 |
 | 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 / February 2007How different are consumer cameras from DSLRs?
Image wise, not very different at all. Certainly not enough to justify 300% and 400% more expense Or should that be in accountant-speak? Oh sh.t... Accountants don't work that way, do they? OK Three times and 4 times as much to but a DSLR. Hows that for the money men? http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm On Feb 6, 4:44 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Image wise, not very different at all. Certainly not enough to justify 300% > and 400% more expense Or should that be in accountant-speak? Oh sh.t... > Accountants don't work that way, do they? OK Three times and 4 times as much > to but a DSLR. Hows that for the money men? > > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm (Same link, different group, same response..) First up, they are poor jpegs. I downloaded the *Canon* one first (so sue me, Douglas), and the artefacts and almost gif-like posterisation are glaringly obvious even in that one - how did he miss this..? On the Panasonic image there are strong sharpening halos and jaggies on high-contrast leaf edges... But because of his setting choices there is not a single high contrast edge visible on the Canon image - the central area of the plant is the only bit that is in focus. His description also states that he has heavily processed these images with levels (*and* shadow/highlight adjustments), sharpening (same settings for both, even though anyone who has used prosumers and dslrs knows that the sharpening regimes are very different), and then Neatimage. I thought this was comparing out of camera results rather than processing skills (or lack thereof)? Further, one would have thought on a simple subject like this, he would have at least made a token effort to match the images up, ie roughly the same framing and a little more depth of field from the Canon. According to the EXIF the Canon image was shot at 70mm focal length and f4.5, so he clearly had headroom.. The EXIF on the Panasonic image shows that he used an aperture of f5.6, presumably in the full knowledge of the additional d-o-f this was introducing, above and beyond that due to the different sensor sizes. Why? I also note with further disillusionment that he has overexposed by +0.33 (see EXIF 'exposure bias' data) on the Canon - not surprisingly he notes blown highlights. On the Panasonic? -1.33 exposure compensation. Sigh. The EXIF data makes his 'explanatory' comments interesting: "The (Canon) image has very clear blown highlights. This is after the automatic development had reduced the exposure chosen by the camera by 1.25 stops. This suggests to me that the camera is unable to meter exposure as accurately as it should." The *camera* didn't choose to overexpose the Canon shot - *Douglas* did. Processing the RAW images (his 'automatic development') will *not* bring back data lost because of an initial poor exposure compensation choice. (Especially when comparing one image at +0.33 with another at -1.33.) You can clearly see that the Canon image is overexposed - it has nothing remotely approaching the dark tones in the Panasonic image - not very surprising when Douglas shot the images with almost two stops different exposure. I can't be bothered going further. : On Feb 6, 4:44 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- : gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : > : > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm : I can't be bothered going further. Just as well. No one is interested in what you have to say. On Feb 6, 9:00 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > : > Just as well. No one is interested in what you have to say. Nicely sidestepped. So you are not even going to dispute (or apologise for) the fact that you exposed the cameras differently by nearly two stops, and then blamed one for blowing highlights? (O: Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts... > On Feb 6, 9:00 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- > gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts... But surely the cameras should have automatically compensated for Dogs total lack of knowledge of photography? Poor cameras must cringe every time they get picked up!! > : I can't be bothered going further. > : > Just as well. No one is interested in what you have to say. Quite the reverse, I quite enjoyed reading his expose' :-) MrT. > > : I can't be bothered going further. > > : [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > MrT. Thanks, MrT. (great name by the way - I often get called that at work.. hey you aren't *me* are you? I try not to sockpuppet, but maybe I've lost the plot.. (O: ) I hate to tell you this, but there's an even longer expose below... (O; But you can skip it - basically just says the same things, given that Dougie is now pretending it all never happened, as usual... > Thanks, MrT. (great name by the way - I often get called that at > work.. hey you aren't *me* are you? I try not to sockpuppet, but > maybe I've lost the plot.. (O: ) Not me, I think you are safe. > I hate to tell you this, but there's an even longer expose below... > (O; > But you can skip it - basically just says the same things, given that > Dougie is now pretending it all never happened, as usual... Too late, just read it, but enjoyed the laugh. :-) MrT. > On Feb 6, 4:44 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- > gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > I can't be bothered going further. 1hr into joining this group I'd have a wild guess that dougs accountant (probably his wife) says he can't afford a 20d. > 1hr into joining this group I'd have a wild guess that dougs accountant > (probably his wife) says he can't afford a 20d. Geez, you chose a bad time to wander in... (O; Just don't take Doug too seriously. And don't ever criticise his work or there'll be a bounty on your head! Anyway, as predictable as ever, Douglas has quickly withdrawn the damning images with their damning EXIF data... whoops I mean he ran out of bandwidth - so many thousands of folk were downloading them, that.... No, I can't keep it up, forgive me while I laugh uncontrollably! Oh, Magoo, you've done it again! Hey Douglas, tell us why you have refused all offers from others to host your images on unlimited bandwidth servers? Or why don't you just put them on a free pbase account for 30 days? PS - "Comparrison" is spelt with only one R, I think... The only difference I have found is the aspect ratio. DSLR have an aspect ratio of 2:3, whereas the normal consumer cameras have an aspect ratio of 3:4 (closer fit to the typical PC screen sizes) > > On Feb 6, 4:44 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- > > gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > 1hr into joining this group I'd have a wild guess that dougs accountant > (probably his wife) says he can't afford a 20d. : On Feb 6, 4:44 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- : gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : is not a single high contrast edge visible on the Canon image - the : central area of the plant is the only bit that is in focus. I missed nothing Mark... Photoshop's compression is the problem. It's pretty hard for those on dialup and ADSL1 links to pull down a full size image without some compression and anyway... What are you doing downloading my images when I clearly forbid you from taking them? More stealing by the master of image theft? The concept of comparing 2 so totally different cameras this way is to let the cameras meter and focus on factory program mode. It levels out the results. Exactly what I did and clearly in the EXIF data. But you didn't mention this, did you? Is it my fault that the Panasonic consistantly need less intervention to correct exposure errors than the Canon does? Not my fault either that the Canon has an absolutely shocking ability to get it's "AUTO" white balance right all (most) of the time but the lowly consumer grade Panasonic doesn't seem to have that problem... Hmmm. My fault too perhaps? Mark, why did you take this opportunity to announce to the world that these were MY settings... Nice try, but as always... WRONG. I'm totally convinced now that you only look at pictures, don't read the whole article before shooting from the hip about which you know bugger all about. : His description also states that he has heavily processed these images : with levels (*and* shadow/highlight adjustments), sharpening (same : settings for both, even though anyone who has used prosumers and dslrs : knows that the sharpening regimes are very different), and then : Neatimage. I thought this was comparing out of camera results rather : than processing skills (or lack thereof)? --------------------------------------- What's this? RAW images from different types of Digital cameras have different sharpening regimes? Better tell us these regimes, then. eh? Don't you know it's impossible to display a camera RAW image in a browser? Maybe you also didn't know a RAW file has to be 'developed' as in "heavily processed" before ever it is usable on the Internet too? Oh well, I guess you'll learn these things if you pay attention. It might help if you also had some experience with RAW file development too. --------------------------------------- : Further, one would have thought on a simple subject like this, he : would have at least made a token effort to match the images up, ie : roughly the same framing and a little more depth of field from the : Canon. According to the EXIF the Canon image was shot at 70mm focal : length and f4.5, so he clearly had headroom.. ---------------------------------------- This is where the subjective nature of what I did, simply wouldn't work doing it your way. If I had matched the images up, they would not have shown the benefit of two totally different cameras taking different pictures of the same subject, one with a (35mm eq) 135mm lens and the other with a (35mm eq) 70mm lens which means a much wider gap in FL than in 325mm terms. It's very clear from your ravings Mark, you do not understand how a 1:1 focal length varies between the three cameras due to different sensor sizes. Depth of field will be greater with smaller sensors, even though the 1:1 Focal Length is almost twice as long on the smaller sensor camera. Mark... Before you start making an idiot of yourself (again), you first have know what you are talking about. Last year it was my enlargement of digital images you made such a fool of yourself over. The world has caught up now, you can buy better enlargement programs than the one I developed but one thing is unchanged... I did then and do today, enlarge postcard size images to wall posters. Something you never accepted I could do. This year it's your total lack of knowledge of the technical differences of images made with digital cameras having different size sensors and how it effects otherwise similar images. You've come a long way since you started to learn about digital photography but not far enough to stop making a fool of yourself by attacking someone who does know a thing or two. -------------------------------------- : The EXIF on the Panasonic image shows that he used an aperture of f5.6, : presumably in the full knowledge of the additional d-o-f this was introducing, above : and beyond that due to the different sensor sizes. Why? : : Sigh. --------------------------- Sigh yourself mate. Do you actually read or just steal the pictures? Both cameras on "Program mode" means the cameras, not me, decide the exposure. Your chose to blame me for "choosing" the exposure... Nothing at all to do with my choice and everything to do with the way Canon created thier "program" mode. You really don't have a clue about photography with a variety of digital cameras, do you? One stop of difference with the smaller apeture using a (1:1) 135mm FL and the one stop larger aperture on (1:1) 70mm and the 70mm lens has ultra shallow DOF when if it were the same 1:1 size sensor, it would be greater... What does that tell you Mark? READ what I wrote about it and if you still don't know, SHUT UP until you do.. ----------------------------- : The *camera* didn't choose to overexpose the Canon shot - *Douglas* : did. Processing the RAW images (his 'automatic development') will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : the Panasonic image - not very surprising when Douglas shot the images : with almost two stops different exposure. ------------------------------- Seriously Mark... You really need to stop targeting me for the sake of it. Something about you won't let you appologise when you are wrong. That same something must be the reason you so quickly grasped what I published and wrongly (yet again) thought you could do some "Doug bashing" with it when in reality, you are out of your depth. Program mode is what "Chooses the exposure", not me. READ THE EXIF you so wrongly tried to use as a means of belittling me. AUTOMATIC is the flavour of this comparison... AUTOMATIC exposure. AUTOMATIC exposure compensation by ACR based on Adobe's very, very good method of assessing the image and deciding on how much exposure compensation (if any) to apply to balance out a scene for dynamic range. : I can't be bothered going further. -------------------------------------------- Don't stop now mate, you're just getting started in showing me how little you actually do know. Douglas > anyway... What are you doing downloading my images when I clearly forbid you > from taking them? More stealing by the master of image theft? oh you're seeing a whole team of shrinks, aren't you? Please explain to us how someone would view any of your images without downloading them. If you truly forbid anyone from downloading your images, stop posting them. And don't kid yourself, they aint worth stealing anyway. I'll ignore the rest of your possibly psychotic rant. : > anyway... What are you doing downloading my images when I clearly forbid you : > from taking them? More stealing by the master of image theft? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : : I'll ignore the rest of your possibly psychotic rant. Hello Andrew... If you can read into me forbidding Mark Thomas from downloading any of my images as including you or anyone else. Maybe it is you who should be seeing the shrink? Viewing an image in a web browser does indeed put the image on your hard drive. It also guarantees it will be deleted after a reasonable time, usually measured in days. Downloading an image... Is not considered in the same way. Mr Thomas downloads my images and then uses them in a way never intended or done by normal people. This is not viewing them in a web browser as Internet images ...which is the only purpose images can legally be transferred to your hard drive without the permission of the copyright owner. It is taking them (stealing) without the consent of the copyright owner. Somehow I get the idea that you, as a publisher, might need to know the difference and maybe, just maybe, you really do know the difference but are bored and using this thread for your own entertainment instead of having anything constructive to contribute. There is no point in saying you were ever interested in buying my calendar business yet... You so desperately needed to get in on the act when a few genius accountants decided my plain English description wasn't good enough for them. I can't help but feel you are doing it again now. The traffic in this group has fallen to an all time low, thanks to useless posts by people like you with idle minds who want to argue about idiotic details of what represents a profit when they haven't a interest in the post anyway. What did you post in this thread that might have had something constructive to it? ZERO again. Now, when you have absolutely zero to add with any constructive comments, you are at it again. One only has to look at the appalling behaviour of a few genius photographers posting here with their attitude towards Daniel Rocha who once participated in this group but now only offers a link to his site. Regardless of his photos being good or bad, the w.nkers who condemn him contribute as much as you do (ZERO) to this group. How does that make you feel Andrew? Satisfied? Sick? What? Tell me mate, I really would like to know what makes you do it. Douglas Long post, mainly only of interest to Douglas. With every post, he just digs deeper. Dunno why I bother, given that everyone here now knows what he is like, but I can't resist rubbing it in, given his recent attacks on all and sundry. > Photoshop's compression is the problem. So you admit they were bad. The "Photoshop compression" bullshit is just that - sewerage. You could have avoided the problem completely by saving the full size ones as TIF's. And even as JPEG's you could have simply wound the quality up so that the loss was negligible - but you have already proven you have no f-ing idea about jpegs when you post rubbish like this: http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Gallery/balls/slides/group-pier-2%20(Small).html I particularly like the overall softness (covering lack of focus - did you focus on the tree perchance?) and the astonishing artefacts, especially above the girl's (6th from left) head. Nice colours. (O; What a joke. > What are you doing downloading my images when I clearly forbid you > from taking them? First you complain that too many downloaded them, then you say that? Your posts and website *told* everyone to click on them to get them - that's a download, Dougie. By visiting any page with an image on it, the viewer has *downloaded* it and it gets saved to their hard drive cache. You still having problems with this concept? > More stealing by the master of image theft? More crap from someone who hasn't yet been able to prove that I stole anything? > The concept of comparing 2 so totally different cameras this way is to let > the cameras meter and focus on factory program mode. It levels out the > results. Exactly what I did and clearly in the EXIF data. But you didn't > mention this, did you? Yes, I did. And it was the EXIF data that showed that YOU had played with exposure compensation. (It's called Exposure Bias in the EXIF data - I told you this before but maybe you weren't listening - why not go check it now, or would you like me to post it for you?) You had the Canon overexposing by +0.33, and the Panasonic was set to underexpose -1.33. Yes, it's sitting there in your EXIF data and it was seen and noted by plenty of folk other than me. Just check the other thread (rec...35mm, "D-MAC'S PICS !") - you know, the one that you haven't had the guts to return to. Exposure compensation is something the *camera operator* does, Dougie dear, especially when in PROGRAM mode (see below). So you are lying or incompetent - which? > What's this? RAW images from different types of Digital cameras have > different sharpening regimes? Better tell us these regimes, then. eh? So you honestly think the sharpening you would apply to the Panasonic is the same as you would give the Canon? Did you even glance at your own images? Ignorance and inexperience. > Don't you know it's impossible to display a camera RAW image in a browser? The idea was that you were presenting the UNTOUCHED, UNPROCESSED images for people to examine. Otherwise the comparison is absolutely worthless, even before your incompetence hits it. Most people with a clue know how to view tif's and even, gasp, raw files. I can... (O; And yes, double gasp, we would have to temporarily save the file - just like any image is temporarily saved in the browser's cache. > Maybe you also didn't know a RAW file has to be 'developed' as in "heavily > processed" before ever it is usable on the Internet too? Yes, well done Doug, and as soon as you process, it is no longer as it was taken, and could have been deliberately manipulated to make a point, or incompetently processed. Or in your case, clearly both. And then you added on Photoshop manipulations, Neatimage... If you wanted to simply show your 'mastery' of those programs, you did that quite well... (O: > Oh well, I guess > you'll learn these things if you pay attention. It might help if you also > had some experience with RAW file development too. Sarcasm seems to be all you have left. You have no credibility. > If I had matched the images up, they would not have shown > the benefit of two totally different cameras taking different pictures of > the same subject, one with a (35mm eq) 135mm lens and the other with a (35mm > eq) 70mm lens which means a much wider gap in FL than in 325mm terms. *I* didn't mention the different focal length, other than to note that they were zooms, it was a static subject, and you could have even moved back or forward...! It would not have taken rocket science to align the image content a little better. Clearly it *is* rocket science to you. And next to this strawman argument, I notice you still avoid answering why you used a SMALLER aperture on the smaller sensor, which exaggerated the d-o-f difference. You didn't *have* to - you *chose* to. Just like you CHOSE to use inappropriate exposure compensation to ensure the Canon image was overexposed. Again - deliberate manipulation, or incompetence. Which? > Last year it was my enlargement of digital > images you made such a fool of yourself over. The world has caught up now, > you can buy better enlargement programs than the one I developed Bwahahah!! That's funny!!! In other words, you give up, and now you want to cover your arse, just like you have tried to do by pulling these images.. Anyone is welcome to search on those threads and they will see that Douglas' claims about his enlargements have been roundly criticised and questioned by *many* others, and not once did he manage to show anything conclusive. Even those he claims to have supported him (Gordon Moat and Colin D. amongst others) have had to post disclaimers correcting various Douglas.. er.. 'interpretations'.. And Gisle is still waiting for his challenge - I wonder what Douglas' excuse is *now*, given his marvellous interpolation algorithm has now been surpassed. Why not show us? - we could compare it to what was available then. (more excuses will follow..) All talk, no walk. > but one > thing is unchanged... I did then and do today, enlarge postcard size images > to wall posters. Something you never accepted I could do. No, Douglas. I always said of course you *could* enlarge them, but I questioned their *quality*. You claimed to be able to add real detail, and to have an algorithm that was better than all others. I never accepted *that*. And now.. funny how it just sort of... died. Bit like the printing franchises/stores that never existed. If they did/do, give us an address - I and others still want to test your enlargement quality. > This year it's your total lack of knowledge of the technical differences of > images made with digital cameras having different size sensors and how it > effects otherwise similar images. Nice attempt at another strawman. The way you roll these out anyone would think you were a scarecrow manufacturer. Your images damned you, Douglas. YOU chose to use exposure compensation to distort the results. YOU chose to use an aperture smaller than necessary on the smaller sensor camera to exaggerate the d-o-f difference and make the images so different it was a useless comparison, even before the post processing stupidity. The images were downloaded (on Douglas' suggestion) by numerous folk other than me - I'm happy to repost the image's EXIF details if anyone wishes to see it, and others will be able to verify it. Why don't *you* repost the EXIF data, Douglas, so others can see where you blew it? Scared that it will show your subterfuge, or scared that it will blow your bandwidth again? (O: And don't bother trying to fudge it - too many people have seen the real thing. > You've come a long way since you started > to learn about digital photography but not far enough to stop making a fool > of yourself by attacking someone who does know a thing or two. Who is that? It certainly isn't you. > : The EXIF on the Panasonic image shows that he used an aperture of f5.6, > : presumably in the full knowledge of the additional d-o-f this was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > all to do with my choice and everything to do with the way Canon created > thier "program" mode. Astonishing lack of knowledge. In *Program* mode you *can* set the exposure compensation (it's called bias in the EXIF) and YOU DID - it's right there to see in your own EXIF data!! Before looking even more foolish, think about this *very* carefully, and then go read your manual. Are you ready? It's *only* in fully Auto (that's 'A U T O' - look it up) mode that you don't get to set the exp.comp. In Program mode you *can*, and did. The same terms are used on both the Pana and the Canon (except Canon calls it Program AE I think). Let me repeat: Don't you know *anything* about your own cameras????? Clearly I know more about them than you do... > You really don't have a clue about photography Pot, meet kettle. Douglas, you couldn't have screwed this up worse if you tried. But thanks for the laughs! Douglas, I have 5.5Tb (5500Gb) of allocated transfer each month. I'll host your two bandwidth-sucking full sized images for you. > Douglas, I have 5.5Tb (5500Gb) of allocated transfer each month. I'll > host your two bandwidth-sucking full sized images for you. and I have my own server sitting here on a 10Mbit fibre optic backbone with no upload limit. I can host for you if you like, I'm sure that a couple of full sized photos wont even be noticed in the larger scheme of things. :-) Oz : > Douglas, I have 5.5Tb (5500Gb) of allocated transfer each month. I'll : > host your two bandwidth-sucking full sized images for you. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : Oz Thanks for your offer but 260 downloads of a pair of full size images in less than 6 hours and I actually want to know who is doing it. Anyone who wants the images, only has to ask. Douglas > Thanks for your offer but 260 downloads of a pair of full size images in > less than 6 hours and I actually want to know who is doing it. Anyone who > wants the images, only has to ask. So review your server logs. Add an authentication process before downloading. Or stop making them available and then winging like an '8yo kid who's dropped their icecream' when people actually look at the crap you're offering. :) : > Thanks for your offer but 260 downloads of a pair of full size images in : > less than 6 hours and I actually want to know who is doing it. Anyone who [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : ::) Hey Andy... Get Stuffed. > : > Douglas, I have 5.5Tb (5500Gb) of allocated transfer each month. I'll > : > host your two bandwidth-sucking full sized images for you. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > less than 6 hours and I actually want to know who is doing it. Anyone who > wants the images, only has to ask. It just proves that 260 people read your post and went to your website. When I posted my "Comets love the MZ60" post, I had a couple hundred hits pretty quick too. There must be a lot of lurkers in the NGs. who read but don't post. In case you've missed it, every time someone views a web page, the html file AND any images referenced in the html file are DOWNLOADED by the web viewer. If you think downloading images is illegal, then in Doug's Fantasy World, every person who has ever viewed a website, is guilty of illegally downloading images. Get over yourself doug - the images aren't worth stealing. If I was to do an image comparison like you did, I would post 2 images not worth stealing too. The 260 downloads would simply be 260 people who read what you posted and wanted to see for themselves what you were talking about. They were not 260 image thieves. > Douglas > : > Douglas, I have 5.5Tb (5500Gb) of allocated transfer each month. I'll > : > host your two bandwidth-sucking full sized images for you. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Douglas I can send you the server logs, its not rocket science you know :-) and I can put 260 full sized images down the pipe in about 6 minutes or less, depending on what else is being accessed :-) Oz : > Thanks for your offer but 260 downloads of a pair of full size images in : > less than 6 hours and I actually want to know who is doing it. Anyone who [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : less, depending on what else is being accessed :-) : Oz Thank you for the offer OZ. I really do want to see who is getting the images. Strange now that anonymous downloading of them has stopped, no one asks for them. Or do you see that as normal? Douglas On Feb 9, 10:29 am, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > I really do want to see who is getting the images. Strange now that > anonymous downloading of them has stopped, no one asks for them. Or do you > see that as normal? > > Douglas Ooh, ooh, let me answer that one!! You withdrew them, then you abused everyone who criticised them (and everyone who managed to look at them *has* - it's not just me.. And besides which most sensible people are very leery of accepting email attachments and possibly overloading often already crowded mailbox limits, apart from the spam risk in contacting someone who advertises commercially on usenet. Not of course that you would be the type to use someone's email address for any other purpose... Is that all more rocket science to you? Or do you think it is some huge devious conspiracy, and that all them vicious image thieves wanted to download it over and over again.... What's your guess, Dougie? (O; Fact is, no-one cares anymore and they were very poor images. And to be so shocked by just 260 downloads gives you away. Like Graham, when I posted my comet images I got over a thousand fully completed downloads in just a few hours, even on those I admitted weren't great. Is this Internet stuff all a bit new to you, or are your images just that bad that you are used to only getting a few visits? : On Feb 9, 10:29 am, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- : gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : : Ooh, ooh, let me answer that one!! Get a life child... You are starting behave like a kindergarten kid. Come to think of it.... Mark Thomas... Chrlz@go.com (Disneyland) sort of starts to add up, if you look at it that way. Now let's see... The prick Steals an image of mine and joins forces with that terminally ill Tony Polson who remarkably, has recovered from his illness at about the time he gets his pension to post criticism that the picture was not sharp... Nice one Mark... What happened when I posted the uncompressed and totally sharp version? nothing from either of you... Pair of cowards. Tell us about your own beautiful pictures (ROTFL) on your web site (More ROTFL) containing your "Portfolio". Amazing pile of pics these mate. Blown highlights. Blocked shadows. What'd you use? A texta pen or 2" brush to fill in the details? (Side splitting laughter here) http://www.marktphoto.com/ What're you use for colour balance? The saga continues... Process server attends an address in Port Lincoln you claim to still be living at while residing in Southern Queensland, only to be told "No, no Mark Thomas lives here". Nice one Mark. Liar. Liar, pants on fire. Using the false name of Chrlz... (maybe it your real name - who knows?) You post a defamatory message announcing I'm a fraud. That I don't own any print shops and I'm just a backyard operator. Sounds good... If it were true! Almost as good as the one about Graham Hunt. Currently he's head down bum up changing a pair of fuel filters on the starboard engine of Ryadia. Graham has worked for me for 12 years. Even when you had the opportunity to meet him, you scurried off only to be recorded on security camera, after taking photos of Margie's market stand when she nicked off for a pee. I suppose in many ways you are one lucky fellow he didn't get down the stairs a wee bit faster than he did... Swine! What happened when I posted a picture of my (now closed) Cleveland shop? Nothing again from the fraudster who would judge me. Good one Mark. What do you do for seconds? Oh yes... Your mates at the securities commission Ha. ROTFL at that load of bullshit. Then there was the little fiasco you started when I mentioning in passing to another poster that I had permits to enter any Marine park, National Park or Recreational area for the purpose of Photography and he may be well advised to obtain some himself if he intended to sell any photos he took in these areas... $50,000 fine is possible. You managed to hi-jack that thread too with more slander that I was lying about this too. That I didn't have any permits even though I have taken International Photography tours through these areas. What happened when I posted a scan of the permits, Mark? Nothing again. You really are an absolute cowardly bastard, whoever you are. Now you are trying to present yourself as someone qualified to pass comments on my findings and at the same time make out that by requiring interested people to actually ask for a copyright image, somehow or another it is offensive to YOU? For Christ sake mate... Let go of your dick when you get in front of your computer or stay on the binaries groups. This group needs you like it needs your bullshit. Why don't you just cut the cord on your PC and then you'll have someone actually interested in your (flawed and irrelevant) opinions. Now here is the thing mate... You haven't told us yet about your revelation on "Sharpening regimes" yet... Lets have it child... How does sharpening a RAW image from one camera differ from sharpening a RAW image from another? Don't hold back, we all understand the terminology. Give it to us mate. While you're at it, lets have the bit about depth of field according to Mark Thomas explained too. You really did make an idiot of yourself there mate. Douglas On Feb 8, 11:27 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Tell us about your own beautiful pictures (ROTFL) on your web site (More > ROTFL) containing your "Portfolio". Amazing pile of pics these mate. Blown > highlights. Blocked shadows. What'd you use? A texta pen or 2" brush to fill > in the details? (Side splitting laughter here)http://www.marktphoto.com/ > What're you use for colour balance? You tell him, D-Mac! Nobody knows blown highlights like The Master. http://www.pbase.com/photosbydouglas/image/74145995 > On Feb 8, 11:27 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/photosbydouglas/image/74145995 Don't forget the halo around the subjects, plus a lovely glow on his jacket and her chest... Tip, if you use the shadow/highlight tool, increase the radius from the default of 30! : > On Feb 8, 11:27 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- : > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] : Tip, if you use the shadow/highlight tool, increase the radius from : the default of 30! -------------------------------- Don't feed the Trolls Rowan... Being in the business of selling Photographs as opposed to taking happy snaps for mates to fawn over... I have no interest in posting final edit photos of anyone who pays me for taking their photos. It simply doesn't makes sense to put image up that clients could print themselves and they turn out as the ones I sell them... Bret may well entertain you with his childish behaviour. He must have a lot of time on his hands to be able to do this... Does that tell you anything about the bludger? Douglas On Feb 9, 5:32 am, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Being in the business of selling Photographs as opposed to taking happy > snaps for mates to fawn over... I have no interest in posting final edit > photos of anyone who pays me for taking their photos. That's an interesting defense. "My pics suck because I don't want anyone to steal them. I purposely tilted that horizon and used flash to illuminate the back of that guy's head., but the originals are fantastic works of art. And the poor composition? Well, it's great in the originals!" Yeah, that's the ticket! > It simply doesn't makes sense to put image up that clients could print > themselves and they turn out as the ones I sell them. heard of using watermarks? or putting up a size not suitable for printing? nah - probably not. I'm glad you've made money out of property, coz you have f*ck all chance out of making it as a photographer! : > It simply doesn't makes sense to put image up that clients could print : > themselves and they turn out as the ones I sell them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : I'm glad you've made money out of property, coz you have f*ck all chance : out of making it as a photographer! And you, Andrew? what do you do for money? The Dole perhaps? Quite the opposite from your antics, I make a comfortable living from Photography. My property deals give me a lifestyle the likes of you and fagot Hogan can only dream about. > And you, Andrew? > what do you do for money? Work - both for another, and for myself. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to brag or seek gratification from others. > The Dole perhaps? Never have, and I doubt ever will. > Quite the opposite from your antics, I make a comfortable living from > Photography. McDonalds is popular too - I am constantly amazed at the number of people without taste. > My property deals give me a lifestyle the likes of you and fagot Hogan can > only dream about. Firstly, you don't know what I do, what I own, what my lifestyle is and certainly not what I dream about. And secondly, who is Hogan and why would I share my dreams with him? oh, and I note you've added homophobic vilification to your repertoire (even if you can't spell 'faggot' - you are seeing a whole team of shrinks, aren't you :) > > My property deals give me a lifestyle the likes of you and fagot Hogan can > > only dream about. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (even if you can't spell 'faggot' - you are seeing a whole team of > shrinks, aren't you :) Andrew, you are arguing with a homophobic idiot cripple who can't spell and lives on a boat. Of course, with his personality the ability to pick up anchor and move quickly is a huge plus. Similar to his online behaviour where he changes his screen name every 5 minutes when someone busts him on one of his outlandish tales. Even today, D-Mac's old lady has to hang little fish around his neck just to get the pelicans to play with him. >> > My property deals give me a lifestyle the likes of you and fagot Hogan >> > can [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Even today, D-Mac's old lady has to hang little fish around his neck > just to get the pelicans to play with him. Bwahahahahaha, that is excellent Brett, keep them coming. > It simply doesn't makes sense to put image up that clients could print > themselves and they turn out as the ones I sell them... And it makes even less sense to post pictures that show how un-professional you are. But frankly anyone who would be happy with a lo-res web picture for a print is unlikely to be a customer of any *professional* photographer. MrT. > Being in the business of selling Photographs as opposed to taking happy > snaps for mates to fawn over... I have no interest in posting final edit > photos of anyone who pays me for taking their photos. > > It simply doesn't makes sense to put image up that clients could print > themselves and they turn out as the ones I sell them... So.... Let me get this right - you only showcase your crap? Ever heard of Ken Duncan? Arguably Australia's most succesful photographer at the moment. I wonder why it is good enough for him to post decent pics on his website. Probably because he understands that if someone does download one of the images on his website, it is still not nearly as high quality as the real images that he sells. Certainly if I was a professional photographer I'd put some examples of my BEST work on my website, so that potential customers could see what I was capable of. An image with about 800-1000px on it's long dimension is certainly good enough to be able to judge image quality on screen, but not nearly good enough for a decent print. It might give an acceptible print at 6x4 but any bigger than that it will look like crap, so it's hardly going to impact on your sales. > Ooh, ooh, let me answer that one!! > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Is this Internet stuff all a bit new to you, or are your images just > that bad that you are used to only getting a few visits? "Ooh, ooh, let me answer that one!!" Probably both :-) MrT. >On Feb 9, 10:29 am, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas- >gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >You withdrew them, then you abused everyone who criticised them (and >everyone who managed to look at them *has* - it's not just me.. Hey, I didn't! I saw them as well as the ones that were posted in the "D-MACS PICS: FINALLY !" thread, and I can't utter a word of criticism. Of course, that may change when I finally manage to pick myself up off the floor and stop pissing myself laughing. Oh my God he even capitalised the expression "Professional Photographer"... I can't believe that he's actually admitting that they're his. >Is that all more rocket science to you? Or do you think it is some >huge devious conspiracy, and that all them vicious image thieves >wanted to download it over and over again.... >What's your guess, Dougie? (O; HAH! You even need to ask?? That's ANOTHER 500 bucks on your head, me bucko. Alan K, GMT + 10 hours + a bit for daylight saving Foundation of Rome + 2760 years give or take > I really do want to see who is getting the images. Why? What will you do with the information? >Strange now that > anonymous downloading of them has stopped, no one asks for them. Or do you > see that as normal? Absolutely normal, I never register just to look at a web site. If you want it to be private, why bother to post details at all? There is plenty else to look at, so most people will just go somewhere else. How does that help you? MrT. For the sake of completion, here's Douglas' EXIF data. Note that this information is Copyright, Douglas MacDonald, 2007, and is reposted here with my permission and for educational purposes... (O; CANON Image EXIF Data. Note the asterisked items... Original date/time: 2007:02:06 12:46:13 Exposure time: 1/160 (0.00625) Shutter speed: 1/160.00 * F-stop: 4.5 * ISO speed: 100 Focal length: 70.0000 Flash: 16 Orientation: 1 Aperture: 4.3399 * Exposure bias: 0.3333 * Metering mode: 5 Exposure program: 2 PANASONIC Image EXIF Data Note asterisked items. Original date/time: 2007:02:06 12:20:31 Exposure time: 1/320 (0.00313) Shutter speed: 1/320.00 * F-stop: 5.6 * ISO speed: 100 Focal length: 27.6000 Flash: 16 Orientation: 1 Aperture: 4.9709 * Exposure bias: -1.3300 * Metering mode: 5 Exposure program: 2 Clearly, he has dialled in underexposure on the Pana, and overexposure on the Canon, in Program mode. By doing this he has caused a smaller aperture on the Panasonic, and thereby also exaggerated the d-o-f disparity. Here endeth the lesson, Douglas. > For the sake of completion, here's Douglas' EXIF data. > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Here endeth the lesson, Douglas. No lesson to learn, he is a professional, he meant to do that because it proves he is right!! ;-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.