 |
 | 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 / December 2007The D3 Kicks 1Ds Mk III's Butt!
<http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/comparison.shtml> Rita > <http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/comparison.shtml> > > Rita Ignoring the obvious title troll... I recommend the read..... "Before people draw any unwarranted conclusions it needs to be said that the 1Ds MKIII is no slouch when it comes to high ISO performance. The shot above and its 100% crop show what the camera is capable of at ISO 3200. In a 16X20" print none of the artifacts seen in the 100% crop above is visible, and noise is extremely low. As I found on my Madagascar shoot, you can work at virtually any ISO under any conditions and get usable, saleable images. And don't lose sight of the fact that you can do so at 5 FPS in 14 bit mode, and with 21 Megapixel files - the previous domain of medium format." - luminous- landscape.com On Dec 8, 11:56 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > <http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/comparison.shtml> > > Rita Ignoring the obvious title troll... I recommend the read..... ============ it is too technical for a dumb troll like her > On Dec 8, 11:56 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> <http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/comparison.shtml> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > it is too technical for a dumb troll like her The 1Ds Mk III is almost as expensive as a Mamiya 645D II which uses a 36x48mm, 22 megapixel CCD sensor, digital back which is interchangeable with 120 roll film backs. The best of both worlds! CCD sensors don't blur the image as much as CMOS sensors do and produce unparalleled image quality. Any 35mm origin DSLR with a sensor as small as a FF 35mm one, would need to produce exceptional results to warrant it's cost. In fact it would need to produce unparalleled results which Canon cameras cannot due to resolving power of their lenses. There is even more economy in the Mamiya than first appears. The back is under $10,000. Used 645AF Mamiyas are selling for $2 -3k, many with lenses and they don't have the service life limitations of a Canon DSLR. I seriously can't see where those high priced Canon's fit the Professional needs for anyone outside the (action) sports area. Douglas > > On Dec 8, 11:56 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > >> <http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/comparison.shtml> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Douglas Actually the 1DS3 is more than a match for the ZD. When this site gets a new quota you can view full size comparison shots from the ZD, 1Ds3 and P21 http://www.tpedersen.com/1DsMKIII_P21_ZD/ Factor in the speed and versatility of the DSLR format and it will be a no brainer for many.... of course everyone's style, likes & needs vary, but on a purely IQ basis the 1DS3 is up there with MF. > Factor in the speed and versatility of the DSLR format and it will be > a no brainer for many.... of course everyone's style, likes & needs > vary, but on a purely IQ basis the 1DS3 is up there with MF. my rb67 and pentax 6x7 are shaking already.... On Dec 8, 3:09 pm, "Douglas" <j...@the.group> wrote: > "Yvon Travailler" <asdas...@ksdkjsd.cna> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Douglas Actually the 1DS3 is more than a match for the ZD. When this site gets a new quota you can view full size comparison shots from the ZD, 1Ds3 and P21 http://www.tpedersen.com/1DsMKIII_P21_ZD/ Factor in the speed and versatility of the DSLR format and it will be a no brainer for many.... of course everyone's style, likes & needs vary, but on a purely IQ basis the 1DS3 is up there with MF. ---------------------- Clearly those who would choose a DSLR over a Mamiya outfit when the price is so close, don't recognize the value of film images. I recently did a shoot on whale watching with 654 film and had along a 5D for company. In total seriousness Russ, the film images were truly spectacular. The 5D stuff just looked like digital images and the two compared together shows quite clearly why film will always be the medium of choice when "IQ" as you call it is critical. The only 35mm SLR to provide the option of using a digital back was a Leica that was discontinued. Certainly no 35mm camera can come near the stuff from MF film and few DSLRs ever get within reach of that "IQ". Douglas > I recently did a shoot > on whale watching with 654 film and had along a 5D for company. In total > seriousness Russ, the film images were truly spectacular. Can't wait to see them! > On Dec 8, 3:09 pm, "Douglas" <j...@the.group> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Douglas As a MF film shooter who has spent thousands on high end drum scans over the years, I respectfully disagree. > The 1Ds Mk III is almost as expensive as a Mamiya 645D II which uses a > 36x48mm, 22 megapixel CCD sensor, digital back which is interchangeable with <snip> > There is even more economy in the Mamiya than first appears. The back is > under $10,000. Used 645AF Mamiyas are selling for $2 -3k, many with lenses > and they don't have the service life limitations of a Canon DSLR. I > seriously can't see where those high priced Canon's fit the Professional > needs for anyone outside the (action) sports area. Try wildlife, photojournalism, travel, macro, and street photography. Medium format also has no where near the lens selection of SLR systems. >> The 1Ds Mk III is almost as expensive as a Mamiya 645D II which uses a >> 36x48mm, 22 megapixel CCD sensor, digital back which is interchangeable [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Try wildlife, photojournalism, travel, macro, and street photography. > Medium format also has no where near the lens selection of SLR systems. Thank God for that. DSLRs don't offer the option to clip on a film back either. And anywhay, mine is bigger than your! Douglas >> <http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/comparison.shtml> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I recommend the read..... I did and it doesn't look good for the 1Ds. Let's see, a bargain basement D3 at $5,000 with a full arsenal of the worlds best glass, Nikkors, beats an $8,000 dSLR with no lens offerings. Of course, one could use an adapter and use Nikkors on it to take full advantage of the sensor. But at this point in the game it's not worth paying an extra $3K just to manually focus when the D3 takes full advantage of AF and has a better sensor. Like I said, the 1Ds is going to be a sweet camera, but there are going to be a lot of unrealistic expectations shattered. Rita > "Before people draw any unwarranted conclusions it needs to be said > that the 1Ds MKIII is no slouch when it comes to high ISO performance. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Megapixel files - the previous domain of medium format." - luminous- > landscape.com > >> <http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/comparison.shtml> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I did and it doesn't look good for the 1Ds. you must be reading a different site than the rest of us. lol > Let's see, a bargain basement > D3 at $5,000 with a full arsenal of the worlds best glass, Nikkors, beats an > $8,000 dSLR with no lens offerings. No lens offerings? Let me put my sunnies on, your Troll colours glowing very VERY bright. > Of course, one could use an adapter and > use Nikkors on it to take full advantage of the sensor. Damn... where did I put those sunnies! :-( > But at this point > in the game it's not worth paying an extra $3K just to manually focus when > the D3 takes full advantage of AF and has a better sensor. Better sensor? Bwahaha... never mind the fact that it's only 12mp or something. Even with that lower res, it looks like it only has a 1/2 to one stop advantage in noise.... and from many many samples shown to date, this advantage comes at the cost of some detail. So it is questionable if this is even an advantage at all. Luminous Landscapes is happy that Canon's 1600ISO images show no visible detail in print at very large sizes. Like... how many of us actually shoot at extreme ISOs anyway? Sure there will be those (press mainly) that will find it useful, but if anyone is serious about image quality they are not going to be shooting high ISO anyway, as it is crap in comparison to 100ISO images regardless of the camera used. As for the extra cost... the resolution makes it worth every penny for those who require MF equaling results. > Like I said, the > 1Ds is going to be a sweet camera, but there are going to be a lot of > unrealistic expectations shattered. Same can be said for the D3. >>> I recommend the read..... >> >> I did and it doesn't look good for the 1Ds. > > you must be reading a different site than the rest of us. lol Obviously you are trying to put something into an article that isn't there. There's nothing in that article that makes the 1Ds stand out as a great camera for the price. >> Let's see, a bargain basement >> D3 at $5,000 with a full arsenal of the worlds best glass, Nikkors, >> beats an $8,000 dSLR with no lens offerings. > > No lens offerings? Let me put my sunnies on, your Troll colours > glowing very VERY bright. Name one L lens under 400mm Canon makes that is even usable? >> Of course, one could use an adapter and >> use Nikkors on it to take full advantage of the sensor. > > Damn... where did I put those sunnies! :-( Use the adapter son, use the adapter and you might not go back to L glass. >> But at this point >> in the game it's not worth paying an extra $3K just to manually [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > date, this advantage comes at the cost of some detail. So it is > questionable if this is even an advantage at all. You bring up a good point. Why is the Nikon sensor at half the MPs still producing better images and performance? If we were comparing apples to apples the 1Ds wouldn't even stand a chance. > Luminous Landscapes is happy that Canon's 1600ISO images show no > visible detail in print at very large sizes. Like... how many of us [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as it is crap in comparison to 100ISO images regardless of the camera > used. Nonsense! A lot of people rarely shot high-ISO because it wasn't a viable option. Since the option is now available to the masses it will be used more. Like I said earlier I am very happy with the ISO 3200 performance of both of these cameras. Sure, I would like to shoot with the lowest ISO possible, but that is not always an option. > As for the extra cost... the resolution makes it worth every penny for > those who require MF equaling results. These people generally buy an MF camera instead of paying $8K for a novelty. >> Like I said, the >> 1Ds is going to be a sweet camera, but there are going to be a lot of >> unrealistic expectations shattered. > > Same can be said for the D3. Possibly, but the D3 isn't going to be letting a lot of people down. Unlike Canon's Mk III, Nikon's D3 users aren't screaming about focusing problem within the first week of introduction. I agree it was a very small sample of Mk IIIs afflicted, but Canon has a tradition for letting the customer beta test. Rita > >>> I recommend the read..... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Name one L lens under 400mm Canon makes that is even usable? Now you are just embarrassing yourself troll! > >> Of course, one could use an adapter and > >> use Nikkors on it to take full advantage of the sensor. > > > Damn... where did I put those sunnies! :-( > > Use the adapter son, use the adapter and you might not go back to L glass. I have the adapter and used the adapter, but I still shoot L glass, as well as Nikon, as well as Olympus, as well as various M42 mount lenses. The difference between you and me, is that I am willing to admit that there are specific items of good glass from a variety of manufacturers, rather than just trolling the one narrow minded line. > >> But at this point > >> in the game it's not worth paying an extra $3K just to manually [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > producing better images and performance? If we were comparing apples to > apples the 1Ds wouldn't even stand a chance. ROFLMAO !!!!! Ok... now you have confirmed for everyone that you have absolutely no understanding of the matter at hand and are simply a TROLL! Excluding image resolution, 1/2 the MPs is a HUGE advantage in designing a sensor and keeping the noise low, yet between the D3 and 1Ds3 there is sweet-FA in it. (As for resolution, well the D3 is not even in the race) > > Luminous Landscapes is happy that Canon's 1600ISO images show no > > visible detail in print at very large sizes. Like... how many of us [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > These people generally buy an MF camera instead of paying $8K for a novelty. Novelty? ....Sounds like MP envy to me. > >> Like I said, the > >> 1Ds is going to be a sweet camera, but there are going to be a lot of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Canon's Mk III, Nikon's D3 users aren't screaming about focusing problem > within the first week of introduction. Lets wait and see if the 1Ds3 lets people down and if the D3 has no problems.... as only time will tell. (anything else is just another troll) >>> No lens offerings? Let me put my sunnies on, your Troll colours >>> glowing very VERY bright. >> >> Name one L lens under 400mm Canon makes that is even usable? > > Now you are just embarrassing yourself troll! Can't name one? >>>> Of course, one could use an adapter and >>>> use Nikkors on it to take full advantage of the sensor. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > admit that there are specific items of good glass from a variety of > manufacturers, rather than just trolling the one narrow minded line. I did admit there are good lenses from Canon, they are all above 400mm. That being said, these "good" lenses still can't hold a candle to Nikon's equivalants. >>> Better sensor? Bwahaha... never mind the fact that it's only 12mp >>> or something. Even with that lower res, it looks like it only has [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ROFLMAO !!!!! You wouldn't be laughing if you squandered $8K. > Ok... now you have confirmed for everyone that you have absolutely no > understanding of the matter at hand and are simply a TROLL! Really? > Excluding image resolution, 1/2 the MPs is a HUGE advantage in > designing a sensor and keeping the noise low, yet between the D3 and > 1Ds3 there is sweet-FA in it. (As for resolution, well the D3 is not > even in the race) And yet the D3's image quality is better than the 1Ds's. For the sake of argument we will say the IQ is equal. This doesn't say much for the 1Ds's poor performance. >> These people generally buy an MF camera instead of paying $8K for a >> novelty. > > Novelty? ....Sounds like MP envy to me. Not likely. One call and I'll be on a wait list for one. Even if I was a diehard Canon shooter I wouldn't buy one. The 1D Mk III blows it away for IQ and the 1.3x sensor is a nice compromise to FF. Tell me this, why is the Mk III with its 10 MP sensor still better than the 1Ds? >> Possibly, but the D3 isn't going to be letting a lot of people down. >> Unlike Canon's Mk III, Nikon's D3 users aren't screaming about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > problems.... as only time will tell. (anything else is just another > troll) The first week says it all. Canon screwed the pooch and their customers while Nikon is taking its time to hash any bugs out before the D3 is in customers' hands. Rita > And yet the D3's image quality is better than the 1Ds's. Where did you get that idea? Let me guess .... you pulled it out of your big fat a.s! >For the sake of argument we will say the IQ is equal. This doesn't say much for the 1Ds's poor performance. For the sake of argument we will say you are an idiot. Wait, there is no argument about that! What's funny is how you are ragging on the 1Ds3 which is a better camera than the 1D3 that you supposedly own. So are you now admitting you blew $5 G's on a crap camera? Sucks to be you, idiot troll! > > And yet the D3's image quality is better than the 1Ds's. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you blew $5 G's on a crap camera? > Sucks to be you, idiot troll! I am over feeding the troll..... cause if we keep feeding it and the arse will get fatter! lol > > > And yet the D3's image quality is better than the 1Ds's. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I am over feeding the troll..... cause if we keep feeding it and the > arse will get fatter! lol Geez too early in the the morning for typing... :-( "I am over feeding the troll..... 'cause if we keep feeding it, the arse will only get fatter! lol" thats better..... now where is my coffee?! ;-) > What's funny is how you are ragging on the 1Ds3 which is a better > camera than the 1D3 that you supposedly own. So are you now admitting > you blew $5 G's on a crap camera? > Sucks to be you, idiot troll! Hell no! The Mk III is a sweet camera, but we both know that the D3 is better. In the unlikely event the D3 turns out to be a dog there's absolutely no reason I can't downgrade back to a Mk III in six months. By then a new one would have dropped from $4,100 to $3,500. Just think, unlike you, I have choices and many options available to me. I know it really sucks being you wishing you had a real camera. No regrets! <http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/FULLRES/D3hSLI00100acr.HTM> Rita > > And yet the D3's image quality is better than the 1Ds's. > > Where did you get that idea? > Let me guess .... you pulled it out of your big fat a.s! wrong guess. try the mentioned review? BTW, you should read it: it might make you reconsider the value of that 40Diminished toy you insist on using. > > > And yet the D3's image quality is better than the 1Ds's. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of that 40Diminished toy you > insist on using. I read the review and it did nothing to tarnish the reputation of my 40D. I think it is funny that all these Nikonaholics have been bashing Michael Reichmann for years, calling him a shill for Canon. Now when he finally figures out that he can make more money and widen his audience by reviewing Nikons, they all go ga-ga over a few Nikon snaps od some dude's eyebrows. > I read the review and it did nothing to tarnish the reputation of my > 40D. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > audience by reviewing Nikons, they all go ga-ga over a few Nikon snaps > of some dude's eyebrows. That's funny, some dude's eyebrows. The Nikon image looked overexposed, which could explain its lower noise. > > > > And yet the D3's image quality is better than the 1Ds's. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I read the review and it did nothing to tarnish the reputation of my > 40D. but it clearly states and shows the iq of the D3 is better than the 1dsm3. Don't change the subject: you asked where did the poster get that idea. From the review. Read it. You might learn something about true image quality. > I think it is funny that all these Nikonaholics have been bashing > Michael Reichmann for years, calling him a shill for Canon. Now when > he finally figures out that he can make more money and widen his > audience by reviewing Nikons, they all go ga-ga over a few Nikon snaps > od some dude's eyebrows. finally he has opened his eyes, instead of just shilling Canon, convinced that it will buy him kudos from them. > > I read the review and it did nothing to tarnish the reputation of my > > 40D. > > but it clearly states and shows the iq of the D3 is > better than the 1dsm3. And that has what to do with the 40D? >Don't change the subject: you > asked where did the poster get that idea. From > the review. Read it. You might learn something > about true image quality. Those quick grab shots didn't show much at all about ultimate IQ and Reichmann never made that claim. Did you read his article? > > I think it is funny that all these Nikonaholics have been bashing > > Michael Reichmann for years, calling him a shill for Canon. Now when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shilling Canon, convinced that it will buy > him kudos from them. I e-mailed MR what I wrote above and this was his reply: ============ "going ga-ga" Ya, right. Perspective, Bret. Perspective. Get a little. > And that has what to do with the 40D? I baited, you bit. simple, really. ROFL! > Those quick grab shots didn't show much at all about ultimate IQ and > Reichmann never made that claim. Did you read his article? unless the queen's language has changed, this: "the D3 Nikon has upped the ante, producing a camera that appears to offer lower noise than Canon (at least against the flagship 1Ds MKIII), and higher available speeds as well." means better iq. > I e-mailed MR what I wrote above and this was his reply: > ============ > > "going ga-ga" > Ya, right. > Perspective, Bret. Perspective. Get a little. yeah, one needs a FF dslr for true perspective. not that 40Diminished crap... > yeah, one needs a FF dslr for true perspective. > not that 40Diminished crap... Hell, if he can't learn how to shoot a 40D right what makes you think he can handle a 1Ds Mk III? Only thing the 1Ds will give him is a larger file to castrate in Photoshop. Only way Bret is going to get a decent image straight from the camera is if they add BMP format. Rita > > And that has what to do with the 40D? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > yeah, one needs a FF dslr for true perspective. > not that 40Diminished crap... Have you ever tested out the 40D Noons? I have and it is awesome! You and Rita's bashing of Bret's choice of camera is clearly more personal than anything else. What it all boils down to is the final results. And Bret's outstanding work speaks for itself. Big deal he uses Photoshop to tweak here and there. How different is that than what someone does in the darkroom with a print? You over-exaggerate about how much Photoshop he does in fact use. Helen > Have you ever tested out the 40D Noons? I have and it is awesome! > You and Rita's bashing of Bret's choice of camera is clearly more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what someone does in the darkroom with a print? You over-exaggerate > about how much Photoshop he does in fact use. Well, "Helen" nobody cares what camera Bret uses. Maybe if he's actually post a real photograph than we might take him seriously. What he's posting belongs in a Photoshop wannabe newsgroup, not in a photography group. And no, that crap doesn't natively come out a camera. Even a Canon couldn't produce that level of excrement without serious PS massaging. The old Mk III never gave me a plastic looking image. Rita On 12/13/07 11:50 AM, in article 13m2scg5m58oj9e@news.supernews.com, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> Have you ever tested out the 40D Noons? I have and it is awesome! >> You and Rita's bashing of Bret's choice of camera is clearly more [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rita How many time are you going to repeat yourself, "Rita"? BTW: "The old Mk III" never gave you *ANY* image. > Have you ever tested out the 40D Noons? I have and it is awesome! > You and Rita's bashing of Bret's choice of camera is clearly more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what someone does in the darkroom with a print? You over-exaggerate > about how much Photoshop he does in fact use. Well, "Helen" nobody cares what camera Bret uses. Maybe if he's actually post a real photograph than we might take him seriously. What he's posting belongs in a Photoshop wannabe newsgroup, not in a photography group. And no, that crap doesn't natively come out a camera. Even a Canon couldn't produce that level of excrement without serious PS massaging. The old Mk III never gave me a plastic looking image. Rita > Well, "Helen" nobody cares what camera Bret uses. Maybe if he's actually > post a real photograph than we might take him seriously. What he's posting > belongs in a Photoshop wannabe newsgroup, not in a photography group. And > no, that crap doesn't natively come out a camera. Even a Canon couldn't > produce that level of excrement without serious PS massaging. The old Mk > III never gave me a plastic looking image. Could you provide some examples of my images that are "plastic- looking?" You keep making that claim so let's see what you're talkin about. >> Well, "Helen" nobody cares what camera Bret uses. Maybe if he's >> actually post a real photograph than we might take him seriously. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > looking?" > You keep making that claim so let's see what you're talkin about. Easy, pick any one of your bird shots. We've discussed this before and you know which ones they are. Rita >>> Well, "Helen" nobody cares what camera Bret uses. Maybe if he's >>> actually post a real photograph than we might take him seriously. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Rita You must be using a different type of string to me Rita. Did you get it at the puppet shop or the idiot stall? I guess it never occurs to some people that "texture" is as much a part of a picture as the subject in it. Painters know this and use their brushes for various textures. Film shooters know this and use film types and processing techniques for it. Odd that when you remove the texture from an image, all you get is a "plastic" look. Bret can see a 255 highlight from 100 yards but couldn't see a plastic image if his life depended on it. I guess that's why he adores Plastishop CS3 so much. Douglas > You must be using a different type of string to me Rita. Did you get > it at the puppet shop or the idiot stall? I hooked his inbreed a.s with stainless steel aircraft cable. > I guess it never occurs to some people that "texture" is as much a > part of a picture as the subject in it. Painters know this and use > their brushes for various textures. Film shooters know this and use > film types and processing techniques for it. You got it. I would rather see a little more noise than a brown smear on a few sheets of toilet paper. > Odd that when you remove the texture from an image, all you get is a > "plastic" look. Bret can see a 255 highlight from 100 yards but > couldn't see a plastic image if his life depended on it. I guess > that's why he adores Plastishop CS3 so much. Well, considering that he is fortunate enough to have a "fixed" copy of CS3. Had he shelled out the cash he might learn how to properly use it and when not to use it. Rita > > Could you provide some examples of my images that are "plastic- > > looking?" > > You keep making that claim so let's see what you're talkin about. > > Easy, pick any one of your bird shots. We've discussed this before and you > know which ones they are. Translation: "I'm just talking out of my a.s again." Ok, here's one of my bird pics. Does that look like plastic? http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90297033/original > helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Have you ever tested out the 40D Noons? I have and it is awesome! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > produce that level of excrement without serious PS massaging. The old Mk > III never gave me a plastic looking image. Ha, you have posted images that were very plastic looking. http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/warbler.htm If that is not one platic looking image I don't know what is. Scott > Ha, you have posted images that were very plastic looking. > http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/warbler.htm > If that is not one platic looking image I don't know what is. LOL! You got me on that! But, in my defense I used a stinken 5D. But I must say that the old Noct did so well that you can almost see the plastic on the molecular level. Rita http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/warbler.htm Well, now that he's caught it, I'd like to see him swallow it....... > Ha, you have posted images that were very plastic looking.http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/warbler.htm > If that is not one platic looking image I don't know what is. LOL! >> Ha, you have posted images that were very plastic >> looking.http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/warbler.htm If that is >> not one platic looking image I don't know what is. > > LOL! At least I'm honest about it! It's tough finding one of Bret's plastic birds indoors when testing the old Noct. Rita >> Have you ever tested out the 40D Noons? I have and it is awesome! >> You and Rita's bashing of Bret's choice of camera is clearly more [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Rita But Rita... Did you ever try it on "Spike"? ROTFL! Douglas >> Well, "Helen" nobody cares what camera Bret uses. Maybe if he's >> actually post a real photograph than we might take him seriously. What [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > But Rita... Did you ever try it on "Spike"? Sure did! Here's one straight out of the old Mk III. Only a resize and save for web. It's not perfect, but it wasn't meant to be for its intended purpose. Even the Fabulous 500 with a 2x TC won't degrade an image enough to make it plastic looking. I guess if I were anal enough I could correct that one little blown highlight. Naw! <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/backfocus.htm> Rita > >> Well, "Helen" nobody cares what camera Bret uses. Maybe if he's > >> actually post a real photograph than we might take him seriously. What [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Rita Nice try, but even with the 20D Bret's work is far better, hence a more talented photographer. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/80235876 Helen >> Sure did! Here's one straight out of the old Mk III. Only a resize >> and save for web. It's not perfect, but it wasn't meant to be for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > more talented photographer. > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/80235876 Well hell, if I were 40 feet away from Spike like Bret I could have done that with a point and shoot camera. Considering that I was shooting handheld at 1,000mm from across the pond (about 100 yards) it is what it is. Next you will be comparing your dick size with Bret's. I know "Helen" has the bigger dick. Rita > helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> Sure did! Here's one straight out of the old Mk III. Only a resize [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Rita LOL! No, you're wrong there Rita. I am indeed a woman, but I'd give my eye teeth to be the "ballsy" person Bret is. Helen > > Nice try, but even with the 20D Bret's work is far better, hence a > > more talented photographer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that with a point and shoot camera. Considering that I was shooting > handheld at 1,000mm from across the pond (about 100 yards) it is what it is. C'mon, Rita: all you gotta do is crop the sh.t out of it, over-sharpen to the point where poor old spike looks like a red-light district hair-sprayed expert and BINGO: instant adulation from "helen". It's really not that hard... >> Well hell, if I were 40 feet away from Spike like Bret I could have >> done that with a point and shoot camera. Considering that I was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > old spike looks like a red-light district hair-sprayed > expert and BINGO: instant adulation from "helen". LOL! True, but at that point there's nothing left of the original image. Oh, I guess that means one should add some "plastic" detail in Photoshop? > It's really not that hard... It is for me. I just can't bring myself to stoop to that level of embarrassment trying to fix an image that should have been deleted. Rita On 12/13/07 4:48 PM, in article 13m3drbq7hhbt1b@news.supernews.com, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >>> Well, "Helen" nobody cares what camera Bret uses. Maybe if he's >>> actually post a real photograph than we might take him seriously. What [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/backfocus.htm> Another example of truly worthless waste of electrons. But "anal"? I guess you would know... On Dec 13, 11:32 pm, helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > Have you ever tested out the 40D Noons? wouldn't even cross my mind as a possibility! > I have and it is awesome! Good for you. Me, I never found a camera I could classify as awesome, in over 35 years of photography. But of course each to his own. > You and Rita's bashing of Bret's choice of camera is clearly more > personal than anything else. No, it is simple, good old-fashioned poking of the rib.s Something you should engage in from time to time, in beween arse-kissing. > What it all boils down to is the final > results. No, it doesn't. There is a thing called principles, and associated rules to follow. "all boiling down to final results" is for criminals and others who don't give a fig about how the world goes around them provided they get what they want. > And Bret's outstanding work speaks for itself. Absolutely. The outstanding work. He also produces a lot of crap. And when that shows up, we rub it into his face. Rather than gushing over and waxing lyrical about what is really just crap. I reckon that's a better way to help him reach his potential than adulation. But of course we may differ there. > Big deal he > uses Photoshop to tweak here and there. You got that right: it's a big deal. And there is a BIG difference between what he sometimes does and a "tweak". > How different is that than > what someone does in the darkroom with a print? I wouldn't know: haven't been in a darkroom since the late 70's. > You over-exaggerate > about how much Photoshop he does in fact use. Not as much as you over-exaggerate how much he doesn't use it. >> And Bret's outstanding work speaks for itself. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > him reach his potential than adulation. > But of course we may differ there. LOL! Yes, Bret's work does speak for itself and it's saying, "Look at my Saran Wrap covered pile of excrement." If Bret were truly interested in getting the most from his equipment he'd learn a little about using it. Here's a gentleman that is shooting RAW with a 20D and what I can see is he's doing very minimal post production in Photoshop. Amazingly enough his images are clean and have great texture and depth. Try as I might I couldn't find a single plastic water colored animation like Bret excretes. And I'll bet you this guy spend 1/100th the time per image in Photoshop than Bret. This rules out it being an equipment problem. As I suspected, It's user error on Bret's part. <http://www.justphotos.ca/galleries/animals/birds/index.htm> Rita > LOL! Yes, Bret's work does speak for itself and it's saying, "Look at my > Saran Wrap covered pile of excrement." Examples, please. > > Big deal he uses Photoshop to tweak here and there. > > You got that right: it's a big deal. And there is > a BIG difference between what he sometimes does > and a "tweak". You have no way of knowing how much I "tweak" my pics in Photoshop. Ironically, some of the ones you liked the most were the ones that took the most work in Photoshop. And some of the ones you claim I manipulated were close to being straight conversions with very little post-processing. Also, you have been guilty of making false accusations about many of them, like saying that I changed EXIF data when the data is real or saying that a pic was faked because you've never seen a heron spear a fish. The point is that without seeing my RAW files you are just talking out of your a.s like Rita. And I've even offered to post the RAW files, but you didn't want to be burdened with the truth. My point is that I value honest critique about my pics like what it is that you don't like or how I might have done it better. But when you make false statements about them, you lose credibility. >> You got that right: it's a big deal. And there is >> a BIG difference between what he sometimes does [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > manipulated were close to being straight conversions with very little > post-processing. UTTER BULLSHIT! Not even a Canon dSLR could produce that level of smeared plastic water colored crap straight out of the camera. Like Noon said, you are just over cropping the sh.t out of your images. Have you ever actually composed a shot in the viewfinder? Rita > UTTER BULLSHIT! Not even a Canon dSLR could produce that level of smeared > plastic water colored crap straight out of the camera. Examples, please. Oh that's right, you're all hat and no cattle. >Like Noon said, you > are just over cropping the sh.t out of your images. Have you ever actually > composed a shot in the viewfinder? Once again, since you have no way of knowing which ones are crops you are talking out of your a.s again. You're so full of sh.t. And if you don't mind, I'll demonstrate. Here's one I took yesterday: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90356002 Yes, it is a crop since I was already maxed out at 560mm and it was still small in the frame. Now tell me, idiot troll, how I'm going to compose that one in the viewfinder any better than I did? In fact, many if not most of my wildlife shots are taken from a distance with the Forgotten 400 f/5.6L. So how the hell am I gonna compose it differently when it only fills a small portion of the frame? Not all of us can afford to rent a 500 f/4 for the weekend like you did. Idiot troll. >> Like Noon said, you >> are just over cropping the sh.t out of your images. Have you ever [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are talking out of your a.s again. You're so full of sh.t. > And if you don't mind, I'll demonstrate. Let's see. The lack of sharpness and overabundance of noise, or should I say your failed attempts to hide the noise. Hence the plastic water colored blurs. > Here's one I took yesterday: > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90356002 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > differently when it only fills a small portion of the frame? Not all > of us can afford to rent a 500 f/4 for the weekend like you did. Easy, go rent a 600/4 and a 2X TC or get off you fat a.s and zoom with your feet. Rita >> Let's see. The lack of sharpness and overabundance of noise, or should I > say your failed attempts to hide the noise. Hence the plastic water colored > blurs. > > > Here's one I took yesterday: > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90356002 Call me when you can do better. I'll enjoy the long silence. > Easy, go rent a 600/4 and a 2X TC or get off you fat a.s and zoom with your > feet. "Zoom with your feet." There's a tired old cliche spoken by someone who obviously has never tried shooting flighty birds like cardinals in the woods. First time you try that crap they zoom with their wings. >>> Let's see. The lack of sharpness and overabundance of noise, or >>> should I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Call me when you can do better. I'll enjoy the long silence. It befuckles the mind that you'd try to pass that patch of noise of as anything good. See below to see how it's done. >> Easy, go rent a 600/4 and a 2X TC or get off you fat a.s and zoom >> with your feet. > > "Zoom with your feet." There's a tired old cliche spoken by someone > who obviously has never tried shooting flighty birds like cardinals in > the woods. First time you try that crap they zoom with their wings. LOL! Right! You made a funny. Here ya go. The only difference here is I'm not as flatulent as you so the cardinals stay put. <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/rhsc1.htm> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/rhsc2.htm> Rita > > "Zoom with your feet." There's a tired old cliche spoken by someone > > who obviously has never tried shooting flighty birds like cardinals in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/rhsc2.htm> Oh, how quaint. A couple of typical uninteresting snapshots from below the bird ruined by the overuse of flash. Any fool can get bird pics from below near a bird feeder. I can get similar shots like that anytime I want in about 10 minutes from my back porch. Go out in the woods and try shooting flighty cardinals that spook easily. That's a different story. And try to get a unique perspective maybe by having your camera at or above the level of the bird or perhaps by catching the bird in a unique pose like with his mouth open (or perhaps a different orifice). Use a long lens with a TC and take the shots handheld. That's the challenge. Anybody can take tripod shots of static birds in trees. It takes no talent. > > > "Zoom with your feet." There's a tired old cliche spoken by someone > > > who obviously has never tried shooting flighty birds like cardinals in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Anybody can take tripod shots of static birds in trees. It takes no > talent. ">And try to get a unique > perspective maybe by having your camera at or above the level of the > bird or perhaps by catching the bird in a unique pose like with his > mouth open (or perhaps a different orifice). Use a long lens with a > TC and take the shots handheld. That's the challenge. > Anybody can take tripod shots of static birds in trees. It takes no > talent." Amen to that!! You go way out of your way to get those unique perspectives too. Helen >> LOL! Right! You made a funny. Here ya go. The only difference >> here is I'm not as flatulent as you so the cardinals stay put. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > below the bird ruined by the overuse of flash. Any fool can get bird > pics from below near a bird feeder. Sorry, these birds are no less wild or tamer than the birds you shoot. Nice try at a diversionary tactic. > I can get similar shots like that anytime I want in about 10 minutes > from my back porch. Good! By all means you should be posting them. > Go out in the woods and try shooting flighty cardinals that spook > easily. That's a different story. And try to get a unique > perspective maybe by having your camera at or above the level of the > bird or perhaps by catching the bird in a unique pose like with his > mouth open (or perhaps a different orifice). Use a long lens with a > TC and take the shots handheld. That's the challenge. Yes, it would be a great challenge for you. Sadly, you Photoshop the elements in that would make your less than mediocre shots mediocre. > Anybody can take tripod shots of static birds in trees. It takes no > talent. Funny thing is you aint doing it. Come back when you think you can get some decent shots. Rita > > UTTER BULLSHIT! Not even a Canon dSLR could produce that level of smeared > > plastic water colored crap straight out of the camera. > > Examples, please. Oh that's right, you're all hat and no cattle. examples? how about your images? > Once again, since you have no way of knowing which ones are crops you BWAHAHAHA! Really? > And if you don't mind, I'll demonstrate. > > Here's one I took yesterday:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90356002 > > Yes, it is a crop since I was already maxed out at 560mm and it was > still small in the frame. so? > Now tell me, idiot troll, how I'm going to > compose that one in the viewfinder any better than I did? by moving your arse and getting nearer, would be a clear option... > In fact, > many if not most of my wildlife shots are taken from a distance with > the Forgotten 400 f/5.6L. we KNOW that! > So how the hell am I gonna compose it > differently when it only fills a small portion of the frame? You don't: you get nearer and fill the frame. You don't crop the sh.t out of a large image, then blow the result up and oversharpen it to ridiculous levels to make it look like a standard non-altered shot. Or if you do, at least you say you did so. Instead of claiming it's all camera work. > > So how the hell am I gonna compose it > > differently when it only fills a small portion of the frame? > > You don't: you get nearer and fill the frame. This ain't portrait work, fool. You have to shoot the animals where they are. I get as close as I am able. Try getting a closeup shot of that Kingfisher and then get back to me. >>> So how the hell am I gonna compose it >>> differently when it only fills a small portion of the frame? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they are. I get as close as I am able. Try getting a closeup shot of > that Kingfisher and then get back to me. I think we already got back to you and showed your fraudulent as up. If every other capable photographer can "zoom with their feet" there's no reason you can't do the same other than pure laziness and incompetence. You need to look elsewhere and get out of the newsgroups and stop trying to impress us with this excrement you call photography and learn how it's done. Rita > > This ain't portrait work, fool. You have to shoot the animals where > > they are. I get as close as I am able. Try getting a closeup shot of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > every other capable photographer can "zoom with their feet" there's no > reason you can't do the same other than pure laziness and incompetence. Yeah, right. Rather than addressing any particular concerns you have with my pics you swim in generalities and cliches. "Zoom with your feet" is this week's cliche. We'll file that one right there beside "Buy low, sell high" which is how you said I could get a 1Ds3 for "next to nothing." I have plenty of closeups of birds and other animals where it was possible to get closer. I also have many long range shots that Ive had to crop because it was impossible to "zoom with my feet." If you had a brain and looked at my latest pic you would notice that the bird was in a tree below camera level. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90356002 How is that possible? Did I climb a tree? Not likely. I was standing on the edge of an embankment looking slightly down on the bird. Zooming with my feet would have only gotten me killed as I slid down the hill, the cracking of my limbs scaring the bird away no doubt. I have similar shots where a bird is flying past me at eye level.or even below me. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/43918349 Please tell me how I can "zoom with my feet" to get closer when there is only air between me and the bird. Idiot troll. >> I think we already got back to you and showed your fraudulent as up. >> If every other capable photographer can "zoom with their feet" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with my pics you swim in generalities and cliches. "Zoom with your > feet" is this week's cliche. I have no concerns with your pics. I might if you'd actually post some that aren't so over-manipulated and over-animated. > We'll file that one right there beside "Buy low, sell high" which is > how you said I could get a 1Ds3 for "next to nothing." Here's another, "People with closed minds never get anywhere in life. The only thing they are good at is being jealous of others and try to tear down something they know they will never have or be." > I have plenty of closeups of birds and other animals where it was > possible to get closer. I also have many long range shots that Ive > had to crop because it was impossible to "zoom with my feet." Right! If you say so. <YAWN> > If you had a brain and looked at my latest pic you would notice that > the bird was in a tree below camera level. > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/90356002 > How is that possible? Did I climb a tree? Not likely. Who cares? It surely didn't add that kick in the a.s feeling to an otherwise boring cliché shot. You took a shot that was lower than mediocre and turned it into sh.t by killing it in post. > I was standing on the edge of an embankment looking slightly down on > the bird. And? Am I to be impressed? > Zooming with my feet would have only gotten me killed as I slid down > the hill, the cracking of my limbs scaring the bird away no doubt. No, dumbass, you would be in a harness repelling down the hill while zooming with your feet. You lack creativity and drive. > I have similar shots where a bird is flying past me at eye level.or > even below me. > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/43918349 > Please tell me how I can "zoom with my feet" to get closer when there > is only air between me and the bird. Photoshop him in like you usually do. The trouble is you lost the little bit of credibility you had as a snapshooter when you tried to pass off your piss poor animated Photoshop renditions of as photographs. It's sad you are left with only one mentally challenged imbecile oohing and awing for your crap pics. You might temporarily impress a passerby, but other than that they catch onto your game in a few days. Rita > > Yeah, right. Rather than addressing any particular concerns you have > > with my pics you swim in generalities and cliches. "Zoom with your > > feet" is this week's cliche. > > I have no concerns with your pics. Good. Then save us both some time and don't look at them. >It's sad you are left with only one mentally challenged imbecile >oohing and awing for your crap pics. Helen has proven herself to be a very good photographer so I value her opinion more than an idiot troll who has shown us nothing of value except a few boring snapshots from a camera and lens he rented for the weekend. Your comments about Helen reveal nothing about Helen, but a lot about you. You wrote: "People with closed minds never get anywhere in life. The only thing they are good at is being jealous of others and try to tear down something they know they will never have or be." I think you just described yourself perfectly. You have not only attacked my photography, but now my friendships as well. It'll take a lot more than the ramblings of a jealous idiot troll to tear down my friendship with Helen. Sucks to be you, idiot troll. >>> Yeah, right. Rather than addressing any particular concerns you >>> have with my pics you swim in generalities and cliches. "Zoom with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Good. Then save us both some time and don't look at them. They're worth a good laugh and an example of how *NOT* to do things. Keep posting them so we can keep laughing. >> It's sad you are left with only one mentally challenged imbecile >> oohing and awing for your crap pics. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > except a few boring snapshots from a camera and lens he rented for the > weekend. Your jealousy is showing again. It was a great rental; you ought to try it sometime. Just wait till you see what's coming down the old "rental" pipe before the end of the year. If you thought your envious streak had you down in the dumps, you're going lower. > Your comments about Helen reveal nothing about Helen, but a lot about > you. Yes, they reveal that I have you figured out for the bottom dweller you are and it pisses you off every time I rub your nose in it. > You wrote: > "People with closed minds never get anywhere in life. The only thing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lot more than the ramblings of a jealous idiot troll to tear down my > friendship with Helen. Wrong, I cannot attack something that doesn't exist. Had you said that I was attacking your lame attempts of covering up poor photographic skills with Photoshop animations and renditions I would agree with you. As for "Helen", I said it once and I'll say it again, if IT really exists you are nothing more than a coward without balls and a piece of sh.t for taking advantage of an mentally and emotionally challenged woman. So no, I have not attacked your definition of "friendship" in any way shape or form. In fact, I feel sorry for you. I'm not sure if you are capable of being married or of having a relationship, but how does the wife feel about you taking advantage of "Helen" and accepting that gift of the 40D? I'm sure if she weren't a parasite living off of others she would strongly object to your actions. Boy, do I have you figured out. BTW> I will always attack software pirates, frauds, and thieves. Since you feel the need to publicly boast about using a "fixed" copy of CS3 and a keygen, I will take your word for it and rub your nose in it. > Sucks to be you, idiot troll. You only wish you could be half as good as me. Rita > >>> Yeah, right. Rather than addressing any particular concerns you > >>> have with my pics you swim in generalities and cliches. "Zoom with [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Rita Man!! What I said last October 26th must have hit you right in the jugular vien. That's what's eating your a.s about me. The truth really hurts. But be my guest, go for it. Call me whatever you want. Everyone knows it's pure lies and you're just taking stabs in the dark. I actually find it hilarious. > Man!! What I said last October 26th must have hit you right in the > jugular vien. That's what's eating your a.s about me. The truth > really hurts. But be my guest, go for it. Call me whatever you want. > Everyone knows it's pure lies and you're just taking stabs in the > dark. Huh? What's eating at me? Nothing really. This is pure entertainment for me while I'm processing other tasks. As I said then and I'm just saying now, I find it sad and pathetic if this event *really* happened and "Helen" is real. It puts Bret in a dim light for taking advantage of a mentally and emotionally challenged woman, assuming she exists. Even if the event didn't happened it still looks bad for Bret perpetuating more of his bullshit and deception. Personally, I'm calling BULLSHIT and the whole thing a none-event. Either way, Bret is still a deceptive person. I just don't want to see him take advantage of another person. If you're real you'll wake up one day. No skin off of my nipples. Have fun. > I actually find it hilarious. Yes, so do all of us. Isn't that the purpose of newsgroups? Rita > Personally, I'm calling BULLSHIT and the whole thing a > none-event. Who cares what you think? Everybody knows I have a new 40D. You, on the other hand have jack squat. Has that pretend D3 arrived yet? Whatsa matter ... long lines at the rental stand at Toys R' Us? >> Personally, I'm calling BULLSHIT and the whole thing a >> none-event. > > Who cares what you think? Everybody knows I have a new 40D. You do or we wouldn't be having so much fun. Yes, you're right, we all know you bought a new 40D. So? You should have gotten the D300. > You, on the other hand have jack squat. I'm heartbroken. > Has that pretend D3 arrived yet? Whatsa matter ... long lines at the > rental stand at Toys R' Us? No, I'm just pretending its not here, that's all. Maybe one day when I wake up it will be. You know, all that Disney sh.t? Rita > > It'll take a > > lot more than the ramblings of a jealous idiot troll to tear down my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > nothing more than a coward without balls and a piece of sh.t for taking > advantage of an mentally and emotionally challenged woman. FYI, ALL women are mentally and emotionally challenged. > I'm not sure if you are capable of being > married or of having a relationship, Oh really? sh.t, guess I shoulda called you before I tied the knot 7 years ago. >but how does the wife feel about you > taking advantage of "Helen" and accepting that gift of the 40D? Not that its any of your fuckin business, but she was kinda pissed. But she got over it. Someday maybe you and D-Mac will, too. >> I'm not sure if you are capable of being >> married or of having a relationship, > > Oh really? sh.t, guess I shoulda called you before I tied the knot 7 > years ago. Do you ever spend time with her? >> but how does the wife feel about you >> taking advantage of "Helen" and accepting that gift of the 40D? > > Not that its any of your fuckin business, but she was kinda pissed. You mean you have to ask her permission to spend money? You need to grow a set of balls. This is why I call this BULLSHIT because if it really happened I think she would have you returning the old 40D and teach you a little about self-respect and integrity. On the other hand, if she were just your average trailer trash she would have "gotten over it" and pat you on the back with a "That a boy, hook another sucker" speech. Hey, my condolences. > But she got over it. Someday maybe you and D-Mac will, too. Get over what? I'm just returning the favor to D-Mac for making me laugh so hard. I hope he's getting a kick out of my routine? Rita >>> I'm not sure if you are capable of being >>> married or of having a relationship, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Rita Oh yeah... Never enjoyed Usenet this much since the boy posted his "wedding photography". Never seen it done with a 10mm lens before. Sure put a new angle on the perspective of a portrait! ROTFL. No... Wait. I got just as much joy when bozo posted his famous wide angle Jewel photo. It wasn't until I shelled out for the premium version of Google earth I realized what was going on. Major hilarity around here. Hey Bret... What brand of bleach did you use on that dog to get his coat reading 255.255.255 in Photoshop? Oh man, this is Christmas and you brought me a load of joy. Thanks Rita. Let me know if you ever feel like seeing AU, I'll lend you my RV. Douglas > Oh yeah... > Never enjoyed Usenet this much since the boy posted his "wedding > photography". Never seen it done with a 10mm lens before. Sure put a new > angle on the perspective of a portrait! ROTFL. That would have been a neat trick since I don't own a 10mm lens. Post the pic, please. > Oh yeah... > Never enjoyed Usenet this much since the boy posted his "wedding > photography". Never seen it done with a 10mm lens before. Sure put a > new angle on the perspective of a portrait! ROTFL. The thing is, in the beginning I thought Bret was doing a good job and a semi-decent novice photographer till he got overly deceptive passing off his Photoshop animations and renditions as photographs. Well, that and him admitting that he uses a fixed copy of CS3 and a keygen. He's lost the little bit of credibility he had left with that one. I dislike software pirates and thieves. Next he'll be telling us he steals music?. > No... Wait. I got just as much joy when bozo posted his famous wide > angle Jewel photo. It wasn't until I shelled out for the premium > version of Google earth I realized what was going on. Major hilarity > around here. Oh, his renditions are worth a good laugh. It's just we're laughing at him and not the pics. > Hey Bret... What brand of bleach did you use on that dog to get his > coat reading 255.255.255 in Photoshop? LOL! He learned that from that dimwit Mark Morgan. I had to bust that fools a.s for not using a fill flash on those blown eagle or hawk shots he was so proud of. Boy, he had more excuses than Bret. > Oh man, this is Christmas and you brought me a load of joy. Thanks > Rita. Let me know if you ever feel like seeing AU, I'll lend you my > RV. I think Bret realizes we still love him. I might have to take a month away from Bret and bring the family to AU and do some sight seeing. It's been on my list of things to do when things slow down a bit. Rita > You mean you have to ask her permission to spend money? You need to grow a > set of balls. This is why I call this BULLSHIT because if it really [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on the back with a "That a boy, hook another sucker" speech. Hey, my > condolences. Like I said, you and your suck-buddy D-Mac are insanely jealous because an online friend bought me a 40D. This irks you in two ways ... you have no firends and you don't have a camera as good as the 40D. Sucks to be you, losers. As for my wife, we've been happily married for 7 years now and I would suggest that you leave her out of this. You ain't as anonymous as you think. I will not respond to any more of your posts mentioning her so save your breath. >> You mean you have to ask her permission to spend money? You need to >> grow a set of balls. This is why I call this BULLSHIT because if it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ways ... you have no firends and you don't have a camera as good as > the 40D. Sucks to be you, losers. LOL! I'm all broken up inside. > As for my wife, we've been happily married for 7 years now and I would > suggest that you leave her out of this. You ain't as anonymous as you > think. I will not respond to any more of your posts mentioning her so > save your breath. Seems she never was in this. Had she been and had an ounce of integrity she would have curbed your stupidity and made a man out of ya, assuming she even remotely cares about you. Who cares about anonymity? I'm easy enough to find if you have the desire. Like I told you before, when you grow a set of balls you are welcome to stop by and we can split a beer and a dozen crabs. Maybe you can show me how that CS3 keygen works. And frankly, you really don't have to answer me since I don't care, that's on you. I'll still keep you dancing; you'll just be doing it silently. BTW> Why don't you like it when people talk about your wife in a derogatory way, not that I'm doing that, and it is acceptable for you to call D-Mac's wife and daughter every filthy name you can think of? Rita >>> You mean you have to ask her permission to spend money? You need to >>> grow a set of balls. This is why I call this BULLSHIT because if it [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Rita How do you have a happy marraige and spend 16 hours a day on a comp |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message