 |
 | 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 / August 2008Boi Toy of huge proportions physically and mentally!
It's not often I take notice of a stink boat but this beast just has to be taken seriously. From Kiwi too. They must be stark raving mad over there. This think gets up to some serious speed! http://www.d-mac.info/boi-toy.htm -- Meet the trolls... http://www.d-mac.info/trolls.htm Join me and have a laugh at their pathetic behaviour. > It's not often I take notice of a stink boat but this beast just has to > be taken seriously. From Kiwi too. They must be stark raving mad over > there. This think gets up to some serious speed!http://www.d-mac.info/boi-toy.htm Why did you attempt to lighten the trees in the background in the bottom pic? Note that the very top outline of the trees are still dark. Sloppy work! Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 19/08/2008 11:22 PM: > Why did you attempt to lighten the trees in the background in the > bottom pic? Note that the very top outline of the trees are still > dark. That's what happens when you got no clue what you talking about: you tend to assume everyone posts fakes like you do. That is mangrove vegetation, lighter than the gum tree tops behind it. > Sloppy work! No, just your sheer ignorance taking advantage of your prejudice. > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 19/08/2008 11:22 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > posts fakes like you do. That is mangrove vegetation, > lighter than the gum tree tops behind it. Bullshit. The lightening halos are obvious. Perhaps all that masturbating to pics of your daughter has made you blind in your old age, old man. Many of the trees in the background are also blue and purple. Must be a Sigma! >> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 19/08/2008 11:22 PM: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Many of the trees in the background are also blue and purple. Must be > a Sigma! Hey Bret... Have you ever seen a mangrove swamp? And stop downloading my pics will ya? Do what everyone else does, just enjoy them.  SignatureMeet the trolls... http://www.d-mac.info/trolls.htm >>> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 19/08/2008 11:22 PM: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Hey Bret... Have you ever seen a mangrove swamp? And stop downloading my > pics will ya? Do what everyone else does, just enjoy them. So you can't see the halos above the treeline? You really do have eyesight problems. The problem runs right across the top of the trees, here's a sample location for you - 326,143. Then look left and right. Maybe zoom it up a bit, that might help with your Magoo problem. It could be bad sharpening technique, but looks more like a poorly executed attempt to lighten those areas. If you are going to post-process, use a little more care. Maybe you should get your eyes retested - macular degeneration can be quite rapid at your age - or seek out someone with good vision to check your work before you post. When do we get to see that Manly panorama, by the way? http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 20/08/2008 9:43 AM: > It could be bad sharpening technique, no sh.t, Einstein? It's only all over every edge of that image, must be a new edge technique? > but looks more like a poorly > executed attempt to lighten those areas. and every other edge. You should already be familiar with it: called sloppy over-sharpening. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 20/08/2008 1:03 AM: >> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 19/08/2008 11:22 PM: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bullshit. What you said? Yes, it is... But that's a habit, not an exception. > The lightening halos are obvious. Is that one of your photoslop techniques, the "lightening halos"? Care to show where that is described anywhere? Those are sharpening halos: they are all over all edges of that image but of course your tunnel vison stops you from seing the obvious. > Perhaps all that > masturbating to pics of your daughter has made you blind in your old > age, old man. You're the one copying her photos, not me. Care to explain why? ah yes: because you are a PEDOPHILE and CHILD-ABUSER. > Many of the trees in the background are also blue and purple. Must be > a Sigma! Nope: they are bluegum trees. That's ther natural colour, moron. But once again your ignorance is rampant. > > The lightening halos are obvious. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of that image but of course your tunnel vison stops > you from seing the obvious. Wrong again, dumbass. What you see is the result of Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight command. It leaves the exact type of "lightening halos" that I described. Perhaps you should leave the post-processing discussions to the adults who actually have some familiarity with Photoshop? Stick to what you know ,,,, internet stalking, thread hijacking, and using your work computers to make threats that your old fat a.s can't back up. I wonder if your bosses know how you spend your time at work? Note that I'm not suggesting that anyone there locally call them up and rat you out or anything. That would be mean. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/08/2008 2:31 AM: > Wrong again, dumbass. What you see is the result of Photoshop's > Shadow/Highlight command. It leaves the exact type of "lightening > halos" that I described. The descriptions of your famous "lightening halos" are all over the Internet, it's a widely used technique. (NOT!...) > who actually have some familiarity with Photoshop? Photoshop, no: photoslop. It's what morons like you do with pirated software. > Stick to what you > know ,,,, internet stalking, thread hijacking, and using your work > computers to make threats that your old fat a.s can't back up. Really? You mean you don't do any of those? What are you doing posting during YOUR work hours, fat-arse? Ah yes: you don't like your job, we knew that ages ago. Here is a clue, moron: FIND ANOTHER ONE. I did. Oh sorry, I forgot: you are unemployable... > I wonder if your bosses know how you spend your time at work? Of course they do. And they love it so much they keep raising my salary. I wonder why? Must be because the rest of the world is stupid and you are the only unemployable smart arse? Yeah, must be that... > Note > that I'm not suggesting that anyone there locally call them up and rat > you out or anything. > That would be mean. BWAHAHAHAHA! Another empty threat from the moron redneck, PEDOPHILE and CHILD-ABUSER! > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/08/2008 2:31 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > over the Internet, it's a widely used technique. > (NOT!...) It isn't a technique .... it's an artifact of improper technique. I've fallen victim to it myself from time to time which is why I rarely use the Shadow/Highlight command in Photoshop. Big nose. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/08/2008 10:56 AM: > It isn't a technique .... it's an artifact of improper technique. so shadow/hihlight is an improper technique? make sense... > I've fallen victim to it myself from time to time which is why I > rarely use the Shadow/Highlight command in Photoshop. so rarely that you don't even know what it does anymore... > Big nose. fat arse > > I've fallen victim to it myself from time to time which is why I > > rarely use the Shadow/Highlight command in Photoshop. > > so rarely that you don't even know what it does anymore... I know exactly what it does and the effects it produces. Why are you arguing with me about this when you obviously don't know what the f.ck you're talking about? >>> I've fallen victim to it myself from time to time which is why I >>> rarely use the Shadow/Highlight command in Photoshop. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why are you arguing with me about this when you obviously don't know > what the f.ck you're talking about? Neither do you it would seem. When you two get through ripping each other's throats out, I'll tell you what I did! LOL. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/08/2008 11:48 PM: > I know exactly what it does and the effects it produces. Bullshit. > Why are you arguing with me about this when you obviously don't know > what the f.ck you're talking about? The difference between us is I don't have the slightest problem with that while for you it's the whole purpose of your entire sorry existence: without your photoslop techniques you would not be able to produce a single image! > > Why are you arguing with me about this when you obviously don't know > > what the f.ck you're talking about? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sorry existence: without your photoslop techniques you would not > be able to produce a single image! Really? I've got a few thousand slides and negatives laying around here that say you're full of crap. Here's a recent one: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/97745446 About the only Photoshop I used on that one was downsizing and crop. You need to do something about that jealousy, dude, before it eats you up completely. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 23/08/2008 1:34 AM: >> The difference between us is I don't have the slightest problem >> with that while for you it's the whole purpose of your entire [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Really? I've got a few thousand slides and negatives laying around > here that say you're full of crap. Here's a recent one: See? The perfect proof you don't have a clue what you're talking about! WTF has film got to do with photoslop, dickhead? Of course one can use photoslop WITH film. Of course you can produce dslr images WITHOUT photoslop. You just don't. And that is the perfect demonstration of your idiocy. > Of course one can use photoslop WITH film. > Of course you can produce dslr images WITHOUT photoslop. > > You just don't. And that is the perfect demonstration > of your idiocy. No, I don't. Why would I want to? My goal is to present the best pic possible and that can only be done with post-processing, especially since I shoot everything in RAW mode. Kinda hard to post a RAW file on our beloved PBase. So what are you advocating? Are you saying that everyone should just shoot JPGs and post them straight from the camera? You don't do that. >> Of course one can use photoslop WITH film. >> Of course you can produce dslr images WITHOUT photoslop. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So what are you advocating? Are you saying that everyone should just > shoot JPGs and post them straight from the camera? You don't do that. Who is "you" in that statement Bret? Some of the most successful wedding photographers in Australia never use RAW mode capture. Many newspaper camera persons (somehow doesn't sound right, does it) reporting critical news and political events are forbidden from using RAW capture. Why? Because they are not allowed to alter their images or "Photoshop" them for legal reasons. Something about forgery. Like making out someone is green when they aren't or giving influential women grotesque mouths. Face it Bret, you may be a disciple of EOS who worships the God RAW but there are those in the community who seriously outnumber your flock and believe JPEG done properly, not just saves a huge amount of time but also results in the quality they were used to getting with transparency film. Nothing at all wrong with that line of thought. I've been telling you for years to get it right in the camera and you'll have more time for masturbation but you insist you get more satisfaction playing with Photoshop than yourself. If you have a problem finding it, I can send you some string to use like a lasso next time it sneezes. The hardest part of change is the decision to make it. Your 40D is not the ideal camera to use for JPEG capture. A 5D is excellent for shooting JPEG capture and they are on special right now for under $1500 in Hong Kong. I ordered one on Friday. Why don't you get one too? D-Mac wrote,on my timestamp of 25/08/2008 7:57 AM: > I've been telling you for years to get it right in the camera and you'll > have more time for masturbation but you insist you get more satisfaction > playing with Photoshop than yourself. If you have a problem finding it, > I can send you some string to use like a lasso next time it sneezes. If only it was playing with Photoshop... More like playing with Photoslop, unfortunately. > The hardest part of change is the decision to make it. Your 40D is not > the ideal camera to use for JPEG capture. A 5D is excellent for shooting > JPEG capture and they are on special right now for under $1500 in Hong > Kong. I ordered one on Friday. Why don't you get one too? Well said. One of the things I'll never comprehend is why are these canonits still bothering with the crap canon 1.6 form factor when they have access to one of the best dslrs ever made for what amounts to a pittance! I suppose they gotta scam off the excess stock... > Some of the most successful wedding photographers in Australia never use > RAW mode capture. Many successful fast food restaurants microwave their food. If speed is more important than quality then shoot your JPGs and take what you get. >Many newspaper camera persons (somehow doesn't sound > right, does it) reporting critical news and political events are > forbidden from using RAW capture. Of course. They are on deadlines so it makes sense that they need an image fast. It doesn't have to be a great image to get in a paper. I prefer not to lower myself to those low standards. Your mileage may vary. > Face it Bret, you may be a disciple of EOS who worships the God RAW but > there are those in the community who seriously outnumber your flock and > believe JPEG done properly, not just saves a huge amount of time but > also results in the quality they were used to getting with transparency > film. Nothing at all wrong with that line of thought. Nothing except the part about quality. It is very simplistic to suggest that you should just "get it right in camera." You always want the best capture possible, but sometimes it is impossible to do that without post-processing. If you have a scene with great dynamic range it is impossible to expose for both the shadows and the highlights. With RAW, however, you can import two different exposures from the same shot and combine them. You can do this with JPG, too, just not as effectively. And how would I shoot JPGs with my infrared D60 since every shot comes out pink? > A 5D is excellent for shooting JPEG capture and they are on special right now for under $1500 in Hong > Kong. I ordered one on Friday. Why don't you get one too?- I agree the 5D is a great camera. How about ordering me one? Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 25/08/2008 2:12 AM: >> Of course one can use photoslop WITH film. >> Of course you can produce dslr images WITHOUT photoslop. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, I don't. Why would I want to? And why wouldn't you want to? > My goal is to present the best pic possible and that can only be done > with post-processing, especially since I shoot everything in RAW mode. > Kinda hard to post a RAW file on our beloved PBase. You don't need photoslop to process raw into jpg. And what you do has nothing to do with processing a RAW file into a visible result: you also falsify the content and intent of the original image. There is a fundamental difference. > So what are you advocating? Are you saying that everyone should just > shoot JPGs and post them straight from the camera? You don't do that. Never did that. That suggestion is purely your invention. > You don't need photoslop to process raw into jpg. And > what you do has nothing to do with processing a RAW file > into a visible result: you also falsify the content and intent > of the original image. There is a fundamental difference. Any capture can be improved in some way by post-processing. So if your goal is to present the best final result then you are a fool to shoot JPG. You think Ansel Adams printed his pics straight from the negatives? Why didn't he just get it right in camera? > > So what are you advocating? Are you saying that everyone should just > > shoot JPGs and post them straight from the camera? You don't do that. > > Never did that. That suggestion is > purely your invention. So then answer the question. Are you against post-processing in general, or just when I do it? Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 25/08/2008 11:43 PM: >> You don't need photoslop to process raw into jpg. And > Any capture can be improved in some way by post-processing. I'll repeat again: You don't need photoslop to process raw into jpg. > So if your goal is to present the best final result then you are a > fool to shoot JPG. I'll repeat again: You don't need photoslop to process raw into jpg. > You think Ansel Adams printed his pics straight > from the negatives? Why didn't he just get it right in camera? I'll bet anything you want he printed his pics straight from the negatives: he simply could not have done otherwise! LOL! As to getting it right in camera, apparently he did. To the extent that he tuned the camera actions to his development times better than anyone else in his time. Your point? Or IOW: WTF has Ansel Adams got to do with the altered digital crap you show? > So then answer the question. Are you against post-processing in > general, or just when I do it? I'm against altering the contents and intent of an entire image by adding or subtracting elements of its content. Which is precisely what you do. To call that "post-processing" is only a figment of your deranged imagination. > > So then answer the question. Are you against post-processing in > > general, or just when I do it? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > To call that "post-processing" is only a figment > of your deranged imagination. Oh, please! It is a rare shot like the recent double-hummer shot where I actually add or subtract anything that wasn't there. When I do add something it is usually just a goof and should be obvious to the viewer. Like this one where I added one letter. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/101724018 Or the pic of the same bird: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/101756408 Or this combined exposure shot (not really adding or subtracting): http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98912314 Or this multiple-exposure: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/30362672/large Or this one with the added sign: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/65753651 That's 5 pics out of the thousands I've posted. I may have missed a couple more, but the point has been made. You just like to bitch because that's what you do and that's what you are. > That's 5 pics out of the thousands I've posted. I may have missed a > couple more, but the point has been made. You just like to bitch > because that's what you do and that's what you are. There you go again mate. All about you. You try to make out everyone will somehow get better quality photos in raw than in JPEG. That is entirely a false statement. Ask Your mate Anal Browne or Gordon Moat if they thinks the 24" x36" posters I sent them would have benefited from being shot in RAW. It was from a JPEG I printed and I sent them the identical digital negative with the poster. Some support for your argument may be because your 40D and the 20D before it does such a piss poor job of JPEG capture that you can't repair the damage the camera does but not all makers use 40% compression for their full resolution JPEGS. Uncompressed JPEGS are absolutely every bit as good as RAW files for editing and in many cases, side step entirely the need for post processing. It's all in technique mate. You talk about the thousands of photos you post on line. Ask yourself what value is there other than your own self indulgence, in having 10,000 plasticised pictures that were once photos if there is no financial value in them? How many sales are you going to make of a fly's eye, for Christ Sake? Even in retirement (not for long if the boredom keeps up) I still get monthly royalty payments for photos I shot in JPEG that are just perennial money earners. Sit mate, I still get royalties from photos I took in 1992! I proved the fallacy of your thought process when you were standing at the gate with your case! (well almost). For years I shot parallel RAW and JPEG with the thought that if the JPEG was blown or had other image flaws I couldn't recover, I at least had a digital negative I could use to fix it by hand. Guess what? 46 years of getting it right in the camera carried over to digital and I invariably discarded the RAW files, using only the JPEGS. Maybe 4 or 5 times I went to the RAW file and then discovered that the blown highlights were in it too! Those photos you altered and called "bridezilla" were all JPEGs. Some, when the God awful Canon 580EX speedlite shut down because of a specular highlight returning false lighting information that were 4 stops under exposed, pulled up in photoslop just as well as any RAW file would have. Face it Bret... You are peddling a fake here. Your pictures are more like scaled down painting than photos. Recognise the medium you work with and stop trying to make it look like something it isn't and never will be. Photography is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional scene. Even introducing colour into it, degrades the concept of a photograph. Your photosloping just degrades it further. > Uncompressed JPEGS are absolutely every bit as good as RAW files for > editing and in many cases, side step entirely the need for post > processing. It's all in technique mate. Unvarnished rubbish! I wish you'd get it straight, both of you: There's a time for JPEGs and a time for RAWs. Neither is categorically "right" or "wrong"; it depends on the circumstances, which include, but are not limited to: Photog's preferences, subject matter, equipment, and lighting. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > I wish you'd get it straight, both of you: There's a time for JPEGs and > a time for RAWs. OK, when is the time for RAW? If your answer is "When you are seeking to get the absolute best image from the file" then I've made my point. JPEG = when you want it fast RAW = when you want the best You might as well be comparing McDonalds to Outback Steakhouse or Ruth's Chris. >> I wish you'd get it straight, both of you: There's a time for JPEGs and >> a time for RAWs. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You might as well be comparing McDonalds to Outback Steakhouse or > Ruth's Chris. Yeah, yeah, Yugo vs. Rolls. etc. etc. Now, to see if *you* get it, all snideness aside, when is the time for JPEG? (remember that some of us shoot sports and events). Ok, enough of the hints already. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > Now, to see if *you* get it, all snideness aside, when is the time for > JPEG? (remember that some of us shoot sports and events). Ok, enough of > the hints already. When you are on a deadline. When "good enough" is good enough. When quanity trumps quality. >> That's 5 pics out of the thousands I've posted. I may have missed a >> couple more, but the point has been made. You just like to bitch [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > monthly royalty payments for photos I shot in JPEG that are just perennial > money earners. Sit mate, I still get royalties from photos I took in 1992! And NOW its all about you, I call bullshit Douggie, we all know your hard pressed to make a dollar out fo your wedding photography so why would we believe that you can make a dollar out of a photo you took in 1992. > I proved the fallacy of your thought process when you were standing at the > gate with your case! (well almost). For years I shot parallel RAW and JPEG > with the thought that if the JPEG was blown or had other image flaws I > couldn't recover, I at least had a digital negative I could use to fix it > by hand. Again! its now about you again :-) > Guess what? 46 years of getting it right in the camera carried over to > digital and I invariably discarded the RAW files, using only the JPEGS. > Maybe 4 or 5 times I went to the RAW file and then discovered that the > blown highlights were in it too! About you again, do you see a pattern emerging here Douggie?? > Those photos you altered and called "bridezilla" were all JPEGs. Some, > when the God awful Canon 580EX speedlite shut down because of a specular > highlight returning false lighting information that were 4 stops under > exposed, pulled up in photoslop just as well as any RAW file would have. How did he alter the bridezilla photos ?? we all saw them directly from YOUR web site Douggie, dont get fast and lose with the truth again. > Face it Bret... You are peddling a fake here. Your pictures are more like > scaled down painting than photos. Recognise the medium you work with and > stop trying to make it look like something it isn't and never will be. And yet Brett recieves praise from all corners, you on the other hand get nothing but ridecule, how is that walking panno coming along by the way, not that abortion you tried to peddel before, but the one you said you could do of the Manly Marina ?? Photography is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 > dimensional scene. Even introducing colour into it, degrades the concept > of a photograph. Your photosloping just degrades it further. speaks the master at degradation. Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg > You try to make out everyone will somehow get better quality photos in > raw than in JPEG. That is entirely a false statement. I do, too. Guess that makes it true for some, but not Doug. It's ok to admit you can't get better quality out of raw. But many of us can. > Ask Your mate Anal Browne or Gordon Moat if they thinks the 24" x36" > posters I sent them would have benefited from being shot in RAW. It was > from a JPEG I printed and I sent them the identical digital negative > with the poster. Strange. I don't recall Gordon or Alan ever referring to any digital negatives or discussion about raw. Perhaps Doug can post a link. But if I recall the print, it would not have benefited from raw processing much as it was not a shot that had a great deal of dynamic range. Although I gather it was a little soft and had some visible artifacts, so maybe... > Uncompressed JPEGS are absolutely every bit as good as RAW files for > editing No they aren't. But the difference is only useful in perhaps 10% of what I shoot. So I turn it on when I know I will need it - intuition is generally enough, or a histogram check if in doubt. > and in many cases, side step entirely the need for post > processing. It's all in technique mate. But yours is the only way? Strange. > You talk about the thousands of photos you post on line. Ask yourself > what value is there other than your own self indulgence, in having > 10,000 plasticised pictures that were once photos if there is no > financial value in them? Perhaps if you avoided personal attacks, stuck to the topic and realised that it isn't all about money..? > How many sales are you going to make of a fly's eye, for Christ Sake? Perhaps if you realised that it isn't all about money..? > Even in retirement (not for long if the boredom keeps up) I still get > monthly royalty payments for photos I shot in JPEG that are just > perennial money earners. Sit mate, I still get royalties from photos I > took in 1992! Perhaps if you realised that it isn't all about money..? > I proved the fallacy of your thought process when you were standing at > the gate with your case! (well almost). For years I shot parallel RAW > and JPEG with the thought that if the JPEG was blown or had other image > flaws I couldn't recover, I at least had a digital negative I could use > to fix it by hand. So why did you keep doing this for 'years'? Maybe you should do a course in systems analysis, or problem solving for beginners. > Guess what? 46 years of getting it right in the camera carried over to > digital and I invariably discarded the RAW files, using only the JPEGS. > Maybe 4 or 5 times I went to the RAW file and then discovered that the > blown highlights were in it too! That's not all that surprising, given some of the examples you posted. Once you blow highlights by 2 stops or so, even raw won't help you. > Those photos you altered and called "bridezilla" were all JPEGs. Like AC, I only saw the original on your site. > Some, > when the God awful Canon 580EX speedlite shut down because of a specular > highlight returning false lighting information All flash systems will encounter situations where 'anomalies' will cause unsuitable exposure. A good photographer will know his equipment and what to expect and work *with* it. A bad photographer is easily spotted - s/he's the one who blames the equipment, and keeps swapping from brand to brand (or from film to digital and back). Ring any bells? > that were 4 stops under > exposed, pulled up in photoslop just as well as any RAW file would have. A good photographer wouldn't have got the image so horribly wrong. And they would have taken the time to properly investigate RAW files to see exactly what they can do. Just out of interest and on the topic of extending dynamic range, Douglas also recommends HDR... for *weddings*... (O: He never elaborated, though - here's the post from him as 'dreamtime': http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/004eed1e520880b3 I'd love to hear more.. > You try to make out everyone will somehow get better quality photos in > raw than in JPEG. That is entirely a false statement. No, not everyone. You obviously can't. But even your chances go up considerably when you are working with ALL the data in the file instead of what your camera decided you needed based on the settings you chose. If you and the idiot Noons want to make the claim that JPG is just as good as RAW then go for it. The rest of the world will continue laughing at your stupid a.ses. Think for a minute (I know it hurts, but try anyway). If a JPG image could deliver as good a final result as working from a RAW file, why the Hell would anyone shoot raw? Why would there be competing RAW converters such as ACR, DPP, DxO, Capture One, Nikon Capture, etc? So the pros are all wrong and you and Noons must be right. Wake up. ====================== > Ask Your mate Anal Browne or Gordon Moat if they thinks the 24" x36" > posters I sent them would have benefited from being shot in RAW. Was that the stitched shot that you claimed was an enlargement from a single capture? I have a hard time keeping up with your lies. Thank God for Mark Thomas. ====================== > Uncompressed JPEGS are absolutely every bit as good as RAW files for > editing and in many cases, side step entirely the need for post > processing. It's all in technique mate. Bullshit. ====================== > How many sales are you going to make of a fly's eye, for Christ Sake? Who cares? Do you think people take photos of their family and friends to sell? Maybe if you weren't such a whore for a dollar, you'd enjoy life a little more. I take pics of things that interest me or challenge me. If they interest you or not, I could really give a sh.t. ====================== >Sit mate, I still get royalties from photos I took in 1992! Sure you do, Douggie. Sure you do. ====================== > Face it Bret... You are peddling a fake here. Your pictures are more > like scaled down painting than photos. You and Noons need to get together and decide which argument you are making because you always intertwine them. You both touch on 3 main points. 1. My pics are all sh.t. They all must be fake because you can't get similar results even with better gear. 2. JPG is as good as RAW. 3. There is no need for post-processing and even if you do have to tweak it a little bit the JPG file will work just fine. Point #1 is debatable. Points #2 and #3 are not. You are clearly wrong there. > You and Noons need to get together and decide which argument you are > making because you always intertwine them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 3. There is no need for post-processing and even if you do have to > tweak it a little bit the JPG file will work just fine. That about sums it up. See what you miss in being a worshipper of EOS is the value of other brands of cameras. Take for example Olympus. This company knows how to make lenses of the finest quality. They also use TIFF as their RAW capture and their high quality JPEG save is is at least as good a Canon RAW save. Pity they aligned themselves with a TV camera maker for sensors. The reason you have such firm (and wrong) ideas is because you shoot Canon only and never explored the value of other makers. That's OK. I shoot Canon again now and. It too will be mostly in RAW. Not because JPEG is no good but because Canon's implementation of it is compressed and their files are close to rubbish. If Canon chose to produce a camera that shot only uncompressed JPEG it probably wouldn't sell. Not because the files would be no good but because people like you have managed to turn your fairy tale notions into folklore that gullible people believe. >> You and Noons need to get together and decide which argument you are >> making because you always intertwine them. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > capture and their high quality JPEG save is is at least as good a Canon > RAW save. That's partly a credit to Olympus in-cam-proc, but it is also a reflection of the fact that the Oly sensors are about 1-2 stops short of the dynamic range of the Canons, so it is less of a struggle to fit that range into a jpg... > Pity they aligned themselves with a TV camera maker for sensors. So you indirectly acknowledge my point, and yet still haven't got a clue about why raw gives you a stop or two extra dynamic range (and some other benefits, but if you can't even get past that one....) > The reason you have such firm (and wrong) ideas is because you shoot > Canon only and never explored the value of other makers. > > That's OK. I shoot Canon again now and. It too will be mostly in RAW. > Not because JPEG is no good but because Canon's implementation of it is > compressed and their files are close to rubbish. Can you give some cites for this? I think you *won't*, because any references will shoot the rest of your argument down in vivid flames. > If Canon chose to produce a camera that shot only uncompressed JPEG it > probably wouldn't sell. Gee, do ya think? > Not because the files would be no good but > because people like you have managed to turn your fairy tale notions > into folklore that gullible people believe. You know best Douglas. I mean, you see this criticism in forum posts everywhere... er.. can you post a few cites for that as well? Do you want a longer shovel? D-Mac wrote,on my timestamp of 26/08/2008 2:28 PM: > If Canon chose to produce a camera that shot only uncompressed JPEG it > probably wouldn't sell. Given that without compression jpeg would simply not exist as a file format, that statement is in fact quite true... > See what you miss in being a worshipper of EOS is the value of other > brands of cameras. Take for example Olympus. This company knows how to > make lenses of the finest quality. They also use TIFF as their RAW > capture and their high quality JPEG save is is at least as good a Canon > RAW save. Bullcrap. Why would you want a TIFF file which is normally larger than a RAW file? The RAW file contains ALL the original data while the TIFF is just a JPG with lower compression. > That's OK. I shoot Canon again now and. It too will be mostly in RAW. > Not because JPEG is no good but because Canon's implementation of it is > compressed and their files are close to rubbish. How much more crap can you pull out of your butt? How are Canon JPG files rubbish? Why have I not read anything about this anywhere else in the world? Is it just another secret that only you know? >> See what you miss in being a worshipper of EOS is the value of other >> brands of cameras. Take for example Olympus. This company knows how to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > this anywhere else in the world? Is it just another secret that only > you know? Because I'm the ultimate authority on opinions. They're like a.sholes... Everyone has one. > > How much more crap can you pull out of your butt? > > How are Canon JPG files rubbish? Why have I not read anything about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because I'm the ultimate authority on opinions. They're like a.sholes... > Everyone has one. And yours is bigger than most. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/08/2008 11:56 AM: > If you and the idiot Noons want to make the claim that JPG is just as > good as RAW then go for it. I never claimed jpg is just as good as raw, stop the heavy drinking: it's obviously affecting your ability to reason. > The rest of the world will continue > laughing at your stupid a.ses. as well as laughing at your stupid "deductions". And while we're on your "voices": wjo is the "rest of the world", dickhead? Your troll buddies from pbase? > If they interest you or not, I could really give a sh.t. That just about defines your entire attitude to the "rest of the world", doesn't it? > You and Noons need to get together and decide which argument you are > making because you always intertwine them. Stop confusing me with Dougie-boy. It's only an after effect of your heavy drinking, not reality. > You both touch on 3 main points. > 1. My pics are all sh.t. Bullshit. Your *FAKE* pics are all sh.t. > They all must be fake because you can't get > similar results even with better gear. BWAHAHAHAHA! I would NEVER want to get similar results! > 2. JPG is as good as RAW. I never said that, but let's not allow a simple fact destroy your entire alcohol-induced argument... > 3. There is no need for post-processing and even if you do have to > tweak it a little bit the JPG file will work just fine. Again, total ethanol-induced illusion. Never said and it couldn't be more false. > Point #1 is debatable. > Points #2 and #3 are not. So following your inebriated logic, JPG is as good as RAW! BWAHAHAHAHA! Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/08/2008 1:21 AM: > Oh, please! It is a rare shot like the recent double-hummer shot > where I actually add or subtract anything that wasn't there. Really? So all those fake "blur backgrounds" were what? Ah yes: your fertile imagination... > When I > do add something it is usually just a goof and should be obvious to > the viewer. Except of course when you "conveniently" forget to say you did. > Like this one where I added one letter. > snip of the idiotic "justification" links > That's 5 pics out of the thousands I've posted. No. That's 5 pics YOU PICKED, out of the thousands you've posted. > I may have missed a > couple more, but the point has been made. A "couple more"? BWAHAHAHAHA! > You just like to bitch > because that's what you do and that's what you are. So far, the only one bitching is you. > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/08/2008 1:21 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Really? So all those fake "blur backgrounds" were what? > Ah yes: your fertile imagination... It's called DOF. Maybe if you got rid of that piece of crap point-and-shoot and got some decent lenses you could get a nice blurred background as well. Here's one taken with the awesome Canon f/1.2L. I didn't blur the background, it comes out that way. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482/original >> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/08/2008 1:21 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482/original Yep... If you showed the uncropped version (in it's original portrait mode) you'd show why such lenses are useless wide open for portraits but like most of your "photos of example" this one is doctored. > >> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/08/2008 1:21 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > mode) you'd show why such lenses are useless wide open for portraits but > like most of your "photos of example" this one is doctored. I hate to burst your bubble but I know for a fact that this lens has phenomenal bokeh. Wide open, background distractions disappear and become very dreamy looking. It's a very sharp lens and gets sharper when stopped down a small amount. It's also considered one of the best wedding & portrait lenses available. Helen >>>> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/08/2008 1:21 AM: >>>>> Oh, please! It is a rare shot like the recent double-hummer shot [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > best wedding & portrait lenses available. > Helen The day you burst my bubble Helen will be the day your bladder bursts. Bret is trying to pass off a heavily cropped photos on the basis of some quaint fantasy of his about blurred backgrounds... Conveniently cropping out the very distracting blurred foreground that shows why you should never try a portrait with that lens unless (as you pointed out) it is stopped down. Bursting your bubble... My telephone produces perfect bokeh too. Unlike Bret's improper use of wide aperture, it doesn't blur the sh.t out of a foreground element essential to the photo - which is as much a part of the story of that photo as the bloke in it! I'd like to see Bret take a call on his lens too! > >>>> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/08/2008 1:21 AM: > >>>>> Oh, please! It is a rare shot like the recent double-hummer shot [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I'd like to see Bret take a call on his lens too! "you should never try a portrait with that lens unless (as you pointed out) it is stopped down." You've taken what I said out of context. I said wide open, background distractions disappear, leaving a pleasing bokeh. Stopped down the background becomes sharper. But who wants that for a portrait, unless you want something in the background to be in focus. But then it takes away from the subject. That portrait of the Oldest Member is perfect. >>>>>> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/08/2008 1:21 AM: >>>>>>> Oh, please! It is a rare shot like the recent double-hummer shot [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > takes away from the subject. That portrait of the Oldest Member is > perfect. IN your tarnished opinion is what you neglected to add. > Bret is trying to pass off a heavily cropped photos on the basis of some > quaint fantasy of his about blurred backgrounds... Conveniently cropping > out the very distracting blurred foreground that shows why you should > never try a portrait with that lens unless (as you pointed out) it is > stopped down. You are a fool. That's exactly what you want in a good portrait lens, narrow DOF both front and back. Here's a quick example from a photo.net discussion: http://www.potts-family.net/test/kristen%20(ha3j2807)_std.jpg The golf club being held by The Oldest Member in my first photo is a distracting element. I should have removed it altogether, but I didn't want to hear it from Noons for posting fake images. Keeping it in focus by stopping down would only make it more distracting as well as ruin the creamy bokeh of the background. Keep using the P&S with the infinite DOF and leave the serious portraits to those of us with real cameras and lenses. Here's a few more nice ones taken with that lens, but sadly not by me: http://www.pbase.com/frank_1112/image/69942198/original http://www.pbase.com/image/95823976 http://www.pbase.com/image/50043549 http://www.pbase.com/image/85064340 http://www.pbase.com/image/58417293 > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482/original > > Yep... If you showed the uncropped version (in it's original portrait > mode) you'd show why such lenses are useless wide open for portraits but > like most of your "photos of example" this one is doctored. Dude, are you really this big of an idiot or do you just play one on TV? That shot was taken in landscape orientation and was indeed a crop. So what? It wasn't doctored beyond cropping and re-sizing for the web. Here is one taken only moments before in portrait orientation. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/102242163/original This is a straight conversion (in ACR) unretouched in Photoshop. No cropping, saved at actual size (2336 x 3504). Please tell the jury exactly what you find objectionable from this lens and why it is useless used wide open as you claim. And be sure to post some full-size images from the camera/lens of your choice so we can compare. Thanks in advance. >>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482/original >> Yep... If you showed the uncropped version (in it's original portrait [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thanks in advance. That's not the picture you posted of this guy a few weeks ago. > >>>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482/original > >> Yep... If you showed the uncropped version (in it's original portrait [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > That's not the picture you posted of this guy a few weeks ago. No sh.t. Can you read? >>>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482/original >>>> Yep... If you showed the uncropped version (in it's original portrait [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > No sh.t. Can you read? Oh I can read OK. ...and see more than you in an image it seems. The chromatic aberration on the top of the hat mate. Red one side, green the other. Did you see them? Says a lot about Canon's "best" lens, or is it their "amazing" sensor technology that's responsible for it? It doesn't happen with Olympus's 14 -35 F2.0 zoom lens. Why shouldn't we expect the same performance from Canon's supposedly best lens? It's not so much you Bret, as your undying adoration of a brand of that has never really produced a stellar lens. Whilst Olympus have put serious development into lenses specifically for digital cameras and produced some exceptional quality lenses. Canon have concentrated on bodies. Olympus is yet to get it's act together in that area but when they do, they'll have an unbeatable system. Canon on the other hand, will never have an unbeatable system as long as they try to fool people with the really second grade lenses they pass off by trying to group them into sh.t, crap and OK compartments. All things between us aside, if you'd paid out the serious money Canon are asking for that lens and gotten even mild CA like that pic shows - on only moderate contrast too - you'd have to be either blind or stupid not to expect a refund, wouldn't you? http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/102242163/original > The chromatic aberration on the top of the hat mate. Red one side, green > the other. Did you see them? Yes, of course. But you only saw them when viewed at full-size. The minor amount of CA in this shot would never show up in a print. It could also be corrected in ACR, of course. Compare that to some of your horrible examples with your Crapasonic or anything taken with a Sony sensor. > It doesn't happen with Olympus's 14 -35 F2.0 zoom lens. Why shouldn't we expect the same performance from > Canon's supposedly best lens? Oops, you forgot to post your examples. Full-sized, unretouched please. Or did you just expect me to take your word on it? > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/102242163/original >> The chromatic aberration on the top of the hat mate. Red one side, green [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Full-sized, unretouched please. > Or did you just expect me to take your word on it? Why not? You've taken everything else of mine without full size examples! LOL. >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/102242163/original >>> The chromatic aberration on the top of the hat mate. Red one side, green [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Why not? You've taken everything else of mine without full size > examples! LOL. Dodge noted. C'mon, Douggie put up! Signaturejohn mcwilliams Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/08/2008 1:29 AM: > It's called DOF. No. It's called Gaussian blur. > Maybe if you got rid of that piece of crap point-and-shoot and got > some decent lenses you could get a nice blurred background as well. I don't need to get rid of the p&s to get nice blurred backgrounds. All I have to do is use the crap filters you use. > Here's one taken with the awesome Canon f/1.2L. I didn't blur the > background, it comes out that way. BWAHAHAHA! > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/08/2008 1:29 AM: > > > It's called DOF. > > No. It's called Gaussian blur. What part of "no retouching in Photoshop" did you not understand? I could send you the RAW file if you'd like to put your money where your mouth is. But of course, we know you never accept those challenges. And that's the difference between you & D-Mac and myself. You guys talk crap and have nothing to back it up except more crap, while I post examples and offer to provide the RAW files to prove what I'm saying. I think I am about finished entertaining you two fuckwits. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/08/2008 11:35 PM: >>> It's called DOF. >> No. It's called Gaussian blur. > > What part of "no retouching in Photoshop" did you not understand? From you? None. > I could send you the RAW file if you'd like to put your money where > your mouth is. But of course, we know you never accept those > challenges. I don't like to load viruses in my systems. > And that's the difference between you & D-Mac and myself. There is in fact a LOT more difference. But I won't go into that at the moment... > You guys talk crap and have nothing to back it up except more crap, > while I post examples and offer to provide the RAW files to prove what > I'm saying. BWAHAHAHAHA! You provide what? ah yes, examples: of your FAKE images. Which you NEVER identify as such until someone points out to you the bleeding OBVIOUS fakes. Then, and only then, do you admit to having done it. Besides, it's you who came up with the "whatever it takes" as your photography mantra. Which pretty much defines how much trust anyone can have in ANYTHING you claim. > I think I am about finished entertaining you two fuckwits. and it's been very entertaining: once again, you fail to convince anyone of your "truth" in photography. > BWAHAHAHAHA! > You provide what? ah yes, examples: of your FAKE images. > Which you NEVER identify as such until someone points out > to you the bleeding OBVIOUS fakes. Then, and only then, > do you admit to having done it. I don't feel an obligation to explain every step I took in making a photograph unless someone asks. Pointing out 4 or 5 examples where I OBVIOUSLY added something does not make all my pics fakes. And when you make an outright lie about a photo, like your recent assertion that the blurry background was caused by a Gaussian Blur filter instead of the natural DOF from the lens, I'll call you on your bullshit. Using your logic, since you were wrong about that photo you must be wrong abut ALL my photos. Sucks to be you, Portuguese Pussy. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 28/08/2008 12:19 AM: > I don't feel an obligation to explain every step I took in making a > photograph unless someone asks. You don't feel ANY obligation to anything. You said so many times. > Pointing out 4 or 5 examples where I > OBVIOUSLY added something does not make all my pics fakes. They are ALL fakes! There is not a SINGLE of your images that you claim were taken with a given piece of gear that has not been considerably altered! > And when you make an outright lie about a photo, like your recent > assertion that the blurry background was caused by a Gaussian Blur > filter instead of the natural DOF from the lens, Get lost, pisshead. I claimed that ALL your backgrounds are altered with Gaussian blur. Not that particular image, which I didn't even link to or had a look at: couldn't care less. Haven't you got it yet that your crap is NOT WELCOME in aus.photo? How many times do you have to post your stupid links non-crossposted to aus.photo and get ZERO, ZILCH, NADA comments, before you cotton on that NO ONE there gives a fig about your crap? > I'll call you on your > bullshit. You call NOTHING. You have no authority to call ANYTHING on ANYONE. > Using your logic, since you were wrong about that photo you > must be wrong abut ALL my photos. You're too stupid to understand ANY logic. > Sucks to be you, Portuguese Pussy. f.ck you, you stupid redneck w.nk. > > Pointing out 4 or 5 examples where I > > OBVIOUSLY added something does not make all my pics fakes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > piece of gear that has not been considerably > altered! Wanna bet? >> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/08/2008 1:29 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'm saying. > I think I am about finished entertaining you two fuckwits. Oh goddie. Does that mean you are leaving? >>> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/08/2008 1:29 AM: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Oh goddie. Does that mean you are leaving? OMG Did you just call Bret "Goddie"? He is good at what he does but I wouldn't call him god. Maybe he should do what you do, announce he is leaving for good than come back as 3 different names oh uh I mean use 3 different computers. > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 25/08/2008 11:43 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > straight from the negatives: he simply could not > have done otherwise! LOL! You have no film processing background? Do you know where much of the terminology use in Photoshop originated? Post processing is far from digital only innovation. Many a film photographer has had to take the shot, warts and all, then do the work later, sweat blood in the darkroom. I haven't worked in a darkroom for decades, but I can still smell the chemicals and feel the pressure as deadlines approach. > As to getting it right in camera, apparently he did. > To the extent that he tuned the camera actions to his [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > an entire image by adding or subtracting elements > of its content. What if the photographer's intention was to take a shot that could only possibly work with post processing? It is always an option nowadays. I will often bracket with the intention of combining the shots later to give me a better result, DOF, Dynamic range, polarising effects etc., etc. None of those shots would be worth looking at on their own, but once their "content" is altered you have the result you want but would otherwise be unable to get within the limitations of your equipment. Total reliance on Photoshop might not be a good thing, but to refuse to acknowledge that it is a very valuable tool to a photographer is rather pointless. > Which is precisely what you do. > To call that "post-processing" is only a figment > of your deranged imagination. Why so volatile? If he wants to process everything, is it really an issue? I have that same Sigma lens, 70-200 2.8 on a Minolta A mount (now used on a Sony A700) and it is pretty average considering its specs, the push/pull zoom is not something I favour, but still a nice lens for the price. I certainly can't get that degree of background blur, but it does give quite nice DOF for portraits but the level of blur is subtle and progressive, not overpowering as in those examples. They do look photoshopped with Gaussian rather than lens blur applied. I seldom use anything straight out of the camera, usually I'll tweak or crop it a little at the very least. I certainly don't do heavy post work on all my shots, in fact the post work that I find necessary improves my technique with whatever camera I used, particularly with different camera's idiosyncrasies regarding lighting. Once you have to fix something post more than once, you tend to automatically compensate for it when composing the shot and setting the camera up. Regards Tony > What if the photographer's intention was to take a shot that could only > possibly work with post processing? It is always an option nowadays. I will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "content" is altered you have the result you want but would otherwise be > unable to get within the limitations of your equipment. Why can't ya just get it right in camera like D-Mac and Noons suggest? > They do look photoshopped with Gaussian rather than lens blur applied. They may look that way if you aren't accustomed to seeing what a f/1.2 lens can do. The internet is full of examples from this lens. Amazing how all of us used the same Gaussian Blur settings, huh? >> What if the photographer's intention was to take a shot that could only >> possibly work with post processing? It is always an option nowadays. I will [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > lens can do. The internet is full of examples from this lens. > Amazing how all of us used the same Gaussian Blur settings, huh? Do they all exhibit the same chromatic aberrations? > > They may look that way if you aren't accustomed to seeing what a f/1.2 > > lens can do. The internet is full of examples from this lens. > > Amazing how all of us used the same Gaussian Blur settings, huh? > > Do they all exhibit the same chromatic aberrations? Have you seen any? It is quite unlikely that you would ever see any in anything less than a full-size image like I posted. So where are your Olympus examples for comparison? Vagabond > wrote,on my timestamp of 28/08/2008 7:50 AM: > You have no film processing background? None whatsoever: all the thousands of photos I take on film - and process if in b&W - have just appeared out of thin air. Must be true, because you just claimed it? > Do you know where much of the > terminology use in Photoshop originated? Yes. > Post processing is far from > digital only innovation. Many a film photographer has had to take the > shot, warts and all, then do the work later, sweat blood in the > darkroom. I haven't worked in a darkroom for decades, but I can still > smell the chemicals and feel the pressure as deadlines approach. and that "proves" Ansel Adams didn't print his shots from negatives, because?... LOL! We get them in all shapes and sizes here... > What if the photographer's intention was to take a shot that could only > possibly work with post processing? That is not a photo, that is an image. Period. Nothing wrong with that, but don't call it a photo. Simple, isn't it? > It is always an option nowadays. And I said it was not, exactly where? > I > will often bracket with the intention of combining the shots later to > give me a better result, DOF, Dynamic range, polarising effects etc., > etc. Perhaps you should try to take one shot that has all that? Instead of heaps of crap that you then post-process into an image which you claim as a "photo"? > None of those shots would be worth looking at on their own, and I'm quite sure Ansel took also all those shots and turned them into a single one with "post-processing"? LOL! Now: do you understand the fundamentally RIDICULOUS argument that is to claim that because Ansel dodged and burned, then photoslopping an entire background or a bird or a sky or combining 6 shots into a hdr image or stitching20 images in a pano is exactly the same process? Do you understand the fundamental difference between cropping or selectively exposing a portion of a photo and FUNDAMENTALLY altering its contents and elements? It's not hard... > but > once their "content" is altered you have the result you want but would > otherwise be unable to get within the limitations of your equipment. Good. Just don't call it a photo. Nothing wrong with doing all that. Just don't call it a photo. Is that sufficiently clear? > Total reliance on Photoshop might not be a good thing, but to refuse to > acknowledge that it is a very valuable tool to a photographer is rather > pointless. Do you understand basic English? Where did I say, ANYWHERE, that Photoshop - or ANY other editing program for that matter - is not a valuable tool? Because the idiot Bret claims I did that doesn't make it a fact, diddums. Got it? On the other hand, you just reinforced my point: "*total* reliance on photoshop might not be a good thing". I call it "photoslop". Got it? > Why so volatile? If he wants to process everything, is it really an issue? It is, when someone insists on claiming it as "photography". It is not, it's image making. Nothing wrong with that either! Plenty wrong however when that someone claims it is all the direct product of a given camera, and doesn't explain they were substantially altered because there is NO WAY in the world said camera could have taken those shots natively. It's also called a scam. > They do look > photoshopped with Gaussian rather than lens blur applied. But nevertheless they are probably natural lens blur as they were taken with a 50/1.2. That is not the point. Note the moron produced those as a single example. Of course he expects in his usual lunacy that everyone will generalize it to every one of his other shots, taken with completely different lenses, which magically ALWAYS show the same green-olive brown blurred background, straight from his stock library of gaussian blurs. Same background in every photo. Got the picture? > I seldom use anything straight out of the camera, usually I'll tweak or > crop it a little at the very least. God for you. So do I. Nothing wrong with that. > I certainly don't do heavy post work > on all my shots, in fact the post work that I find necessary improves my > technique with whatever camera I used, particularly with different > camera's idiosyncrasies regarding lighting. OK. Now, can you UNDERSTAND the basic tenet that Bret does such "heavy post work" with EVERYONE of his shots while claiming they come straight from his camera? And that is what is objectionable? > Once you have to fix > something post more than once, you tend to automatically compensate for > it when composing the shot and setting the camera up. Bingo. Yet nevertheless, that doesn't seem to penetrate the brain of the self-promoted "expert". That's why he continues to resort to the hip flask called photoslop. > > They do look > > photoshopped with Gaussian rather than lens blur applied. > > But nevertheless they are probably natural lens blur > as they were taken with a 50/1.2. That is not the point. The point is that you are a liar. Now you are saying it is natural lens blur? Just a few posts ago you said this: =========================== "They are ALL fakes! There is not a SINGLE of your images that you claim were taken with a given piece of gear that has not been considerably altered! I claimed that ALL your backgrounds are altered with Gaussian blur. Not that particular image, which I didn't even link to or had a look at: couldn't care less." =========================== Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 1:37 AM: >>> They do look >>> photoshopped with Gaussian rather than lens blur applied. >> But nevertheless they are probably natural lens blur >> as they were taken with a 50/1.2. That is not the point. > The point is that you are a liar. No, Bret: YOU are the liar. Proven many times before, and admitted openly by you. YOU are the one opnely admitting doinf ANYTHING you can to make any image look good, no matter what it takes. YOU. Not anyone else, moron. YOU! > Now you are saying it is natural lens blur? I don't give a flying f.ck what it is, haven't you got that yet, dickhead? NOTHING you show is worth commenting on, or looking at. Haven't you got it yet that NO ONE comments your crap in aus.photo? sh.t, it's not difficult: just look! Get the f.ck lost! > Just a few posts ago you said this: > =========================== > "They are ALL fakes! There is not a SINGLE of your > images that you claim were taken with a given > piece of gear that has not been considerably > altered! Exactly. WTF has that got to do with the stupid moronic bokeh or otherwise of your rented lens, you MORON? > > Just a few posts ago you said this: > > =========================== [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the stupid moronic bokeh or otherwise > of your rented lens, you MORON? Uh, that was the subject we were discussing, after all. Do try to keep up. Right before you made the claim that ALL my backgrounds were fakes and then reversed yourself saying that the background was due to the natural bokeh of the lens. Make up your mind which story you want to go with. Oh well, at least by coming down on both sides you are right at least half the time. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 11:47 PM: > Uh, that was the subject we were discussing, after all. > Do try to keep up. no, YOU do try to keep up. YOU brought up the moronic single example of a rented lens as "proof" you don't fabricate bokeh. Which is nothing more than perfect proof of your idiotic lines of argument. > Right before you made the claim that ALL my backgrounds were fakes and > then reversed yourself saying that the background was due to the > natural bokeh of the lens. No, moron. Your backgrounds ARE fakes. What you produced in an exceptional SINGLE occasion with a rented lens is not what you do the vast majority of the time with the crap lenses you own. Got it or are you too thick to grasp simple concepts? > Make up your mind which story you want to go with. Very simple: backgrounds in your photos are fake. I couldn't care less that you rushed out a rented lens to "prove" you do real bokeh: the lenses you own have nothing to do with a f1.2, hence why you use fake crap for backgrounds. It's perfectly obvious when looking at your photos, moron. Just like the wild claims that you need 1/15000 to "freeze" a woodpecker's wings - or whatever the poor stuffed bird was. Like: you use a flash to freeze the body and somehow, magically, the wings beat so fast that not even a flash burst is capable of stopping them? So fast in fact that they show full motion in a flash shot? What: your flash has a burst of 1/30th of a second? As if... Oh, btw: shouldn't you be at work, you low-life? Ah yes: you're unemployable. Sorry, I forgot... |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message