Mike

Doug thinks he is a Professional Wedding Photographer so I guess the photos
he makes in that capacity are his best work.
If you are an amateur sport shooter then you should publish some in that
genre. It's just not fair to be critiqued on what is not your forte.

Gerrit

I have a few on that site, one of them was the most looked at for a while.

http://www.photo.net.au/members/peted/Contre-jour-Pete-D-32.jpg.html?g2_imageVie
wsIndex=1

I like this one though.

http://www.photo.net.au/members/peted/Bussellton-Pier.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

Cheers.

Pete

For something that's not your forte, they're not too bad. my only slight
criticism, is that maybe they are a little overexposed - whites in the
dresses for example. But not too bad, i've certainly seen worse examples of
overexposure done by "professional wedding photographers".
As for your sports shots - fantastic! I assume you are registered with the
AFL and get to go down to the ground to get those shots. I ran into problems
with security at the third NRL state of origin game - they thought that with
a 300mm lens from 3/4 the way to the back of the stadium would be a threat
to their copyright.

I think you'll find Mick, The children haven't established a record of
playing with you like they play with Doug and you'll get few or no
comments about your pictures.

Personally I never did understand the twisted camera thing unless
there were peculiar opportunities for such shots. We also abandoned
the use of diffusion for all but special images several years ago but
I guess "each to their own".

http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/images/rach-1.png is
probably the best example I can offer over the net, where diffusion
was beneficial to an image. The image thief doesn't think so but a
poster size enlargement on canvas, hanging in our studio certainly
produces plenty of positive comments and results in bookings.

The children play with Doug because when he used 2 different web
sites. One an advertisement (brisbaneweddingphotographers.com) and the
other (photosbydouglas.com - now closed) to provide clients with
proofs, a hillbilly fool from the backwoods of Tennessee (Bret
Douglas) decided to get some leverage over Doug and stole some of
Doug's proof photos (about 10 from the 500 or so he had to choose
from) then proceeded to create site after site after site with free
hosts where he posted the pictures. You know as well as I that no
photographer gets everyone of 500 shots right. Doug's contracts (now
changed) gave the client the right to see all the pictures taken, not
just the good ones.

He forged Doug's name, using his identity (which he also stole). The
sheep in this group in particular but also some in rec.photo groups,
chimed in with their comments and the perception that these were
somehow examples of Doug as a wedding Photographer spread around. The
truth is a long way different. No one posting crap here has actually
seen any of Doug's wedding photography examples, just the couple of
recognized "nokeepers" Bret Douglas stole and maybe, Mark Thomas got
hold of too.

The fact is, if you use the Internet for providing photo proofs and
don't use secure or password protected galleries, you can expect this
sort of garbage from hoons with nothing but mischief on their mind.
Lesson 16 learned the hard way.

Another issue far more damaging to Usenet and relating to your earlier
post about starting a new group, goes back quite a few years. About
the time Canon released the 10D, (Milo's era) the first post (to
aus.photo) that really got the hoons out of their shells was made by
"Brenden", a Newcastle school teacher. He used the fact Milo lived
with and cared for his mother in some sort of degrading reference.
Milo eventually left the group, rather than put up with continual
defamation by idiots acting like a pack of dogs.

Mark Thomas (Used to call himself Charles Stevens) started the
personal attacks on Doug with his very well aimed but totally
defamatory and incorrect assessment of Doug's Interpolation routine to
enlarge digital images. He has stalked Doug ever since. The fact that
time has demonstrated Doug was a true pioneer in the digital canvas
print industry and the methods he developed and used to produce poster
size enlargements from postcard size images is now common place,
haven't changed the lunatics relentless attacks.

You might notice the idiot posted 50 lines of "technical evaluation"
of my happy snap (the Falcon ute) but has nothing to say about anyone
else but Doug's photos. All this from someone claiming to have "lost
his creativity" as a Professional 'wedding' photographer but not
offering any proof of his bullshit claims. Just like the other poppy
cutters getting stuck into those who do post their photos - no
credibility.

More power to you Mick, for posting something. Pity others don't
follow your lead.