >> package of truth. An oft-repeated falsehood from Douglas. Here is the link where Gordon Moat, very tactfully, corrects Douglas' assertions: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/f0bc2a f22e84217b/ Douglas has NEVER proven what he claims (namely that he can "add real detail" and that he can enlarge a 6x4 print up to 36x24 and actually INCREASE the detail level to 720 ppi (yes, his words!) in the process.. He has been caught out lying on numerous occasions, using falsified images. Here's just one example: http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples Note how Doug is IMMEDIATELY busted for posting a reduction, not an enlargement, and the page is then pulled after he tries to bluster his way out of his own quagmire of lies.. The web is littered with similar examples of Doug's lies and bullshit enlarging claims. He rapidly pulls any pages as soon as he is busted, but I have several saved pages showing his falsehoods - if anyone wants a copy, just let me know... No one is suggesting he can't make big prints (frankly, anyone can!). I've seen them - they are positively mediocre, and barely scrape together 70-120 ppi detail level. Which is ok from a distance. So goodonya dougie. But what we ARE pointing out is that his claims of a super-duper enlarging algorithm are bullshit, he constantly lies and cheats to promote his (very hard to find!) 'businesses'.. and his quality standards are obviously crap. That's the same enlarging algorithm he sold to Samsung, by the way. Are you still claiming that, Dougie? Or was 'Graham Hunt' lying? > I told ColinD the image I sent him was from a composite... That is easily proven as an absolute BLATANT LIE. Here's what Colin actually said when he found out he had been duped: > Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo > From: Colin_D <nos...@nowhere.com> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Colin D. And here's the link for incontrovertible proof of Douglas MacDonald's LIES: http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/782 ea8368e5fd9be To clarify Colin's words, he had earlier been sent a 24x36 print after a conversation in a different thread. The print was *supposed* to prove that Doug could make enlargements as he claimed (ie from a small file and with "real added detail"). Colin remained somewhat unimpressed. Then, many months later - in the thread above - Douglas accidentally let it slip that the image was in fact a COMPOSITE of 20 images!! Douglas started madly backpedalling - read the thread if interested... So, Douglas MacDonald, you are a, yet again, proven as a FILTHY LIAR. Your reputation here is thoroughly deserved. Note, as usual, Doug, that I post links and proof that you are a liar. You should try it - posting your own demented website doesn't count - especially now that you have been proven as a hopeless, incorrigible liar *many* times over and not just by me.. Keep at it, Doug. You amuse me. And we are still waiting, with baited breath, for you to return, victorious (grin), to the famous 'stepped out panorama' thread/debacle, here: http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-263937.html This topic will be revisited by me shortly. (I'd get in first if I was you, Doug - what's stopping you? Too much wedding/portrait work?) (O: If anyone still wants to utilise Douglas MacDonald's services after checking out the links above, here is that link again: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/ I won't point you to weddingsnportraits - he seems to be winding that one down - another in a long list of casualties. Whatever happened to clocksnprints (due in March 08)? Technoaussie? His other unnamed 'photo lab franchises'? The list of failures continues (Doug can easily correct me if I'm wrong, simply by posting a shopfront address..) (O:) On May 14, 7:27 am, Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote: > Firstly, may I observe that the image Douglas posted is up to his usual > standards - boring, pointless and uninteresting, insipid colours, [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > > (O:) Just proves that you are not what you say you are or ever were. Also proves that you are no gentleman. I know my friends and accept them as they are. To bad you don't to seem to have any. Draco > I told ColinD the image I sent him was from a composite... Some 2 years > after you started your pedantic bullshit and the Alan Browne saga. What's > up? You have a problem with honesty? I also told him the size of the > composite ... Fuching WALL FILLING. His print equaled one frame of a 20D. > More truth so put your hands over your ears to stop them burning. The REAL truth: > Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo > From: Colin_D <nos...@nowhere.com> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty > stitched images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he > sent me, the > right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames > used in the other half? > > Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to > be trusted. > > Colin D. ROFL! Come on, Douggie, time to fess up. You've been lying again. Hey, while you're coming clean I just gotta ask you about the main pic on this site (that you supposedly have me blocked from viewing .... LOL!): http://www.douglasjames.com.au/ That's really a guy in drag isn't it? Is that the lovely Julian? > On May 13, 6:49 pm, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail.com> wrote: >>The truth is: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > after you started your pedantic bullshit and the Alan Browne saga. What's > up? You have a problem with honesty? No, but it seems you do. That must go along with your failing memory. A quote from and old post: "Colin D: I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the smoothness and foreground definition with my setup here, and attributed that to your magic algorithm. Little did I realize that it was stitched, and I guess you could say that you stitched me up as well. To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I am sorely pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm' with a misrepresented print. If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud. In utter disgust, Colin D." I also told him the size of the > composite ... Fuching WALL FILLING. His print equaled one frame of a 20D. > More truth so put your hands over your ears to stop them burning. More lies from a professional liar. Another quote to refresh your failing (selective) memory: " Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo From: Colin_D <nos...@nowhere.com> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300 Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use) Declaration to all readers of this thread: At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the print he sent me. By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty stitched images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he sent me, the right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames used in the other half? Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to be trusted. Colin D. " > Since then you've tried to impersonate me (Criminal Fraud) Hack my sellers > account on Ebay (identy theft) pasted porn into my images and gotten your > fake slut to post the link to it and after all these were taken down by the > hosts you scammed, you put em back on AOL. What disgusting perverted fool > you are. Only in your mind, Douglas. > The nice little record on http://www.annika1980.com is about to be updated > too. Don't forget that old codger you shot some pics of... Get him on the > job mate. In fact I think I'll send him some information and see if he'll do > the court work in Chatanooga for me. That other idiot across the road from > him is more interested in divorces and taking my money for nothing I > couldn't have gotten from the 'net. More lies, more idle threats. > Keep off the porn for a while and your memory might return. Hasn't your > mother told you about blindness and what you're doing? Believe this fool. That might be the only thing you don't lie about as your own memory seems to be very poor. I also noticed that you wear glasses. > You have more than just my attention in what you do now. Behave yourself for > a change. More idle threats. And you wonder why you have such a large base of fans ? > Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh? > Excellent stuff. > > Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like > I do Got any proof of that, blowhard, or are we just expected to take the word of a liar as the truth ? but a lot better than posting all those worthless stamp size images > you've been wasting your time with. Still, I suppose a dodo like you has to > learn somehow. You certainly aren't going to make any friends amongst those > who offered to help you with that bloody great chip on your sholder. Learn > by mistakes is a slow process as you are discovering. That's why it helps so much when you post examples of your work, it shows everyone what NOT to do. > Maybe I could interest you in one of my 2009 calendars? Still can't manage to sell any, eh ? Must suck to have to give them away. >I just ordered 10,000 of them for the coming season. Must really suck having to buy your own photos ! > Let's see now, that makes the score a little unbalanced for you doesn't it? I'll bet it does. How do you make money if you have to buy your own photos ? > 13 photos per calendar X 8 regions. WOW, thirteen photos, I'm impressed !!! Are those all recycled wedding photos or did you have to take another 13 for the calenders ? > Hmmm. Forgetting all the images in my wedding magazines, Why "forgetting" them all, because they don't exist ? that makes over a > 100 published photos for me so far this year. Add the magazine shots and > seriously Bret... You are a babe in the woods. Either that or you're just a dulusional psycopathic liar. > Don't worry matey... You won't ever catch up to me but if you keep at it, You're right, I don't think anyone will ever catch up to you in lying ! > I'm sure you'll soon enough get to number 4 and then 5 and so it will go > until you start to get paid for your effort in excess of the cost of your > gear and can then claim to be a professional. I thought being a "pro" meant being able to take a decent photo ? This is something you haven't been able to show anyone, yet ! > Maybe then you'll know why it just isn't profitable to mess around with a > single pic the way you do. Then why do you cry so loudly when you accuse someone of stealing one of your shitty snapshots ???? > Until then, stick to minding your own business because when you interfer > with mine, you are going to get more unwanted attention than a bloke in your > line of business really wants to have. The eyes of the world are on you now > son, let's see you apply yourself to getting out of the sh.t hole you live > in and make something of yourself for a change. Oooooooooooh, more idle threats from the austrailian blowhard ! Time to give it a rest, w.nker. >Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh? Excellent stuff. >Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like I do You mean the flyers you give away for free on your site featuring your crappy Bridezilla pics? yeah, that compares favorably with selling photos to magazines. Idiot. On May 14, 12:36 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail.com> wrote: >Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh? Excellent stuff. >Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like I do You mean the flyers you give away for free on your site featuring your crappy Bridezilla pics? yeah, that compares favorably with selling photos to magazines. Idiot. --------------------------------------- He only hands out the Bridezilla pics at holloween. Let's face it, nobody is going to pay for those pics ! >> Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh? > Excellent stuff. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Idiot. For a backwood jackass, you sure are an insult to the (in) breed. When someone distributes a 48 page magazine City wide, it actually qualify the owner of the magazine to be called a MAGAZINE PUBLISHER. maybe 2 years ago it was a flyer. A year ago it was still a multi page brochure. Today it's a full fledged magazine with a client base that reads like a who's who of the restaurant and wedding industry. While you were busy making an idiot out of yourself, I was quietly chiseling away at a publishing business than now produces 3 magazines and 10 regional calendars with some serious plans and prospects for when my grand children eventually take it over. Sort of makes your miserable life and disgusting efforts to gain a few scored points look like the childish stupidity you've never grown out of. In the words of Gordon Moat: "I originally did not want to believe that Douglas MacDonald could get anything other than a mess with his large prints. While I agree with him that his lenses were a limit, his samples show the potential of digital prints, though only in controlled post processing and printing conditions. His results are not easy for just anyone to repeat. Skill, experience, and very good equipment allow higher limits." This from a world recognized printing and photography specialist. Who do we believe? Him or the bunch of idiot rabble you managed to fool with the suggestion bullshit beats brains - well it does in your neck of the woods, that's for sure. You bunch of losers couldn't organize a chook raffle in a hen house, much less a coherent argument. http://www.annika1980.com describes the criminal acts of Bret Douglas. > In the words of Gordon Moat: (snipped) In the LATER words of Gordon Moat, as posted above, and in direct reference to our Douglas: "I should point out that the original requests for me to view image samples did NOT come directly from Douglas." (Douglas claimed he had made the request. He LIED.) "I should also point out that the original claim that Douglas had was that his algorithm did not LOSE any detail information. I am not sure how or when that changed in the last year to a claim of adding or increasing detail information; it is simply not possible regardless of technology." (Douglas claimed he could add "real detail", which of course Gordon flatly and correctly refuted.) Gordon then repeated: "..I did NOT write the article for Douglas.." and to clarify his point about Douglas not being able to do what he said, he reinforced the salient point: "Q: Did Douglas's images contain more detail information than the original?" "A: NO, ONLY MORE PIXELS." The emphasis is mine, but those are direct quotes, and the whole thread may be found here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/th... ..so you can decide for yourself about Douglas and his lies. Yes, > This from a world recognized printing and photography specialist. Who do > we believe? Who indeed, Dougie. I'll go with Gordon. Which makes you a liar. (O: >> In the words of Gordon Moat: > (snipped) [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > (O: There is a moot point about a file containing more information or detail when it's larger. He and you are confusing image elements with data. Silicon Graphics (the pioneers of digital imaging) describe more data in an image file as more detail in a graphic. If there were no more detail, it would be impossible to make a print any larger than it's original size. The bit you fail (as usual) to comprehend is the descriptions I use are not mine but those of the inventors of digital images. Who do we believe? A runaway hiding under an assumed name or the inventors (Silicon Graphics) of digital images? Very clearly you and a bunch of no hopers with no qualifications to make the calls you do, have embarked on a terribly wrongful campaign to discredit me when highly qualified people who have been given the information about my enlargements with no requirement to do anything but tell it like it is... Have all agreed it (was in 2005) a revolution in digital imagery. You can continue to clutch at straws and try to make out I lied by saying the process "adds detail". To someone with no education in the field of Science (you) I suppose the fact the people were stoned in the dark ages for suggesting the world was round is lost on you. Fact one. a 10 pixel x 10 pixel image will yield only 100 dots of detail. Fact two. A 100 pixel x 100 pixel image will yield 1000 dots of detail. If I add 90 pixels to a 100 pixel image, I am increasing the detail of the image by 90%. Many time in the past you have gotten far too many things wrong and told far too many lies about me to let you get away with it here. You have stalked me since 2004. Using classic on-line bullying tactics you obviously learned in the school ground. Stop it. You are wrong in what you say, do and how you behave. If you don't stop it now, I'll take the second step with your ISP and get a court order to restrain you. How will that go down with your new job? You've been warned. Ignore it at your peril. > Very clearly you and a bunch of no hopers with no qualifications to make > the calls you do, have embarked on a terribly wrongful campaign to > discredit me when highly qualified people who have been given the > information about my enlargements with no requirement to do anything but > tell it like it is... Have all agreed it (was in 2005) a revolution in > digital imagery. What revolution? There were much better enlarging programs available back then then what you were doing. And it turns out that your Super- Secret algorithm was no algorithm at all. In a rare display of honesty, you once admitted that you had to go in and manually change each pixel to get the desired effect. See D-Mac, you can't even keep up with your own lies, they come so fast and furious. Fortunately, we have some diligent folks here who can. You're a fraud. >> Very clearly you and a bunch of no hopers with no qualifications to make >> the calls you do, have embarked on a terribly wrongful campaign to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You're a fraud. Stop rattling the keys Bret... We know your keyboard works, it's you who doesn't! Me a fraud? Not likely. More likely your criminal activities detailed on http://www.annika1980.com mean you've been a fraud all your life. > Me a fraud? Not likely. Oh we've proven that on many occasions. Not only on these newsgroups, but a fraud in your business dealings as well. Remember your EBAY auction where you sold some stuff to print calendars and claimed that you would no longer be producing them? Hmmmm, what happened to that? >> Me a fraud? Not likely. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hmmmm, what happened to that? The person who bought the package, bought it for the equipment and software it contained - a few hundred bucks for $3 grand's worth of office equipment. He had no intention of making more calendars with it. His letter is framed and hanging in my office, right beside my 10 ethics of business. Do you know what an ethic is Bret? Ethic 1. Fairness for both parties in a business dealing. You don't get 100% feedback on Ebay - gained over many years of selling photographic wall art and camera gear with behavior like you demonstrate. You get it by being honest and trustworthy. You seem to be floundering a bit here Bret. Like a fool drowning in his own sh.t and clutching at straws... Give it up mate. The US authorities may think your case is a civil matter and your drug dealing Sheriff might have refused to serve a restraining order on you but my New York lawyers have no such restraints. They are instructed to go for the throat and DO NOT NEGOTIATE. I just sold some paintings they are trustee of the funds from. I'm sure when you demonstrate your stupidity again, the little lady assigned to protecting my publishing and copyright interests in the USA - who incidentally is watching your behavior very closely, won't hesitate to see a violation and do what she's paid for... Sue the swine without regard for their financial position or any ability to recover costs. This is your big chance at international recognition Bret... You can take on an International magazine publisher (me) and get all the publicity in the world for it... Smile for the birdie. >>> Me a fraud? Not likely. > Ethic 1. > Fairness for both parties in a business dealing. <verbiage snipped> Speaking of which, Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing address yet? A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing to do. I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will if necessary. TIA -- Jeff R. PO Box 255 West Pennant Hills NSW 2125 >>>> Me a fraud? Not likely. >> Ethic 1. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > TIA Yeah right... Here's a news flash for you fool. Process servers won't serve a summons on a post box. Don't worry mate. I'll get the NSW Police to accompany the server delivering it as a community service to prevent violence. That'll work. >>>>> Me a fraud? Not likely. >>> Ethic 1. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Don't worry mate. I'll get the NSW Police to accompany the server > delivering it as a community service to prevent violence. I am guessing you know nothing about the NSW police service, they don't have the resources to send a full team to a murder let alone accompany a legal document. > That'll work. > The person who bought the package, bought it for the equipment and > software it contained - a few hundred bucks for $3 grand's worth of > office equipment. He had no intention of making more calendars with it. Bullshit. The main part of the package was the detailed instructions on how to produce calendars. You made it very clear that you would not be in competition with the guy and claimed you were getting out of the calendar business completely. That sir, is FRAUD. > You don't get 100% feedback on Ebay - gained over many years of selling > photographic wall art and camera gear with behavior like you > demonstrate. You get it by being honest and trustworthy. And it helps when you bid on your own items with your own sockpuppets just to leave positive feedback. The salty old fisherman knows how to bait the hook when he's fishing for suckers. > The US authorities may think your case is a civil matter and your drug > dealing Sheriff might have refused to serve a restraining order on you > but my New York lawyers have no such restraints. They are instructed to > go for the throat and DO NOT NEGOTIATE. Have them contact me. I believe my contact info has been posted here many times. I'm not hard to find. So far, I haven't heard a peep. And neither has Mark Thomas, Paul Furman or any of the other folks you've threatened. > This is your big chance at international recognition Bret... You can > take on an International magazine publisher (me) and get all the > publicity in the world for it... Smile for the birdie. Dude, if I thought you had anything worth owning I'd have already sued your drunken old a.s for your lies and cyber bullying. What would I get but an old Crapasonic and a computer with 5 Meg of memory. >> The person who bought the package, bought it for the equipment and >> software it contained - a few hundred bucks for $3 grand's worth of [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > your drunken old a.s for your lies and cyber bullying. What would I > get but an old Crapasonic and a computer with 5 Meg of memory. Have you been hacking Margie's PC again? You slime bag. > > Dude, if I thought you had anything worth owning I'd have already sued > > your drunken old a.s for your lies and cyber bullying. What would I > > get but an old Crapasonic and a computer with 5 Meg of memory. > > Have you been hacking Margie's PC again? > You slime bag. Another lie. Go check Jeff's page, which is a copy of the page you posted where it says (and I'm quoting here): "My dual CPU PC with 5 Meg of RAM labors under the strain of the computations needed as the image grows.." So, either Margie wrote that or you're full of sh.t as usual. Oh by the way, Douggie, you must have my friend Jeff R. killfiled so allow me to relay this message for him. ========================= Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing address yet? A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing to do. I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will if necessary. Jeff R. ========================== So what's that all about, D-Mac? Didn't he recently post one of your photos on his website? Hmmm, why didn't I think of that? > Oh by the way, Douggie, you must have my friend Jeff R. killfiled so > allow me to relay this message for him. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So what's that all about, D-Mac? Didn't he recently post one of your > photos on his website? Hmmm, why didn't I think of that? As you well know Bret, it goes like this: You steal my images and forge an account in my name (copyright theft, fraud and identity theft). Post a link here or in aus photo to the plagiarized work. I spend a few bucks at my local friendly lawyers to send a DMCA notice to the hosting firm and they take it down. That's happened 5 times with you. Jackass. Thank you lucky stars you live in the land of the free and in kissin cousin country too. Be wary too that as my business spreads to the USA, my US lawyers are more than happy to relieve me of bucks to protect my interests in your country. Mr Ralph who's domain address and phone number don't appear to be legitimate (why am I not surprised) is not so lucky. He lives in the land of opportunity and social welfare for all. He - unlike you, will need to deal with Australian law which takes a pretty dim view of his sort of behavior. Don't fall into complaciency boy... It'll be your doom. > Don't fall into complaciency boy... It'll be your doom. Perhaps you are right for a change, D-Mac. Now let's see how long it will take us to get that annika1980.com site of yours taken down. How long do you think? Maybe a week? GoDaddy doesn't care too much about enforcing their own Terms of Service, but like almost all these ISPs they fold up like a cheap lawn chair once legal action is started against them. I'll have Mr. C. draft a letter to them Monday morning. >> Oh by the way, Douggie, you must have my friend Jeff R. killfiled so >> allow me to relay this message for him. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > the hosting firm and they take it down. That's happened 5 times with you. > Jackass. Got proof ? Sounds like another one of your bullshit stories ! > Thank you lucky stars you live in the land of the free and in kissin cousin > country too. Be wary too that as my business spreads to the USA, my US > lawyers are more than happy to relieve me of bucks to protect my interests > in your country. I believe that about the money. They say a fool and his money are soon parted, but you know that from experience, don't you ? > Mr Ralph who's domain address and phone number don't appear to be legitimate > (why am I not surprised) is not so lucky. He lives in the land of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dim view of his sort of behavior. Don't fall into complaciency boy... It'll > be your doom. >>> Me a fraud? Not likely. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The US authorities may think your case is a civil matter and your drug > dealing Sheriff This could get interesting when this post is forwarded might have refused to serve a restraining order on you > but my New York lawyers have no such restraints. They are instructed to > go for the throat and DO NOT NEGOTIATE. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > take on an International magazine publisher (me) and get all the > publicity in the world for it... Smile for the birdie. What is the name of the magazine? >>> Me a fraud? Not likely. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Ethic 1. > Fairness for both parties in a business dealing. Looks like you forgot 2-10. I'll bet 2-10 say the same thing: Forget # 1 and screw the customer. That's why you do such much mobile work, harder to track you down because you are always moving to the next scam. > You don't get 100% feedback on Ebay - gained over many years of selling > photographic wall art and camera gear with behavior like you demonstrate. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > my New York lawyers have no such restraints. They are instructed to go for > the throat and DO NOT NEGOTIATE. I'll bet the above comments about the local authorities will really help your case Douglas. You must be an idiot to make a post like that. > I just sold some paintings they are trustee of the funds from. I'm sure they will be able to do alot with $50. I'm sure > when you demonstrate your stupidity again, the little lady assigned to > protecting my publishing and copyright interests in the USA - who > incidentally is watching your behavior very closely I'll bet the surveilence van is parked across the street from him right now. , won't hesitate to > see a violation and do what she's paid for... Sue the swine without regard > for their financial position or any ability to recover costs. > > This is your big chance at international recognition Bret... You can take on > an International magazine publisher (me) and get all the publicity in the > world for it... Smile for the birdie. Wow, caught in another lie ! Why it seems like just days ago you posted this: > When someone distributes a 48 page magazine City wide, it actually qualify > the owner of the magazine to be called a MAGAZINE PUBLISHER And today you are now an "International magazine publisher". What was that earlier comment about ethics ? It does appear that you can't be trusted to tell the truth ! > >> In the words of Gordon Moat: > > (snipped) (some more nonsense snipped) > Fact one. > a 10 pixel x 10 pixel image will yield only 100 dots of detail. ok, can follow that. > Fact two. > A 100 pixel x 100 pixel image will yield 1000 dots of detail. Uh, doesn't track. 100 x 100 = 10,000 Guess you missed a zero. > If I add 90 pixels to a 100 pixel image, I am increasing the detail of > the image by 90%. Sound right. But yet not. > Many time in the past you have gotten far too many things wrong and told > far too many lies about me to let you get away with it here. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You've been warned. Ignore it at your peril.- Sounds like you are the CYBER BULLY. Why are you threating. Just f.cking do it. If you can. If you can't then stop. Draco >>>> In the words of Gordon Moat: >>> (snipped) [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Draco Amazing similar language to Bret Douglas when you are cornered... Why is that ? Local call rates, perhaps? > <snip> If you don't stop it now, I'll take >>> the second step with your ISP and get a court order to restrain you. How >>> will that go down with your new job? <snip> Speaking of which, Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing address yet? A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing to do. I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will if necessary. TIA -- Jeff R. PO Box 255 West Pennant Hills NSW 2125 >> <snip> If you don't stop it now, I'll take >>>> the second step with your ISP and get a court order to restrain you. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > TIA Here's the flash Nero... While Rome burns and you engage in your pedantic antics and attempts to thwart the system... The law doesn't recognize a post office address as a valid address for service. Like I've said a handful of times in the past few days... No I haven't received your address and your published phone number appears to be a fake. The fact you list a 10 mile long road as your address has not gone un noticed either. Not having an RMB or RSD in Telegraph road appears to be a a ploy to avoid discovery of where you are. Proper rural mailing addresses Use RMB or RSD numbers rather than rural property names. Rooty Hill is hardly a rural area. When I was in Ebenezer a few years ago all the area from Rooty Hill to Penrith was under housing development. Don't fret mate... My lawyers are on the case. You'll get served with the court papers just as soon as they establish who you really are and where you really live. According to my lawyer, "it is not good practice to rely of the perpetrator being honest enough to tell you his real identity. Better to spend the effort (at $250 an hour for me) to obtain it legally". I'll get it all back as costs from you anyway... Unless you are a dole bludger and then I'll just write it off as a business expense. Basically they are saying if you are crooked enough to steal my work and plagiarize it, the chances of you being a liar too, are pretty high. Clear enough? >> A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing to >> do. > > Here's the flash Nero... > While Rome burns and you engage in your pedantic antics How is it "pedantry" to ask if you have received my address? >..and attempts to thwart the system... The law doesn't recognize a post >office address as a valid address for service. Thank you Doug, for *finally* acknowledging that you are in receipt of my mailing address. You asked for my mailing address - I gave it to you, without delay. If you think I'm going to give you my home address, then at least half of what the others say about you must be true. Not likely, after the threats you've made. > Like I've said a handful of times in the past few days... > No I haven't received your address and your published phone number appears > to be a fake. What published phone number? Cites please. > The fact you list a 10 mile long road as your address has not gone un > noticed either. Not having an RMB or RSD in Telegraph road appears to be > a a ploy to avoid discovery of where you are. Oh I see. I don't recall saying anywhere that I am the registrant of mendosus.com. You must have assumed that. Dangerous business, making assumptions. > Proper rural mailing addresses Use RMB or RSD numbers rather than rural > property names. Rooty Hill is hardly a rural area. When I was in Ebenezer > a few years ago all the area from Rooty Hill to Penrith was under housing > development. That's nice. Echidnas have spines and marshmellows are soft. (Well - *you* get to post irrelevancies, why can't I?) > Don't fret mate... My lawyers are on the case. You'll get served with the > court papers just as soon as they establish who you really are and where > you really live. Don't call me "mate", Doug. If we were having a beer together, face-to-face, then that term may be appropriate. As it is, you haven't earned to right to address me as "mate". I feel dirty at the very idea. > According to my lawyer, "it is not good practice to rely of the > perpetrator being honest enough to tell you his real identity. Better to > spend the effort (at $250 an hour for me) to obtain it legally". I'll get > it all back as costs from you anyway... Unless you are a dole bludger and > then I'll just write it off as a business expense. Your insults and accusations are going to make any notion of a defamation suit interesting, to say the least. > Basically they are saying if you are crooked enough to steal my work and > plagiarize it, the chances of you being a liar too, are pretty high. > > Clear enough? As mud. Let me spell out some things to you, Doug. If you had indeed spoken to your lawyer, then he would (should!) have advised you of correct terminology. You accuse me of plagiarism, which is an attempt to dishonestly gain credit for someone else's work. The sort of thing a student or a journalist would do. I am neither. Here is the page at issue: http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html (I haven't altered anything since I first posted it.) You will note that, not only do I *not* attempt to claim credit for your photos, but I even went to the trouble of putting your name on them. (That *is* your name isn't it, Mr "AlienJones"?) Your words are reproduced verbatim, and I make it very clear that *I* did not write them, for I then proceed to pick fault with many of the silly and rude things you said on your page - before you pulled it down. "...steal my work" (sic) To steal is to take without authority. The copy that I took was taken and used with the authority of NSW legislation. (see next para) Now - breach of copyright. That is a different issue, and for a successful suit you will need to demonstrate that I sought to seek some sort of commercial benefit. Not so. Also, as indicated on the site (from day 1) I have exploited the provision of "fair use for the purpose of parody or satire", a provision which applies universally (and identically) in all Australian state jurisdictions. I would not very much trouble at all proving the parody and satire aspects of my use of your images, n'est-ce pas? Now - on to defamation. In the interests of universality, I'm happy to say that all Australian states agree on the following: that truth is indeed a defence in any case of defamation, and there is no longer any need to provide (additionally) evidence of public benefit. Huh! Even if there was such a need, I could easily argue that too. Point out *one* error of fact in my satirical treatment of your page, Doug. Just one. While you're at it, point out one gratuitous insult, incidence of name-calling or obscenity. No - not *from* you... *to* you. If you read carefully you'll note that I don't indulge in name-calling. The same can hardly be said for you. So, there's: * Plagiarism - wrong word. * Copyright - protected by fair use. * Defamation - truth is a defence. So. What's left? Embarrassing an elderly gentleman? Cruel maybe, but hardly illegal. Besides, kitchens, heat, and all that. Doug, I immediately provided you with my postal address, just as you asked. Now will you please use that address (or this forum) to provide me with the name of your legal representative. I will be delighted to furnish him with all the details or other information required for any suit(s) (but *you're* not getting them. I'm not having you paying me uninvited visits.) Additionally: You could, of course, very simply gain a full retraction and apology from me. All you have to do is produce and post a "walking pano" by the methods you described, of the vista you showed us. We'd need to see the constituent images, too. If you can't do that, then you should immediately apologise to AC for the rude names you called him, and to readers of this NG for the lies you perpetrate. We await your considered response. -- Jeff R. >>> <snip> If you don't stop it now, I'll take >>>>> the second step with your ISP and get a court order to restrain [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > The fact you list a 10 mile long road And here I was thinking Jeff was in Australia. >>> In the words of Gordon Moat: >> (snipped) [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > There is a moot point about a file containing more information or detail > when it's larger. Only because it doesn't substantiate your fraudulent claims. "Information" and "detail" are not the same thing. He and you are confusing image elements with data. Wouldn't image elements also be data ?? > Silicon Graphics (the pioneers of digital imaging) describe more data in an > image file as more detail in a graphic. What does Slicon Graphics have to do with your wild claims ?? > If there were no more detail, it would be impossible to make a print any > larger than it's original size. Bullshit ! As you well know you can enlarge a digital print but you cannot increase the detail in the enlargment beyond the detail in the original photo. > The bit you fail (as usual) to comprehend is the descriptions I use are not > mine but those of the inventors of digital images. YOU made the ridiculous claims that YOUR program that YOU INVENTED could do all this. My what a short and selective memory yu have, Douglas. > Who do we believe? Definitely not a liar and fraund like you, Douglas. A runaway hiding under an assumed name or the > inventors (Silicon Graphics) of digital images? Can you explain how Silicon Graphics got involved in this ? I don't remember them making any of these claims, only you. > Very clearly you and a bunch of no hopers with no qualifications to make the > calls you do, have embarked on a terribly wrongful campaign to discredit me > when highly qualified people who have been given the information about my > enlargements with no requirement to do anything but tell it like it is... > Have all agreed it (was in 2005) a revolution in digital imagery. There goes your memory problem again. We remember things a little bit differently: I would believe Gordon as well. Let's see what he has to say here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/f0bc2a f22e84217b/ Douglas has NEVER proven what he claims (namely that he can "add real detail" and that he can enlarge a 6x4 print up to 36x24 and actually INCREASE the detail level to 720 ppi (yes, his words!) in the process.. He has been caught out lying on numerous occasions, using falsified images. Here's just one example: http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples And what about this: I would also believe this guy. A quote from and old post: "Colin D: I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the smoothness and foreground definition with my setup here, and attributed that to your magic algorithm. Little did I realize that it was stitched, and I guess you could say that you stitched me up as well. To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I am sorely pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm' with a misrepresented print. If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud. In utter disgust, Colin D." Or this: " Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo From: Colin_D <nos...@nowhere.com> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300 Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use) Declaration to all readers of this thread: At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the print he sent me. By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty stitched images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he sent me, the right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames used in the other half? Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to be trusted. Colin D. " > You can continue to clutch at straws and try to make out I lied by saying > the process "adds detail". To someone with no education in the field of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Many time in the past you have gotten far too many things wrong and told far > too many lies about me to let you get away with it here. It looks like you are the liar Douglas as has been proved time after time. > You have stalked me since 2004. Using classic on-line bullying tactics you > obviously learned in the school ground. Stop it. You are wrong in what you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You've been warned. Ignore it at your peril. Wow, I'll bet he shaking in his boots ! I now I just pissed myself but I think that was from laughing so hard :) >>> Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh? >> Excellent stuff. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > When someone distributes a 48 page magazine City wide, it actually qualify > the owner of the magazine to be called a MAGAZINE PUBLISHER. When someone "distributes" a magazine they are usually called a delivery boy. > maybe 2 years ago it was a flyer. A year ago it was still a multi page > brochure. Today it's a full fledged magazine with a client base that reads [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > calendars with some serious plans and prospects for when my grand children > eventually take it over. But that doesn't mean much when you are unable to sell any of it. If you were able to make any money from it you could move out of your daughters basement. > Sort of makes your miserable life and disgusting efforts to gain a few > scored points look like the childish stupidity you've never grown out of. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This from a world recognized printing and photography specialist. Who do we > believe? I would believe Gordon as well. Let's see what he has to say here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/f0bc2a f22e84217b/ Douglas has NEVER proven what he claims (namely that he can "add real detail" and that he can enlarge a 6x4 print up to 36x24 and actually INCREASE the detail level to 720 ppi (yes, his words!) in the process.. He has been caught out lying on numerous occasions, using falsified images. Here's just one example: http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples Note how Doug is IMMEDIATELY busted for posting a reduction, not an enlargement, and the page is then pulled after he tries to bluster his way out of his own quagmire of lies.. The web is littered with similar examples of Doug's lies and bullshit enlarging claims. He rapidly pulls any pages as soon as he is busted, but I have several saved pages showing his falsehoods - if anyone wants a copy, just let me know... No one is suggesting he can't make big prints (frankly, anyone can!). I've seen them - they are positively mediocre, and barely scrape together 70-120 ppi detail level. Which is ok from a distance. So goodonya dougie. But what we ARE pointing out is that his claims of a super-duper enlarging algorithm are bullshit, he constantly lies and cheats to promote his (very hard to find!) 'businesses'.. and his quality standards are obviously crap. I would also believe this guy. A quote from and old post: "Colin D: I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the smoothness and foreground definition with my setup here, and attributed that to your magic algorithm. Little did I realize that it was stitched, and I guess you could say that you stitched me up as well. To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I am sorely pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm' with a misrepresented print. If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud. In utter disgust, Colin D." Or here: " Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo From: Colin_D <nos...@nowhere.com> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300 Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use) Declaration to all readers of this thread: At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the print he sent me. By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty stitched images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he sent me, the right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames used in the other half? Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to be trusted. Colin D. " >Him or the bunch of idiot rabble you managed to fool with the suggestion >bullshit beats brains - well it does in your neck of the woods, that's for >sure. The only idiot here is you, Douglas. You are notthing but a liar,a fraud and a cheat. All your lies can be proved by archived posts. Seems like someone who invented the internet should know this. > You bunch of losers couldn't organize a chook raffle in a hen house, much > less a coherent argument. Ironic, coming from you,, the king of the losers. > http://www.annika1980.com describes the criminal acts of Bret Douglas. No proof that I can find. I just see the delusional rants of a psychotic w.nker. > To keep him honest in his appraisal of the enlargement... And not that I would ever rub it in, but seeing Douglas is referring to 'honesty', here's *more* (refer to my other post on this thread) of what Colin_D said when Douglas attempted to pass off a stitched composite as a 'genuine' enlargement. Colin D: > I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the > smoothness and foreground definition with my setup here, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Colin D. Yes, folks, that is the typical modus operandi of Douglas MacDonald - a fraudster, a liar and cheat of the highest order. Link here: http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/782 ea8368e5fd9be The post referred to is on Jan 5. Cheers, Doug. You lowlife slimebag. On May 14, 7:40 am, Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote: > Yes, folks, that is the typical modus operandi of Douglas MacDonald - a > fraudster, a liar and cheat of the highest order. > > Link here:http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm... I loved it where he contradicted himself in the very same post. First he wrote this: "Particularly seeing as I sent him a RAW file of the original image as well." Then he wrote this: "Sending a camera original file as proof would have been a little stupid, don't you think? " >> To keep him honest in his appraisal of the enlargement... > > And not that I would ever rub it in, but seeing Douglas is referring to > 'honesty', here's *more* (refer to my other post on this thread) of what > Colin_D said when Douglas attempted to pass off a stitched composite as > a 'genuine' enlargement. It seems the Stalker, the wanna be, the neverwillbe and the fossil from Arlington all have one thing in common. The ability to invent a story regardless of the facts or the truth of the matter. For one thing... Gordon Moat (in 2005) was the second person in these groups to see one of my enlargements first hand. The only other person to see one was Alan Browne. Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic qualification. This makes his assessment the only one with any substance to it. Everything said by the stalker from Australia and the jackass from Chattanooga is just sour grapes. The fosil from Arlington? To be pitied for being fooled by the jackass but none toe less spreading lies. Gordon Moat's review of my enlargement and his comments about the printing industry (as it was in 2005) are here, unedited and unaltered. http://www.annika1980.com/evidence/moats-comments.htm As for the honesty of the stalker from AU, no one should ever forget he high tailed it out of South Australia under an assumed name to hide out in Queensland. Never bothering to keep his Electoral enrollment address updated, not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain a Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of shinning angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed. There's some really nice (NOT) people inhabiting Usenet and he is one of the un-nicest I've ever come across. Right next to the jackass from Chattanooga and his puppet in Arlington. > Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic > qualification. This makes his assessment the only one with any substance > to it. And here's what Gordon said about Douglas, to correct his falsehoods - even gentle, tactful Gordon has outed Douglas.. Gordon Moat: "I should point out that the original requests for me to view image samples did NOT come directly from Douglas." (Douglas claimed he had made the request. He LIED.) "I should also point out that the original claim that Douglas had was that his algorithm did not LOSE any detail information. I am not sure how or when that changed in the last year to a claim of adding or increasing detail information; it is simply not possible regardless of technology." (Douglas claimed he could add "real detail", which of course Gordon flatly and correctly refuted.) Gordon then repeated: "..I did NOT write the article for Douglas.." and to clarify his point about Douglas not being able to do what he said, he reinforced the salient point: "Q: Did Douglas's images contain more detail information than the original?" "A: NO, ONLY MORE PIXELS." The emphasis is mine, but those are direct quotes, and the whole thread may be found here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/f0bc2a f22e84217b/ ..so you can decide for yourself about Douglas and his lies. > .. not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain > a Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of shinning > angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed. Just curious, why would such stuff, even if true, somehow invalidate the links and references and blatant lies that Douglas has been caught out with? That sort of comment will come back to bite you very soon, Doug. It also shows what an incompetent 'investigator' you are. Anyone else who wants to find me just emails me - and I'll happily give out my address - so why doesn't your solicitor/legal rep just do that? My web domain has a perfectly valid postal address too, and I can easily prove that, so why don't you post me something - registered mail, please. But you just go very quiet when asked to put up or shut up, don't you, Douglas. We ALL know why. Pity your sockpuppets get noticed and busted within seconds nowadays.. Anyway, why not just start up a new enlarging thread, with proof of what you have claimed.. or maybe some tips on perspective, or using spot-metering.. perhaps a linear panorama? By showing your true measure as a photographer, surely you can drive off any criticism.. and maybe get forgiven for your past lies. (O: >>> To keep him honest in his appraisal of the enlargement... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Arlington all have one thing in common. The ability to invent a story > regardless of the facts or the truth of the matter. They have plenty of experience from reading your posts. You are the master when it comes to fabrication and twisting the truth. > For one thing... Gordon Moat (in 2005) was the second person in these groups > to see one of my enlargements first hand. The only other person to see one > was Alan Browne. > > Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic qualification. > This makes his assessment the only one with any substance to it. And we can read what he wrote right here: "I should point out that the original requests for me to view image samples did NOT come directly from Douglas." (Douglas claimed he had made the request. He LIED.) "I should also point out that the original claim that Douglas had was that his algorithm did not LOSE any detail information. I am not sure how or when that changed in the last year to a claim of adding or increasing detail information; it is simply not possible regardless of technology." And even Gordon called you a liar ! Amazing ! And here: http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples Douglas has NEVER proven what he claims (namely that he can "add real detail" and that he can enlarge a 6x4 print up to 36x24 and actually INCREASE the detail level to 720 ppi (yes, his words!) in the process.. He has been caught out lying on numerous occasions, using falsified images. Here's just one example: http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples And here: "Colin D: I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the smoothness and foreground definition with my setup here, and attributed that to your magic algorithm. Little did I realize that it was stitched, and I guess you could say that you stitched me up as well. To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I am sorely pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm' with a misrepresented print. If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud. In utter disgust, Colin D." " Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo From: Colin_D <nos...@nowhere.com> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300 Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use) Declaration to all readers of this thread: At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the print he sent me. By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty stitched images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he sent me, the right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames used in the other half? Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to be trusted. Colin D. " > Everything said by the stalker from Australia and the jackass from > Chattanooga is just sour grapes. Only in your mind. > The fosil from Arlington? To be pitied for being fooled by the jackass but > none toe less spreading lies. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.annika1980.com/evidence/moats-comments.htm > As for the honesty of the stalker from AU, no one should ever forget he high > tailed it out of South Australia under an assumed name to hide out in > Queensland. Never bothering to keep his Electoral enrollment address > updated, not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain a > Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of shinning > angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed. Stalking again Douglas ? Why is it ok for you to stalk people but you get all upset when you think it is happening to you ? > There's some really nice (NOT) people inhabiting Usenet and he is one of the > un-nicest I've ever come across. Right next to the jackass from Chattanooga > and his puppet in Arlington. > Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Your thieving mate: anniika1980 and Paul Furman are the ones to blame for > it. Excuse me? The photo was visible yesterday and not visible today. What the hell do Paul Furman or myself have to do with that? You are a delusional psychopath. > After Bell South got my court papers and gave him the flick ...he moved to EPB Telecom, Another bald-faced lie, Clouseau. I'm still on BellSouth (now AT&T) here at home. They surely didn't give me "the flick" although I'm sure that's what they did with your complaints. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message