 |
 | 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 2007ALERT! Another D-Mac Imposter!
Hey D-Mac, just a quick heads up to let you know that some imposter has set up yet another gallery pretending to show off pics taken by you. There are some real laughers on this one, as well. The Hang Glider, Part II http://www.douglasjames.com.au/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=187 Nice blown highlights, schmuck. The Panasonic only focuses out to 4 meters. http://www.douglasjames.com.au/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=213 D-Mac, Master of Focus and Composition http://www.douglasjames.com.au/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=227 Today's Caption Contest Entry: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=197 Way to save the shadow detail. Not! This girl has really taken a shine to D-Mac. http://www.douglasjames.com.au/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=203 Especially her forehead, her nose, and her chin. Get your Arkansas legal team on this one right away! They are mocking you once again! > Hey D-Mac, just a quick heads up to let you know that some imposter > has set up yet another gallery pretending to show off pics taken by [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Get your Arkansas legal team on this one right away! > They are mocking you once again! Without being flamed can I just ask what started all this fighting between you two? I must admit I was getting a good chuckle out of some of the messages left on pbase. > Without being flamed can I just ask what started all this fighting > between you two? It has been going on for a while now, but it escalated a bit recently when he wished death on me. Now his wife is seriously ill so it looks like he missed again. Let's pray for the poor woman's full recovery. But it isn't really between just us two. D-Mac is the Internet's punching bag. It usually starts when he makes some outlandish claim about the abilities of himself or his equipment. Then when someone points out that he's full of it, he starts insulting them, and it grows from there. His paranoia is such that he thinks everyone is out to get him. And of course, we are. It usually goes something like this: D-Mac: "The sky is green. I have pics to prove it." (D-Mac references a photo on his web page.) Mark: "But those pics have been altered in Photoshop. It clearly says on the EXIF data which is visible when I downloaded the pic to view it." D-Mac: "You thief! You stole my image! I'll sue you, fagot (sic)! (The photo has mysteriously disappeared from his webpage.) D-Mac: "That was just a proof shot. That wasn't the real pic showing the sky is green. You have to order one of my canvas prints to see the original. You don't think I'm stupid enough to post real pics for you to steal are you? You tosser! Help, help, I'm being oppressed!" >> Without being flamed can I just ask what started all this fighting >> between you two? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >to steal are you? You tosser! >Help, help, I'm being oppressed!" Good summary Brett. You forgot to mention the little girl who follows him around, clip-clopping coconut shells together to simulate the sound of a horse. Hey D-Mac, I clicked a couple of the links to your photos and got the message, "An error has occurred. " How did it know? : Hey D-Mac, just a quick heads up to let you know that some imposter : has set up yet another gallery pretending to show off pics taken by : you. : There are some real laughers on this one, as well. --------------------------- I don't have a problem with your antics when they point to images on my web site. I just have a problem with you stealing my identity and my images then committing fraud impersonating me to get your jollies of... If you actually had a clue you might realize compressed images often blow out the highlights... The cost of 60% compression. In case you missed the news flash... 80% of Australian Internet users are still on dialup or ADSL1. None of them could see your uncompressed, full resolution images on PBase with any reasonable expectation. Most could go for a pizza while it loaded. Your favourite slut, Mark Thomas got caught out with that one when he and Tony Polson tried to get me with a "soft" image of an old fellow a couple of years ago... Up until I posted the uncompressed version of it... Doing that would have no effect on you. You really ought to stop doing whatever it is that's sending you blind. The quality of the images YOU see may be compromised by my gallery software which applies compression to the pictures. Don't think for a single moment I'm going to post uncompressed images just because you see blown highlights... Get yourself a decent monitor. If Photoshop says the whites in my photos are anything other than 255.255.255 the pic doesn't have blown highlights. If Photoshop shows the blacks as anything other than 0.0.0. the shadows are not blocked either. Gallery ( gallery.menalto.com) compresses the image enough to blow the highlights but that is just the cost of a fast enough load for those Aussies who are still on 64k and less internet links. In case you missed the implication... You aren't one of them. YANKEE GO HOME. Stay out of this group anyway... You're starting to make Mark Thomas look like a patron saint. Even a jerk like you should know by now that 90% of the world's computer users see different colour balance and brightness than you do. The Internet and web images are such an imprecise means of displaying a picture, what you see is not necessarily what other see and vice versa. So why don't you take the brick off your dick and see if it's long enough yet to go f.ck yourself with it? Bloody American idiots > If you actually > had a clue you might realize compressed images often blow out the > highlights... The cost of 60% compression. Bullshit. Compression doesn't change the color values. You're an idiot. > The quality of the images YOU see may be compromised by my gallery software > which applies compression to the pictures. Don't think for a single moment > I'm going to post uncompressed images just because you see blown > highlights... Get yourself a decent monitor. My monitor is calibrated. Don't blame my equipment for your crappy pics. Like the one I referenced (which you quickly removed, reminding one of Pavlov's dog) with the 4 people on the beach and the Hang Glider. The sky was totally blown out (255,255,255). I can re-post it if you like. > If Photoshop says the whites in my photos are anything other than > 255.255.255 the pic doesn't have blown highlights. And if it does? >If Photoshop shows the > blacks as anything other than 0.0.0. the shadows are not blocked either. If you knew anything about displaying images you would never have shadows that read (1,1,1). You should always leave a margin of error of at least 10-15. > Gallery ( gallery.menalto.com) compresses the image enough to blow the > highlights Compression doesn't blow the highlights. Poor exposure from a hack photographer blows the highlights. >YANKEE GO HOME. Stay out of this group anyway... I'll post where I like, you Australian twit. I'm sure the boys in this newsgroup don't like you representing them. You give every photographer south of the equator a bad name. > Even a jerk like you should know by now that 90% of the world's computer > users see different colour balance and brightness than you do. The Internet > and web images are such an imprecise means of displaying a picture, what you > see is not necessarily what other see and vice versa. Hey dumbass, it's called calibration and sRGB. Go buy a friggin book. So now tell us why you quickly removed some of the photos on your site that I linked to? Too much bandwidth? Or maybe that evil Mark Thomas was stealing your pics again? > I'll post where I like, you Australian twit. Hep! Australian twits might have a thing or two to say about that! > I'm sure the boys in this newsgroup don't like you representing them. Wot about the girls then? ¦D Speaking for myself, personally, I couldn't care less about the whole cat fight.  SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly Wot about the girls then? > Speaking for myself, personally, I couldn't care less about the whole > cat fight. sounds like one, don't it? :-D > : Hey D-Mac, just a quick heads up to let you know that some imposter > : has set up yet another gallery pretending to show off pics taken by [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > had a clue you might realize compressed images often blow out the > highlights... The cost of 60% compression. do you even have a clue ??? Compression causes jaggies and articafacts in photos, it does not "Blow" the highlights. please get a clue <dross snipped to remove the need to vomit> Oz > If Photoshop says the whites in my photos are anything other than > 255.255.255 the pic doesn't have blown highlights. If Photoshop shows the > blacks as anything other than 0.0.0. the shadows are not blocked either. Wow if only it were that easy!. Now lets all write a script to set the range from 01.01.01 to 244.244.244, and never have to worry about highlights or shadows ever again :-) :-) :-) MrT. Douglas, your post shows a lamentable lack of knowledge. > If you actually > had a clue you might realize compressed images often blow out the > highlights... The cost of 60% compression. No, that is completely incorrect. The compression does not alter or lose highlights, but it may cause image artefacts and posterisation - as you prove frequently. And that only happens when some moron is foolish to use too high a level of compression. JPEG is, of course, an 8-bit format so there can be slight losses at the top and bottom of the range, but it will only be visible *when the conversion to 8-bit is done by someone who is incompetent*. Again, anyone with a clue can easily avoid blown highlights/blocked shadows in a jpeg version, unless they are blown in the original. It should also be said that blown highlights are not necessarily 'evil', and can be justified at times, eg in areas where there is no useful or wanted detail, or in a shot with such extremes of dynamic range that they are inescapable. But those issues don't apply to any of Douglas' images, of course. (O; > In case you missed the news flash... 80% of Australian Internet users are > still on dialup or ADSL1. None of them could see your uncompressed, full > resolution images on PBase with any reasonable expectation. What a load of ignorant bullshit. At those sizes you should be able to create pin-sharp images at less than 100k per image. > Your favourite slut, Mark Thomas got caught out with that one when he and > Tony Polson tried to get me with a "soft" image of an old fellow a couple of > years ago... Yes, back then we criticised your JPG incompetence in a similar way. You have, as usual and as expected, learned nothing. Why don't you *repost* that little jpeg in question, Douglas, and I'll show you, again, how to sharpen it *properly*. If not, then you lose again, and you can simply STFU. > The quality of the images YOU see may be compromised by my gallery software > which applies compression to the pictures. It's your choice - so take the wrap - you want to use crap software to show your images? - go for it. It suits them. A professional would: a - take more care to present his/her images in the best possible light b - notice the problem and fix it, rather than have others point it out. This sort of incompetence is a bit like you choosing to use a GIF running across the top of your homepage: http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/ Lovely posterisation and dazzling highlights, Doug. (O; Yet here: http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/privacy.htm for some reason you use "common sense" and actually post a half-decent version, as a JPG. Can you spot the difference, Doug? That's the sort of abysmal attention to detail that you show on a daily, if not hourly basis. *Who* is blind? The moron who uses GIF's on his showpiece page? What sort of *idiot* gets caught like this? > If Photoshop says the whites in my photos are anything other than > 255.255.255 the pic doesn't have blown highlights. If Photoshop shows the > blacks as anything other than 0.0.0. the shadows are not blocked either. Anyone with a decent knowledge of how to display images knows that blown highlights refers to lost detail, and that can happen well under 255's. And if you are *seeing* shadow detail under about the 10's, then your black point is badly set. So it appears *your* monitor needs calibrating. Haven't you ever seen a proper gamma test strip, Douglas, or read up on this topic at places like Norman Koren's excellent site? Again, professionals understand this stuff. See below for a test strip. > Gallery ( gallery.menalto.com) compresses the image enough to blow the > highlights but that is just the cost of a fast enough load for those Aussies > who are still on 64k and less internet links. *I* have gallery software that can do that too, but when I find an image that is 'damaged', I just override it. Can't you write a little html, Doug? Nah, it's just all too hard for you, and why should you bother? - the images don't deserve any decent treatment. > YANKEE GO HOME. Stay out of this > group anyway... You're starting to make Mark Thomas look like a patron > saint. Thanks, Douglas, I knew you would eventually see my shining light of truth. Me, I vote Annika stays. And this group is about Oz photo issues, nest ce pas? You are in Australia and you post this rubbish, so the purpose of this group is for all-comers to discuss that. And everyone who sees this stuff will learn something, it appears (with one single exception....) > Even a jerk like you should know by now that 90% of the world's computer > users see different colour balance and brightness than you do. No, they will see almost identical images if their screens are calibrated as well as his - and it is quite obvious by the quality and correct b/w points of his images, that Annika's monitor is perfect. So's mine. (O; Here's a simple test strip I made specially for you, Dougie - feel free to breach my copywrite (sic): http://www.marktphoto.com/gamma1.gif A well adjusted screen: - should clearly show ALL the white shades (the difference between d,e,f should be visible).. - should not *quite* show the black bar labelled b - it should be right on the border of invisibility. c should be visible, however. If you have that, then your gamma is well set, at around 2.1 or 2.2, the defacto standard for Windows boxes. (This sort of gamma check may not work very well on LCD screens, sorry.) People who are not old enough to have stopped learning may also wish to read this: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html Here endeth another lesson on the basics. > The Internet > and web images are such an imprecise means of displaying a picture, what you > see is not necessarily what other see and vice versa. Spoken by someone without a clue. WTF do you think monitor calibration *does* then, Doug? Just because *some* people don't have their monitors correctly adjuisted, that is an excuse for posting poorly adjusted crap? > So why don't you take the brick off your dick and see if it's long enough > yet to go f.ck yourself with it? What a lovely man. Showing all this to your team of hotshot lawyers, Dougie? > Douglas, your post shows a lamentable lack of knowledge. > [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > What a lovely man. Showing all this to your team of hotshot lawyers, > Dougie? Between the war, there is some great info in there. Thanks for the gamma stuff! I'd appreciate it if other responses to Doug gave as detailed howto's as this post. Thanks Mark! > Between the war, there is some great info in there. Thanks for the gamma > stuff! I'd appreciate it if other responses to Doug gave as detailed > howto's as this post. Thanks Mark! No worries, cobber! Feel free to ask any questions, or just post some new topics - God knows we need something new to distract us (oh alright, me) from Douglas-teasing.. (O; Mark wrote: > Here's a simple test strip I made specially for you, Dougie - feel > free to breach my copywrite (sic): [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > - should not *quite* show the black bar labelled b - it should be > right on the border of invisibility. c should be visible, however. I like what you have done there. May I include the image and text on my personal (non-commercial) photo gallery? > Mark wrote: > >http://www.marktphoto.com/gamma1.gif [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I like what you have done there. May I include the image and text on my > personal (non-commercial) photo gallery? Certainly. And I don't require acknowledgement - it's something I hacked up in a few minutes just to make the process of checking a little quicker. People seem to like having the little letters! Mark wrote: >> Mark wrote: >> >http://www.marktphoto.com/gamma1.gif [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > hacked up in a few minutes just to make the process of checking a > little quicker. People seem to like having the little letters! Thanks. The letters make it a lot easier to describe how to use it. <snip> > Here's a simple test strip I made specially for you, Dougie - feel > free to breach my copywrite (sic): [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the defacto standard for Windows boxes. (This sort of gamma check may > not work very well on LCD screens, sorry.) A small point, mark; even if the gamma is more or less correct, if the brightness is set too low the a,b,c, tones will be too black, and c will not be separated from b. Otherwise a very useful test. I borrowed it, hope your reaction is not as per Doug. {:-) Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Bugger - another double, same reason as above in the Black Knight thread. Apologies Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com <snip> > Here's a simple test strip I made specially for you, Dougie - feel > free to breach my copywrite (sic): [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you have that, then your gamma is well set, at around 2.1 or 2.2, > the defacto standard for Windows boxes. <snip> A small point, mark; even if the gamma is more or less correct, if the brightness is set too low the a,b,c, tones will be too black, and c will not be separated from b. Otherwise a very useful test. I borrowed it, hope your reaction is not as per Doug. {:-) Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > A small point, mark; even if the gamma is more or less correct, if the > brightness is set too low the a,b,c, tones will be too black, and c will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Colin D. True, Colin - for brevity (usually not my strong point!) I decided to leave out the part about getting your basic brightness level set correctly. But I did include the link to Norman's site for a more comprehensive discussion... I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the most common problem with badly set monitors is that the gamma is way too high (so b is *clearly* visible), or too low (c and others are lost). That gif gives a very simple and quick check to see if you are in the ball park. I wonder if we should start a new link to discuss monitor calibration in more detail.. Covering more areas, like te very interesting topic of what colour temperature to use. I might start one when I have a bit more free time. And yes, as I mentioned to Wilbur - I declare my Gif as in the public domain and do not require acknowledgement. cheers, mt > I wonder if we should start a new link to discuss monitor calibration > in more detail.. Covering more areas, like te very interesting topic > of what colour temperature to use. I might start one when I have a > bit more free time. yes please :) > So why don't you take the brick off your dick and see if it's long enough > yet to go f.ck yourself with it? > > Bloody American idiots Hey D-Mac, remember over 50 years ago when you were in school and the teacher asked what you'd like to be when you grow up? Remember how the rest of the kids all laughed at you when you answered, "I want to be a no-talent hack photographer living on a houseboat?" Well guess what, D-Mac? They're all still laughing at you. > : Hey D-Mac, just a quick heads up to let you know that some imposter > : has set up yet another gallery pretending to show off pics taken by [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > resolution images on PBase with any reasonable expectation. Most could go > for a pizza while it loaded. > The quality of the images YOU see may be compromised by my gallery software > which applies compression to the pictures. Don't think for a single moment [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > group anyway... You're starting to make Mark Thomas look like a patron > saint. 1. I will accept that a Lossy compression will cause subtle highlight changes, making several shades of white the same colour..... but only if they were blown out in the first place will they become blown out! Compression does not change the tonal range.... just pixels and the number of colours. 2. If you are running a business from your webpage..... I think I would put my best foot forward..... it does not matter what , when, who or why the images have appeared as they are.... they point is, this is what your supposed customers see, it's your shop window. There is only 1 person to blame if the images are shite! kosh >> Gallery ( gallery.menalto.com) compresses the image enough to blow the >> highlights Bullshit. That's a complete lie. I run my own site on Gallery, & it doesn't do anything of the sort. Any resizing is completely optional, & if you /do/ use the automatic resizing, you have almost as much control of the resizing/compression algorithms & settings as you do in PhotoShop. So if Doug's installation of Gallery is so over-compressing his JPEGs that the distortion has mysteriously managed to look like blown highlights, it's because he screwed up the software, & was either too dumb to fix it, or too egotistical to ask for advice from the *very* helpful folk at the (free) Gallery support forums. >1. I will accept that a Lossy compression will cause subtle highlight >changes, making several shades of white the same colour..... but only if >they were blown out in the first place will they become blown out! >Compression does not change the tonal range.... just pixels and the >number of colours. And besides, if you know what you're doing, it's amazing how small you can make a JPEG file that's sized for web use, while still keeping it free of visible compression artifacts. I just tried it out here on one of my own photos, which I resized to 800 x 629 x 24 bits, & it still looked razor sharp & free of artifacting right down to a file size of around 52KB. (In IrfanView, using Lanczos filter for the resize, & JPEG quality set to 65, for anyone curious.) And I've managed a website from a slow link myself, back in the day (64kb ISDN), & even then, 52KB for 800x629 full-colour image was considered fairly zippy, so these days, there's absolutely zero excuse for ruining your photos just to make them download quickly. > Hey D-Mac, just a quick heads up to let you know that some imposter > has set up yet another gallery pretending to show off pics taken by [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Get your Arkansas legal team on this one right away! > They are mocking you once again! seriously.... whats with the dodgy frames????? both the outer cheap as chips looking frame (probably a default template)... and the inner white frame???? I know what your trying to do here.... but it doesn't work for me! kosh > Today's Caption Contest Entry: > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=197 > Way to save the shadow detail. Not! wow, I didn;t notice that double chin before!!! or if I look any smaller in proportion someone might think she's godzilla, not bridezilla! or perhaps the window behind will distract from the face! or nahh mate, she'll be right.. lemme loosen my tie and have a seat while the wifey does all the work! or "Fwaaa mate.... cutting it a bit close with the white line to her head arne't we!" kosh |
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.