 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / January 2007Epson 3800 and HP Z3100 printer reviews
Hi All, I've placed reviews of the Epson 3800 and the HP Z3100 on my printer review page, and also a head to head comparision of their print quality (not entirely fair, because they are very different printers, but hey :): <http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/prttests.php> Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Co-moderator, Yahoo Canon-350D list Workshops and seminars: http://www.thedigitalimagemaker.com/ Personal art site http://www.artinyourface.com/ > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Workshops and seminars: http://www.thedigitalimagemaker.com/ > Personal art site http://www.artinyourface.com/ I'm sorry to say the reviews you made are very very very short on substance. I really cannot have a view on either based on your review. > I'm sorry to say the reviews you made are very very very short on > substance. > I really cannot have a view on either based on your review. The HP is a setup and initial use report, as it says. I've changed the name on the 3800 from review to impressions, as it is that, my impressions from use. Cheers, Wayne  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wayne At risk of sounding rude... The commentary and adjectives used in this "review" (3800) could be applied to just about ANY printer currently on the market. -Nothing specific to this printer, and ZERO details about anything. It was a nice thought, but I don't see how this would help a serious, discriminating shopper make a decision about this fairly serious printer. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > At risk of sounding rude... The commentary and adjectives used in this > "review" (3800) could be applied to just about ANY printer currently on the > market. -Nothing specific to this printer, and ZERO details about anything. > > It was a nice thought, but I don't see how this would help a serious, > discriminating shopper make a decision about this fairly serious printer. I've changed it from a review to impressions. Frankly I saw little point in rehashing specifications, etc Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >> At risk of sounding rude... The commentary and adjectives used in >> this "review" (3800) could be applied to just about ANY printer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've changed it from a review to impressions. Frankly I saw little > point in rehashing specifications, etc Specifications wouldn't make it a review, either. Normally, reviews include analysis and testing, with examples given and results demonstrated (or at least detailed). But your move to "impressions" is appropriate, I think. -And good show...by not taking offense. :) -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson How on God's earth can you expect to be taken seriously when you print drivel like this? Where are the spectrometer results? And... What on earth prompted you to even attempt to compare an industrial printer like the HP with an Epson destined for the desktop? I suppose you never thought to compare apples with apples? Next time you try to gain some credibility, try testing two industrial printers instead of a desktop and a free standing industrial machine. Where too are the comparisons of ink tank capacity? Just because Epson put "Pro" after the description of a printer doesn't make it an industrial machine. 80 ml. is hardly enough to start a production run of full width canvas panorama's is it? You just went down 5 points in my assessment of your ability to even write a credible report, much less a concise one. SignatureAustralian Wedding Photography between Kempsy, NSW and Sunshine Coast. http://www.photosbydouglas.com Digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com ---------------------------------- : Hi All, : [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] : Workshops and seminars: http://www.thedigitalimagemaker.com/ : Personal art site http://www.artinyourface.com/ > How on God's earth can you expect to be taken seriously when you print > drivel like this? Where are the spectrometer results? I don't do spectrophotometer tests. That does not make my impressions of print quality, etc less meanful, just what they are, impressions and observations from use. I've changed the name of the 3800 article from review to impressions. The Z3100 is called setup and initial use. And... What on earth > prompted you to even attempt to compare an industrial printer like the HP > with an Epson destined for the desktop? I did say in the first paragraph "This is not an even comparison, as the Epson 3800 and the HP Z3100 are very different printers. But I could not resist it. I’ll leave out the obvious differences in size and paper handling and concentrate on the print quality." I think that spells it out, these are the two latest printers from these two companies, they were here at the same time and I wanted to compare PRINT QUALITY, nothing else. > I suppose you never thought to compare apples with apples? Next time you try > to gain some credibility, try testing two industrial printers instead of a > desktop and a free standing industrial machine. Of course, and that's why I said I was only looking at print quality. > Where too are the comparisons of ink tank capacity? Just because Epson put > "Pro" after the description of a printer doesn't make it an industrial [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You just went down 5 points in my assessment of your ability to even write a > credible report, much less a concise one. SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >> How on God's earth can you expect to be taken seriously when you >> print drivel like this? Where are the spectrometer results? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the Epson 3800 and the HP Z3100 are very different printers. But I > could not resist it. Resist next time... :) -On the other hand, don't take Douglas' rant too hard...since he has about as much credibility around here as Milli Vanilli has for vocals. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> I did say in the first paragraph "This is not an even comparison, as >> the Epson 3800 and the HP Z3100 are very different printers. But I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -On the other hand, don't take Douglas' rant too hard...since he has about > as much credibility around here as Milli Vanilli has for vocals. LOLOL Agreed (about resisting next time). I've further revised the head to head to spell out just why and what I was interested in. There is an interesting side to this, and I'll do a followup piece on it. And that is that I often see people on a couple of other lists I am on debating whether they can get away with a printer like the 3800 (or even 2800) or whether they need to go to something like the 7800 or Z3100. Now of course there is really no comparison between the two: the paper handling options, width, ink capacity and likely longevity and ease of service make a Z3100 far superior. But in terms of print quality they can be VERY close, so it depends on what people are looking for. BTW the criticisms were mostly valid, so there was no point in taking offense. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >>> I did say in the first paragraph "This is not an even comparison, as >>> the Epson 3800 and the HP Z3100 are very different printers. But I [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > of print quality they can be VERY close, so it depends on what people > are looking for. I think the more ligical alternative to the 3800 is the 4800. It can use 110ml and/or 220ml ink carts, and is built to true industrial standards. But of course the prints look very similar. -The 7800 adds ONLY width capacity over the 4800, and shouldn't be expected to deliver better prints at the same size. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > I think the more ligical alternative to the 3800 is the 4800. It can use > 110ml and/or 220ml ink carts, and is built to true industrial standards. > > But of course the prints look very similar. -The 7800 adds ONLY width > capacity over the 4800, and shouldn't be expected to deliver better prints > at the same size. In fact I have a theory that within a printer range with consistent head design, the highest print quality may be with the smaller printer, assuming other things remain the same, like print head resolution, etc, because you would expect they could make a printer more accurate when the moving parts cover less distance. I'll setup a test and see. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ : > I think the more ligical alternative to the 3800 is the 4800. It can use : > 110ml and/or 220ml ink carts, and is built to true industrial standards. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : : Wayne ------------------------- You are right about the size/quality issue Wayne. I have several HP designjets and 2 Epson photo printers. The r2400 does a way nicer print than the 7800 but then it is an absolute pig at handling roll paper and it costs about 60% more for ink carts on a ml/dollar basis and absolutely pours it on to boot. I only use it in one instance now and this year is slated to be replaced with a chemical printer. The single most economical printer I have owned in the past 4 years is a HP designjet 130. This machine was a dye ink printer but it produced colour as good as any Epson of the day. It too had woeful paper handling. The Canon 44" I bought last year lasted a mere 3 month before getting dumped in favour of another designjet. The 7800 Epson spits ink all over a page just as it gets to the last few inches of a 6 feet long print, ruining it in the process. The single most expensive to run, wide format printer I have ever owned. Drop in to one of my print centres if you ever come to Queensland and see first hand which ones are the cheapest to run... Use my measuring gear to check the prints scientifically too. Mark square head is typical of every American I have ever met. Over bearing, outspoken, ill informed and unwilling to accept that anyone outside the USA has ever had an original idea or can do anything as well or better than a yank. Yankee go home should read Yankee stay home in his case. He's an embarrassment to the male of his species (whatever it is and it sure isn't human) and his country. SignatureAustralian Wedding Photography between Kempsy, NSW and Sunshine Coast. http://www.photosbydouglas.com Digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com <snip> > The Canon 44" I bought last year lasted a mere 3 month before getting dumped > in favour of another designjet. The 7800 Epson spits ink all over a page > just as it gets to the last few inches of a 6 feet long print, ruining it in > the process. The single most expensive to run, wide format printer I have > ever owned. I have both the Epson 4800 as well as the 9800 - to control the ink, I use a ColorBurst rip. ->> http://www.colorburstrip.com/cbpro.html >>> I think the more ligical alternative to the 3800 is the 4800. It >>> can use 110ml and/or 220ml ink carts, and is built to true [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > outside the USA has ever had an original idea or can do anything as > well or better than a yank. Quote me, Douglas. I've NEVER asserted such an idea. Never. I'd be the first to admist that the US has no corner on genius. -That's just the little green man in your head talking again... > Yankee go home should read Yankee stay home in his case. He's an > embarrassment to the male of his species (whatever it is and it sure > isn't human) and his country. Ha ha! Oh Douglas... Surely America isn't the only country with people who call it as they see it...which is what I did in your case. You heavily slammed the OP, and I gave you a small bit of your own medicine. Can't take it? -Don't dish it, chum. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > ------------------------- > You are right about the size/quality issue Wayne. I have several HP [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > embarrassment to the male of his species (whatever it is and it sure isn't > human) and his country. Hi Douglas, Thanks for sharing your printer experiences. And the invite. I will next time I am up in QLD. Re your American comments, I must say I have lots of American friends who are dear to me and lovely people. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > Drop in to one of my print centres if you ever come to Queensland and see > first hand which ones are the cheapest to run... Use my measuring gear to > check the prints scientifically too. Will Douglas give an address, or even just the name in which they can be found in the phone book??? (The 'famous' 'TechnoAussie' print franchises never existed, except in Douglas' head.) Or do we have to look for his market stall..? > .....is typical of every American I have ever met... Rest of stupid rant snipped. Douglas attacks the messenger when he loses the plot/debate. Just ignore him, Wayne. Or for a chuckle, look up his postings on enlargements (his have 'added detail' and he claims he can achieve a sharp 36x24 from a 6x4...), perspective (he thinks it is all about lens focal length, and not about distance from subject), depth of field calculations (he just gets it wrong), or Panasonic FZ20's that match medium format quality... Here's some of his expertise: http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Gallery/balls/slides/boy2a%20(Small).html (like I said, he seems to have problems with controlling d-o-f) http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Gallery/balls/slides/group-pier3%20(Small).html (How could a 250Kb jpg be that bad??? And did he really focus on the tree?) Any questions? (O: >> Drop in to one of my print centres if you ever come to Queensland >> and see first hand which ones are the cheapest to run... Use my [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > (How could a 250Kb jpg be that bad??? And did he really focus on the > tree?) Wow... -Nothing like taking your subjects out in WHITE t-shirts...under MID-DAY SUN(!!!) That's about as poorly-planned as it gets... :( SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson : > Here's some of his expertise: : > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Gallery/balls/slides/boy2a%20(Small).html : > (like I said, he seems to have problems with controlling d-o-f) http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Gallery/balls/slides/group-pier3%20(Small).html : > (How could a 250Kb jpg be that bad??? And did he really focus on the : > tree?) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : That's about as poorly-planned as it gets... ::( Here you go again, pathetic moron... Tell me which professional photographer you know who does not deliberately post such pics to prevent the client (or fools like you) downloading his/her quality images without paying? Somehow you seem to think I should post my proofs without compression and in final edit form so it conforms to your idea of perfect. Unlike you, I have a vested interest in NOT posting final edit images. When you actually do grow up. You'll get to understand that not all English is spelt in the American mangled version of the language and pointing out spelling mistakes (one of your other moronic traits) is pretty obnoxious stuff, just as attempting to belittle someone who derives a living from an industry you don't have the balls to be in. Get a life child... The one you lead now is absolutely pathetic if trolling the newsgroups for someone to flame is the highlight of your day. Next time you decide to hijack someone else's thread... Keep in mind you are behaving in the classic mould of a troll because that's all you are. SignatureAustralian Wedding Photography between Kempsy, NSW and Sunshine Coast. http://www.photosbydouglas.com Digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com >>> Here's some of his expertise: >>> http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Gallery/balls/slides/boy2a%20(Small).html [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > prevent the client (or fools like you) downloading his/her quality > images without paying? So you're saying that you post your crappy photos on purpose? Why? That's about as convincing as the kid who trips on his way down the stairs, and then insists that he "meant to do that..." > Somehow you seem to think I should post my proofs without compression > and in final edit form so it conforms to your idea of perfect. Unlike > you, I have a vested interest in NOT posting final edit images. Compression has NOTHING to do with lighting, planning, mid-day sun, and white t-shirts. Any photog worth his salt knows that you don't take clients out in mid-day, cloudless sun and shoot portraits--expecially not in white t-shirts. Now what part of that is trolling? > When you actually do grow up. You'll get to understand that not all > English is spelt in the American mangled version of the language and > pointing out spelling mistakes (one of your other moronic traits) is > pretty obnoxious stuff, just as attempting to belittle someone who > derives a living from an industry you don't have the balls to be in. You must have me mixed up with someone else, Douglas. I don't point out spelling mistakes. Maybe never. There are many Marks here, but only one me. I don't use any other screen names (unlike yourself). You have this bad habit of assuming you know who you're talking to (someone else), attaching all sorts of actions and posts to me that I haven't made. > Get a life child... The one you lead now is absolutely pathetic if > trolling the newsgroups for someone to flame is the highlight of your > day. Next time you decide to hijack someone else's thread... Keep in > mind you are behaving in the classic mould of a troll because that's > all you are. Again... You seem to have me mixed up with someone else. You've done this at least twice before. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Off topic. > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Gallery/balls/slides/group-pier3%20(Small).html > : > (How could a 250Kb jpg be that bad??? And did he really focus on the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you know who does not deliberately post such pics to prevent the client (or > fools like you) downloading his/her quality images without paying? All of them. It's only Douglas that believes: - anyone is even remotely interested in downloading and using dead-set boring and poorly executed family portraits - that you can somehow usefully enlarge an image that is only .. wait for it.. 640 x 430 pixels. To Douglas of course, that would easily enlarge to 36" x 24", with 'added detail' from his magical, still untested algorithm. (see at the bottom of this page: http://hannemyr.com/photo/interpolation.html) - that he can best display his work by deliberately (haha!) damaging it. Somehow, I'm more inclined to believe it is more about lack of experience. Example, here, he uses a fairly good jpg as his title image (at top of page). http://www.photosbydouglas.com/example-index.htm Yet here - ON HIS TITLE PAGE!!!, he uses a GIF version (!!!), with dithering, blown highlights, etc. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/ ????? Yes, he's fiendishly clever, is Douglas. > Somehow you seem to think I should post my proofs without compression and in > final edit form so it conforms to your idea of perfect. 'Final edit form' is 640 x 430 pixels, is it? I'd choose slightly higher resolution originals, if I was him... > Unlike you, I have a > vested interest in NOT posting final edit images. Yep, because Sooo Many people would want to take those gooooorgeous images and use them as their desktop wallpapers, or sell them on the black market... (O: > When you actually do grow up. You'll get to understand that not all English > is spelt in the American mangled version of the language and pointing out > spelling mistakes (one of your other moronic traits) is pretty obnoxious > stuff, just as attempting to belittle someone who derives a living from an > industry you don't have the balls to be in. (rant snipped) As usual, he attacks the person rather than the facts. Anyway, I'm off comet chasing!! Bye. > Off topic. > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Anyway, I'm off comet chasing!! Bye. Now Douglas... (since you're surely reading this)...I would like to simply point out that mark.thomas.7@gmail.com is NOT me. I hate to break it to you, but Mark is a rather common name, and there are many many Marks in the world. Not just one. I'm Mark²...ONLY Mark²...and ONLY post as Mark². So...if you want to rail away at Mark Thomas, then have at it. Just do yourself a favor, and stop assuming that all people in the world named Mark are one person. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson : Now Douglas... (since you're surely reading this)...I would like to simply : point out that mark.thomas.7@gmail.com is NOT me. I hate to break it to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : yourself a favor, and stop assuming that all people in the world named Mark : are one person. I know exactly who you are and what your habits are. You are the idiot who thinks the moth picture is an excellent example of a "good" picture ROTFL at that one child!. >> Now Douglas... (since you're surely reading this)...I would like to >> simply point out that mark.thomas.7@gmail.com is NOT me. I hate to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > idiot who thinks the moth picture is an excellent example of a "good" > picture ROTFL at that one child!. What the heck are you talking about, Douglas? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Cleaned out the shockers from Maui 2004 gallery did we? --------------------------- : > I know exactly who you are and what your habits are. You are the : > idiot who thinks the moth picture is an excellent example of a "good" : > picture ROTFL at that one child!. : : What the heck are you talking about, Douglas? > Cleaned out the shockers from Maui 2004 gallery did we? I haven't touched that gallery for at least two years, Doug, and it never had a moth picture in it. Doug, you have done this many times...where somebody gets you angry (in this case, another mark, but Mark Thomas...not me)...and then you set about attaching any offense you've ever taken against anyone...out on me. This is a consistent problem you've had, and you're demonstrating it once again here. > --------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> What the heck are you talking about, Douglas? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Just ignore him, Wayne. Or for a chuckle, look up his postings on > enlargements (his have 'added detail' and he claims he can achieve a > sharp 36x24 from a 6x4...), perspective (he thinks it is all about lens > focal length, and not about distance from subject), depth of field > calculations (he just gets it wrong), or Panasonic FZ20's that match > medium format quality... I try not to take anything about my articles personally. Used to but I hope I have grown up :) People had legit complaints about the articles, so I fixed them. That's good as it makes them clearer, which is what I want. Then if people get something useful out of them, that is excellent. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > How on God's earth can you expect to be taken seriously when you .... << Snipped bits out >> continue to top post? Signaturelsmft Why does everyone get so damn anal about "top posting"???? It's as if someone committed a damn crime for Christ's sake. Geez, can't you scroll up (or down) with a mouse? GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> How on God's earth can you expect to be taken seriously when you .... << >> Snipped bits out >> > > continue to top post? Why does everyone get so damn anal about "top posting"???? It's as if someone committed a damn crime for Christ's sake. Geez, can't you scroll up (or down) with a mouse? GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Why does everyone get so damn anal about "top posting"???? It's as if > someone committed a damn crime for Christ's sake. Geez, can't you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > someone committed a damn crime for Christ's sake. Geez, can't you > scroll up (or down) with a mouse? GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's not about scrolling. It's simply about knowing exactly what a person's comments are responding to. This becomes especially important in conversations between several people, where there are many comments about portions of other posts. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson I actually take you seriously Mark, about not being able to follow a thread properly unless it was bottom posted.. Not just more absurd crap from the master of verbal drivel but a frank admission of his inability to read proper English. No where in the world is there more quasi "standards" than on the Internet. Everyone here has a perception of how it has to be and not a single one has a clue how to make it that way. If the largest manufacturer of software in the world defaults their news reader to top posting, that's good enough for me. "Stick your request for comments" in the same mail box you use to receive all the other spam. One day you and a couple of other militant morons will discover you have no right to even attempt to impose your ideas of correctness on anyone else and (hopefully) stop the practice... Although that might actually be asking too much from those with such feeble powers of deduction as you have Mark. SignatureAustralian Wedding Photography between Kempsy, NSW and Sunshine Coast. http://www.photosbydouglas.com Digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com ----------------- >It's not about scrolling. It's simply about knowing exactly what a >person's >comments are responding to. >This becomes especially important in conversations between several people, >where there are many comments about portions of other posts. > I actually take you seriously Mark, about not being able to follow a > thread properly unless it was bottom posted.. What's funny about your comment there is that you can't even keep track of who PEOPLE are, Douglas! I've NEVER flamed anyone for top-posting. >Not just more absurd > crap from the master of verbal drivel but a frank admission of his [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > actually be asking too much from those with such feeble powers of > deduction as you have Mark. Once again, Douglas, you have me confused with someone else, as you've done many times. I have never...NEVER...jumped on someone for top-posting. Not one SINGLE time. In this instance, I merely explained why it can be helpful. If you really think you're talking to someone (me) who has flamed people for top-posting, then I officially challenge you to find a post from me where I do so. I haven't. >> It's not about scrolling. It's simply about knowing exactly what a >> person's >> comments are responding to. >> This becomes especially important in conversations between several >> people, where there are many comments about portions of other posts. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> No where in the world is there more quasi "standards" than on the >> Internet. Everyone here has a perception of how it has to be and not [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I have never...NEVER...jumped on someone for top-posting. > Not one SINGLE time. Perhaps he can't keep the people in his conversations straight because it's impossible to do so when quoted threads have multiple top posts intermingled within them? It amazes me when people so thoroughly illustrate the pitfalls of their own stubborn behavior while simultaneously resorting to infantile name calling directed at those who're simply trying to help them maintain a conversation in a sensible form. People have conversations in a chronological manner. This is normal. unless of course, you're Yoda and speaking to a bunch of Jedi using mind tricks... :) The next line is in deference to those who believe that attempting to follow *standards* isn't helpful in fostering the natural flow of conversation and therefor, unnecessary. (.anyway replies your reading be won't I , Douglas names me calling childishly bother don't And) Your attitude JoeT, is almost as bad at mark moron's. I know exactly what I'm doing and to whom I am addressing my remarks. Moron here thinks I'm lashing out at the equally outspoken idiot who steals other peoples images and puts them to his own (illegal) use on his own site without asking permission and thinks there is no wrong in doing this. Maybe I'm wrong and the old adage "it take one to know one" should reign? Even a $500 cash reward did not uncover the real identity of this rotten mongrel who thinks he's got support in these groups for his theft. Eventually it will surface when he makes a slip and I'll be waiting. Every dog has it's day and I'll have mine. No not him... But a man so obsessed with his ideas of correctness, he attempts to belittle others who participate in the group and show his mastery of computers and Internet images as he derides anyone who doesn't comply with his wants. Sadly there are quite a few of these sort of people interspersed amongst the Usenet community. Maybe strutting their stuff here makes up for having a little dick or something? In case you have actually lost the plot Joe, being a Thunderbird user... Outlook Express news reader catalogues replies so that following a thread is only slowed down by those bottom posters who insist on posting their few lines of comment at the bottom of 20 or 30 other people's messages which forces civilised people to engage in scrolling down to the often one line of quip, which is likely to induce RSI in the wheel finger if you persist with your notion that your method is correct. Really... If you can't follow a thread, what the hell are you doing trying to? The fact is; Top posting no more or less correct than bottom posting. It's just that I don't correct you for what I perceive as your annoying behaviour... Akin to a smoker demanding the right to make everyone else a passive smoker because they choose to smoke. So stop trying to impose your idea of right on me now, will you? As for insulting you... Why would I do that when you are simply engaging in a discussion spelt out almost hourly in any of a few million newsgroups? No friend, you can rest easy in my support of you having an opinion and the right to express it just so long as you don't engage in personal vilification like Mark Moron is doing to grandstand his opinion as he hijacks someone else's thread. He's only getting back what he gives and squealing like a stuck pig because of it... Lovely fellow indeed. NOT! Armed with a can for freeze spray, photographing colourful moths is child's play... Isn't it Mark? Douglas : > Once again, Douglas, you have me confused with someone else, as you've done : > many times. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] : (.anyway replies your reading be won't I , Douglas names me calling : childishly bother don't And) > Your attitude JoeT, is almost as bad at mark moron's. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in doing this. Maybe I'm wrong and the old adage "it take one to know > one" should reign? Who is stealing your images? > Even a $500 cash reward did not uncover the real identity of this > rotten mongrel who thinks he's got support in these groups for his [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > strutting their stuff here makes up for having a little dick or > something? Seriously, Doug. Who are you talking about? > In case you have actually lost the plot Joe, being a Thunderbird > user... Outlook Express news reader catalogues replies so that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > don't engage in personal vilification like Mark Moron is doing to > grandstand his opinion as he hijacks someone else's thread. This is your thread? What exactly did I do? Seriously, Doug. What? > He's only getting back what he gives and squealing like a stuck pig > because of it... Lovely fellow indeed. NOT! Armed with a can for > freeze spray, photographing colourful moths is child's play... Isn't > it Mark? I am now convinced that you are not a rational person. What's this about a moth picture? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > Even a $500 cash reward did not uncover the real identity of this > > rotten mongrel who thinks he's got support in these groups for his > > theft. Eventually it will surface when he makes a slip and I'll be > > waiting. Every dog has it's day and I'll have mine. I think it is perfectly clear to any rational person that giving one's address out on usenet, especially to someone who makes threats such as seen here (he's done far worse, including threats of physical violence) would be silly. Especially when I live quite close to him! However, I have made the perfectly reasonable offer to Douglas that he should name his solicitor (he could even email it to me). I'll be delighted to give a *legal practitioner* my full details, so he can investigate Douglas' allegations. Douglas, very strangely, (O:, hasn't taken up this offer, nor can he explain why he won't. He doesn't like to have his bluff called, and you can see how his mind works by reading this thread. I'm sure you'll be an image thief too, shortly, Mark2... Douglas builds these huge vicious fantasy worlds when someone points out his shortcomings - in my case I had the nerve to repost some of his webpages. I did that because he made some ludicrous claims, but then *removed* the webpages so there was no evidence of what he had said. I didn't like that sort of behaviour, so I reposted them. I'll happily do it again. He now, at every opportunity, claims I am an 'image thief', and (in his tortured mind) I am now making a fortune selling all his images. (Have you looked at his images..? The concept is laughable.) > > Maybe > > strutting their stuff here makes up for having a little dick or > > something? What a lovely man. I'm sure that any solicitor would be impressed by his language and the threats peppered through his posts, if Douglas ever actually had the guts to go to one.. > > don't engage in personal vilification like Mark Moron is doing Anyone else find that line pretty funny? Hint to Douglas - look up 'hypocrisy'. > > He's only getting back what he gives and squealing like a stuck pig > > because of it... Lovely fellow indeed. NOT! Armed with a can for > > freeze spray, photographing colourful moths is child's play... Isn't > > it Mark? Just for the record, although I really don't wish to extend a conversation with such a non-rational person... This rings a bell with me, vaguely. I seem to recall that someone had a go at Douglas' control/understanding of dynamic range (probably me!). It was suggested that he check his monitor because he had looked at your Maui folder, Mark, and complained that you had lost details in the shadows.. (Which you clearly hadn't - nice folder, by the way..) I seem to recall there was also a side conversation around the same time by someone, perhaps Annika?, who had mentioned that putting insects in the freezer for a few minutes was a good way to slow them down. Which it is. Which is also where the freeze spray came in, I guess? And somehow, Douglas feels that sort of thing damns you as a lowlife human being, even though he can't remember why, and can't remember who, and can't remember where or what exactly was said.. and... what were we talking about again? (O: It's just sad. Anyway, Mark, why don't you just go and take a picture of a moth, just so that Douglas will feel better... (O: PS - Douglas - NAME your solicitor. Your bluff is called. So this comment is not yours, eh? ----------------------------------------------- It's not about scrolling. It's simply about knowing exactly what a person's comments are responding to. This becomes especially important in conversations between several people, where there are many comments about portions of other posts. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson ------------------------------------------------ : > I actually take you seriously Mark, about not being able to follow a : > thread properly unless it was bottom posted.. : : What's funny about your comment there is that you can't even keep track of : who PEOPLE are, Douglas! : I've NEVER flamed anyone for top-posting. Christ mate: get it right will you? You really can't follow a thread, can you? > So this comment is not yours, eh? > ----------------------------------------------- > It's not about scrolling. It's simply about knowing exactly what a > person's comments are responding to. > This becomes especially important in conversations between several > people, where there are many comments about portions of other posts. Exactly what part of that information was inappropriate? >>> I actually take you seriously Mark, about not being able to follow a >>> thread properly unless it was bottom posted.. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Christ mate: get it right will you? You really can't follow a thread, > can you? Was there supposed to be a point to what you just typed? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Mark², you have an incredibly short memory, don't you? Trying to make out I'm a nutter because I prompted you about this moth you claim to know zero about. http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original. Didn't know about archives? Tell me Mark... Is this one of your pictures or not? Answer yes and I'll open up a whole vista to any readers left in this thread to a psycho who make a habit of baiting people and then attempting to make out they are somehow mistaken about who you are, what you said and when you said it... and your motives. Nice try moron. You the Mark² who wrote me (in 2005) pointing out spelling mistakes on my web site. Yet now you say you never did. Worse you are attempting to create an impression that I am the nutter when it's you who are on the fringe of losing your grasp on sanity. You really do need to have a good memory to be a liar Mark². You need a far better memory than me to try your mind games and have any hope in hell of succeeding... "Artist Mark" Bullshit artist Mark perhaps. What about this lot? Boy, you must upset a lot of people mate. Quite a controversial fellow. -------------- Thread starts off with this classic... "This individual has a (not so) hidden Pbase gallery with photos of little kids in very suspicious poses. This man is a pervert, and he is not to be trusted." ------------- Your response? " Kids being kids...captured on-camera at their school as a favor (sic) to their teacher and their families/relatives around the country. I'll be taking this innocent gallery down shortly anyway--since the gallery doesn't seem to be viewed by their class/families anymore...but for you idiot trolls out there... ....Here's to egg on your face!! Totally innocent pictures of little kids at their school. --Nice try. -Mark" God man... What were you thinking when you decided to post pictures of other people's young (female) children on pbase? You really are danger to yourself and everyone you come in contact with. How about this for an informed response? From Mat Clara "You were completely guessing what my setup is". Your reply when caught out on this? "Well excuuuuuuuse (sic) me! What the heck?! Are you in a bad mood today or what?? " SignatureVery informed and apologetic reply from Mark Morgan, eh? You have a very long history of being a loud mouth and when you get caught out... Behaving very badly as if it somehow excuses your disgusting behaviour... Nothing excuses your stupidity or your behaviour. Floundering around in a sea of whiskey trying to outsmart me is going to bring you grief. Stop it now. Get off my case or I'll open my archives on you to anyone who is interested in deciding which of us is the lunatic. ----------------------------------------- > Mark², you have an incredibly short memory, don't you? Trying to make > out I'm a nutter because I prompted you about this moth you claim to > know zero about. > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original. Didn't know > about archives? Ah. But you said Maui. Ya, that's a moth. So what? > Tell me Mark... Is this one of your pictures or not? Answer yes and > I'll open up a whole vista to any readers left in this thread to a > psycho who make a habit of baiting people and then attempting to make > out they are somehow mistaken about who you are, what you said and > when you said it... and your motives. Nice try moron. I really don't see what you're worked up about, Doug. It's a moth picture I took in near darkness. So what? > You the Mark² who wrote me (in 2005) pointing out spelling mistakes > on my web site. Yet now you say you never did. Uh...No. You said I correct usenet posts, which I do not. If you have the silly notion to go back and check (whevever the heck that was), I think you'll find that I made the suggestion of a correction on your site as a favor to you. NOTE: Anyone who runs a business-based web-site should ALWAYS be glad to discover mistakes like that. Your first interest should be making a good impression, so if anything, Doug, you shouldn't become angry when someone alerts you to that kind of mistake. Sure even you can appreciate the difference between a commercial web-site...and usenet. >Worse you are > attempting to create an impression that I am the nutter when it's you > who are on the fringe of losing your grasp on sanity. I needn't "create that impression," Doug I call it like I see it. You don't have to agree. > You really do need to have a good memory to be a liar Mark². You need > a far better memory than me to try your mind games and have any hope > in hell of succeeding... "Artist Mark" Bullshit artist Mark perhaps. I've never referred to myself as an artist, and haven't even applied adjectives to myself that would imply that. > What about this lot? Boy, you must upset a lot of people mate. > Quite a controversial fellow. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > little kids in very suspicious poses. This man is a pervert, and he is > not to be trusted." That was posted by a troll, Doug (as you well know). You, of all people, shouldn't be promoting the actions of trolls--perhaps the same troll who you took issue with. > ------------- > Your response? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ....Here's to egg on your face!! Totally innocent pictures of little > kids at their school. --Nice try. -Mark" Actually, what I did at that time was to simply remove the password from that particular gallery. But the whole idea would have only be believed by a person such as yourself...who is apparently so gullible that anything a troll posts...is believed or taken seriously. This helps me understand why you went after some guy some troll some time back...offering rewards, etc., **because you apparently think everyone who reads usenet is as gullible as you. Pbase offers passwords for just such a situation--to help parents limit access to their kid's pictures, or whatever other reason people see a need for. It's interesting that you like to mention your dislike of being tailed by that troll some time back, and yet here you are promoting the actions of that same (or similar) troll. So you've taken offense at me...and what do you do? You point to troll posts implying illegal things about me. I would suggest that if you want to combat TRUE trolls...that you avoid posting things like this. > God man... What were you thinking when you decided to post pictures > of other people's young (female) children on pbase? When they ask me to...as they did. :) >You really are > danger to yourself and everyone you come in contact with. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What the heck?! > Are you in a bad mood today or what?? " What's your point...and what on EARTH do you hope to accomplish by hashing through years-old posts? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >Mark², you have an incredibly short memory, don't you? Trying to make out >I'm a nutter because I prompted you about this moth you claim to know zero [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >What the heck?! >Are you in a bad mood today or what?? " Would you two get a frelling ROOM? So... You have another approach for someone targeting you with insults over a long, long period of time because their feeble mind cannot comprehend a process I helped pioneer? Let 'em do it, possibly? Not likely. What if I told someone publicly that you had no credibility in your occupation? How would handle the prick when he's on the other side of the world? It didn't matter that I sent example prints to people who participate in the groups. He just changed his tack and kept spouting insults because HE didn't have any qualifications to pass judgment and never got any examples enlargements. He is like way too many cowardly people on Usenet who carry on with appalling behaviour, comfortable in the knowledge their insults and jibes will never prompt a confrontation in person. If this moron said to anyone in a face to face conversation what he says from hiding, he's spend more time in hospital than on his computer. I'll happily leave it be but I'll never put up with the likes of him heaping sh.t on me. He has no qualifications to do it, no right to do it and no brains doing it either. Tell me an alternative way to handle him and I will. Otherwise... This is how I respond to feeble minded morons who insults me because I once made a claim he didn't believe. How pathetic. Every day (now that it's common practice) people enlarge postcard size images and print them on canvas. When I said a few years ago I could do it and refused to elaborate on the algorithm, he and a equally idiotic mark got on their soapbox and began what has become a tirade of belittling insults because they didn't believe it possible. It is and every day of the year it's done by other canvas printers all over the world. You have a problem with that, suggest an alternative. Nothing else has worked and I'm not about to give up my right to participate (and provide useful process information) in these groups because of the actions of three zealots with no brains. Mark Morgan is just one of them. > So... > You have another approach for someone targeting you with insults over > a long, long period of time because their feeble mind cannot > comprehend a process I helped pioneer? Let 'em do it, possibly? A *collection* of people have criticized you over the years. If you're legitimate, then your work will speak for itself, and the comments of a few dozen usenet posters won't amount to anything more than the same opinions all professionals must take in stride. You jumped down the throat of the OP here in this thread, and I stuck up for him. Big deal. >Not > likely. Why not? What other professions are immune to criticism? I don't know of ANY. Do you? > What if I told someone publicly that you had no credibility in your > occupation? Every profession is subject to criticism, Douglas. If you keep making "questionable statements," then by definition, you shouldn't be surprised that some question them. Surely you don't think the way you're carrying on here lends you more credibility...do you? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Off topic. > So... > You have another approach for someone targeting you with insults over a > long, long period of time because their feeble mind cannot comprehend a > process I helped pioneer? I suppose this is yet another reference to Douglas' magical interpolation 'algorythm', that our 'feeble' brains cannot comprehend. It is the algorythm that: - he lied about (he showed 'results' that he claimed were enlarged when they were demonstrably *reduced*) - he claimed added *real* detail (see quotes below), using the analogy of CSI-type processing that would bring up those satellite image number plates all nice and clear..(O: (but he showed no examples, of course...) - he refused to demonstrate or have tested on *any* sample image (because, of course, he said it would result in it being reverse engineered!) (and no, not even a scan of a print..) - he misquoted and/or misrepresented comments by people like Gisle Hannemyr, Gordon Moat and even our local Colin D, all of whom have had to post 'corrections' on Douglas' wild claims. Some of these people were quite positive about his large prints, but none saw original files, nor any evidence of the 'algorythm's 'magic'. I don't dispute Douglas can, occasionally, do a nice print - I've seen them at his market stall. Some were ok, but he (or his photographers) clearly have problems with dynamic range, colour balance and focus, and he needs glasses if he thinks they show more than about 150 dpi real detail. They are exactly what I would expect (or worse) from the sort of 6-8Mp files he uses to create them, and they are mostly printed on quite roughly textured canvas - eeurrgh.. By the way, I think Colin D is still waiting on an apology from Doug - see "20D LIKES IT HOT !" And Annika and others are still waiting for Doug to prove he has/had a 1DS MkII - see "D-Mac, I'm calling you out!" > What if I told someone publicly that you had no credibility in your > occupation? How would handle the prick when he's on the other side of the > world? First, I would refrain from the gutter language and angry insults.. And what do other *credible* people do when people question their claims? - they prove them wrong. Mike Chaney (QImage), Gisle Hannemyr, Bart van der Wolf and many many others simply post *verifiable* samples. Douglas knows you can't reverse engineer from a sample crop, but he needs an excuse. > It didn't matter that I sent example prints to people who participate > in the groups. Douglas sent one to Colin D. He said it was nice, but he had no original image to test and disputed many of Douglas' comments - and he is now waiting for that apology. He sent others to Gordon Moat. He said they were nice too, but then made it very clear that you could not manufacture detail as Douglas claims. Gordon posted here to clarify his statements and point out Douglas' untruths. - see "Enlarging digital images - examples". Anyone can check these threads (in rec.photo.equipment.35mm). Doug can try to pull his *webpages* quickly and pretend they never existed, but these threads are archived in many locations. Douglas promised samples to others, including Gisle, Annika, Avery and some others I believe, but they never happened - he claimed that addresses went astray, etc... A request from Mike Russell (Curvemeister) to get an enlargement done of one of his images also resulted in Douglas disappearing rapidly. Uhuh... > He just changed his tack and kept spouting insults because HE > didn't have any qualifications to pass judgment and never got any examples > enlargements. Then why didn't Douglas just ignore him, and why hasn't he ever posted proof? The reverse engineering claim has zero credibility. > He is like way too many cowardly people on Usenet who carry on with > appalling behaviour, comfortable in the knowledge their insults and jibes > will never prompt a confrontation in person. If this moron said to anyone in > a face to face conversation what he says from hiding, he's spend more time > in hospital than on his computer. How apt - note that throughout this thread, the insults and threats are all coming from just one very hypocritical source... > I'll happily leave it be but I'll never put up with the likes of him heaping > sh.t on me. He has no qualifications to do it, no right to do it and no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that it's common practice) people enlarge postcard size images and print > them on canvas. Yup. And they *look* like over-enlarged postcard images, they show no 'added real detail'. And on some types of images (large macro shots of flowers are a good example), they might be quite passable if you don't get close. But what exactly did Douglas say? These are Douglas' words, quoted exactly: ===== Quote from "Enlarged digital images with more detail than the original", comp.graphics.apps.photoshop Pictorial evidence that it is indeed possible to enlarge a digital image which has a normal print size of 6.5" x 10" at 300 dpi, to 24" x 36" poster print with 720 dpi and still maintain the same sharpness and detail - even adding detail which was never there in the first place. ===== Read that carefully. He claims that a 6x10 image at 300 dpi (a big postcard!), becomes a 24x36 at 720 (?!) dpi with the "same sharpness and detail", and even clarifies it - "adding detail that was never there.." 6Mp becomes 447Mp, with *new* detail. Uhuh. Now if you read what he said carefully, you *could* possibly interpret "the same level of detail" to mean he has added nothing but interpolated pixels, but isn't that stating the absolutely bleeding obvious? Remember, it's in a thread that is titled "Enlarged digital images with more detail than the original"... Noone disputes that he *can* enlarge something to ridiculous sizes - anyone can. What we do argue about is what the result will look like. And of course none of the samples he has sent around have been enlarged from a postcard.. have they, Douglas? (O; > When I said a few years ago I could do it and refused to elaborate on the > algorithm, he and a equally idiotic mark got on their soapbox and began what > has become a tirade of belittling insults because they didn't believe it > possible. It is and every day of the year it's done by other canvas printers > all over the world. Repeating a straw man (just like the other one about me thieving your images, or Mark2's moth - like what the heck is that about??) doesn't make him any less flammable. If Douglas read the paragraphs above again, and again, until it finally sunk in, then maybe he might actually start to debate the real issue. Nobody said he couldn't do it - it was the added detail and level of sharpness that was at issue. > You have a problem with that, suggest an alternative. Nothing else has > worked Being truthful, and posting real verifiable examples would work fine. But Douglas cannot seem to do either of those. > and I'm not about to give up my right to participate (and provide > useful process information) in these groups because of the actions of three > zealots with no brains. > Mark Morgan is just one of them. At last count it was significantly more than 3 who dispute Douglas' claims, which have run the gamut from enlargement, to perspective (and more non-existent algorythms to control it), to depth of field calculations, to dynamic range, to comparisons of prosumers to medium format... and on all these he has tripped and fallen over his own words. Since his return about a week ago, I see Douglas has *already* had arguments with at least 6 different people. Thank heavens he has me killfiled! Douglas of course has every right to participate and make his comments, *as does everyone else*. (O: >So this comment is not yours, eh? >----------------------------------------------- >It's not about scrolling. It's simply about knowing exactly what a person's >comments are responding to. >This becomes especially important in conversations between several people, >where there are many comments about portions of other posts. *THAT* is not a flame. SignatureAngelina Jolie moved into a mansion in New Orleans with Brad Pitt where they say they will be very involved locally. The actress is nothing if not meticulous. Whenever Angelina Jolie orders in Chinese she's very careful to specify boy or girl. >> So this comment is not yours, eh? >> ----------------------------------------------- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > *THAT* is not a flame. FINALLY a voice of SANITY. Sheesh. I really do think there are mental issues being displayed here, and I find it rather disturbing. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson SignatureAustralian Wedding Photography between Kempsy, NSW and Sunshine Coast. http://www.photosbydouglas.com Digital photos enlarged and printed on Canvas http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com : I really do think there are mental issues being displayed here, and I find : it rather disturbing. Maybe it's time you sought some professional help then. >> I really do think there are mental issues being displayed here, and >> I find it rather disturbing. >> >> -- > Maybe it's time you sought some professional help then. Shall we take a poll among readers here, Douglas? I don't think you'd like the results. There has only been one person posting irrational statements here, and it most assuredly isn't me. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson : Shall we take a poll among readers here, Douglas? : I don't think you'd like the results. : There has only been one person posting irrational statements here, and it : most assuredly isn't me. Mob mentality... Common guys, let's all decide. What's the problem mate? Can't function outside the mob? You can have the last post in the thread... Might grow your dick a bit easier than using a rock. >> Shall we take a poll among readers here, Douglas? >> I don't think you'd like the results. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mate? Can't function outside the mob? You can have the last post in > the thread... Might grow your dick a bit easier than using a rock. Good gravy, Doug. I rest my case. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Why does everyone get so damn anal about "top posting"???? It's as if > someone committed a damn crime for Christ's sake. Geez, can't you scroll up > (or down) with a mouse? GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! moronic grasp Obviously can't picture the big posters top. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > How on God's earth can you expect to be taken seriously when you print > drivel like this? Where are the spectrometer results? And... What on earth > prompted you to even attempt to compare an industrial printer like the HP > with an Epson destined for the desktop? Sheesh, you want refund? -Dave welcome to our website http://lihuarong.go3.icpcn.com |
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
|
©2008 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.