 |
 | 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 / July 2009[SI] Special category: Kodachrome
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send them in. Show us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or variation of emulsion). Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how they've held up. The older the better. http://www.pbase.com/shootin/kodachrome >Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If you've >shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send them in. Show [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >http://www.spamlink.com/shootin/kodachrome Or not. Sounds like a plagiarists dream. >> Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If you've >> shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send them in. Show [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sounds like a plagiarists dream. Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from? On 7/2/2009 8:11 AM Bowser spake thus: >>> Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If you've >>> shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send them in. Show [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from? Um, Pbase = spam.  SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 7/2/2009 8:11 AM Bowser spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Um, Pbase = spam. Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when? >> On 7/2/2009 8:11 AM Bowser spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when? Since you and that Jackass from Tennessee began spamming every bloody newsgroup on the planet with links to it. >>> On 7/2/2009 8:11 AM Bowser spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Since you and that Jackass from Tennessee began spamming every bloody > newsgroup on the planet with links to it. Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos and are asking nothing in return hardly constitutes spam. It's a photo sharing site, that's all. Spam is unwanted advertising. We aren't advertising for pbase. Here's a tip: EVERY SINGLE SHOOTIN POST starts with the prefix "[SI]." Simply filter that out, and you'll never see the SI posts again. If you need help configuring your newsreader for filtering, just ask and I'm sure you'll get the help you need. >>> Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > need help configuring your newsreader for filtering, just ask and I'm > sure you'll get the help you need. The mission posters are back. There are all of two of them who have these weird beliefs about pBase... Signaturejohn mcwilliams ~A Serenity Prayer~ "God, grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference." >>>> Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when? >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The mission posters are back. There are all of two of them who have > these weird beliefs about pBase... It's not a belief it's a known fact. *ADVERTISING IS SPAM*. Netetiquette and most of the charters for news groups, as well as Bowsers own news provider prohibit what he's doing and prohibit cross posting to more than 3 groups. Bowser is following in the footsteps of Alan Brown by Cross posting to 4 groups and only 2 of them are photography relative. The other two are for discussion about equipment. One of them forbids what he's doing. Does that stop him? No! He doesn't give a rat's arse about Netetiquette or for that matter, the rules under which he gets access to Usenet. The curious part is that Alan Brown formulated the charter for r.p.d. slr-systems and it reads: "This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to photography." Tell me now John, that bowsers posts are not advertising shootin and pbase. Or are you less of a hypocrite than you come across as being? Alan in his typical bigoted way, started the spam from shootin going to groups where it is unwanted and in the process, totally ignored his own rules. That makes three major transgressions by him of the rules he formulated for that group. What a bloody hypocrite In case you have lost track of what society is and why those societies that have rules prosper and those founded on anarchy eventually fall into disarray like Usenet is doing, there is no purpose in making rules if no one bothers to abide by them. The fact Alan Browne formulated the rules and within hours broke them, is evidence enough that he cares only about himself... Now Bowser is following in his footsteps. For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you as hypocrite too. SignatureD-Mac... Back from the near-dead! With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking. I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time! >>>>> Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you as > hypocrite too. Doug, You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a non-commercial Pbase site be considered spam? The X-Posts were to groups where the proposal was relevant, and therefore not offensive within posting guidelines. Certainly given this proposed SI subject (Kodachrome archive shots) it would be appropriately posted in RPDSS & RPE35mm, given that Kodachrome could be loosely described as "part of an SLR system" and "35mm equipment." In a usual SI proposal I would not be opposed to the exclusion of those 2 groups (RPDSS & RPE35mm) and the inclusion of alt.photography in the X-Post. I have no idea what Bowser's news provider limits him to with regard to X-Posts. Mine limits me to 4, and will block any post with more than 4 X-Posts. There have been times I have had to delete some of the inappropriate X-Posts to 4 or less, so I could post a response. The SI provides the photo groups a diversion from some of the annoying bitching, and gets us back to thinking of photography. So on this issue lighten up some. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>>>> Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > bitching, and gets us back to thinking of photography. So on this issue > lighten up some. Douggie is just dirty on the shootin and will take EVERY opportunity to stir sh.t, after all HIS idea to set up a web site to do something similar to the shootin, complete with sponsored themes and prizes was rejected and the original shootin was resurrected instead. Douggies idea was for financial gain and he is incapable of understanding that people can just take photos for fun. It also probably irks him no end that one of those people who takes photos mostly for fun is demonstrably superior to his pathetic efforts in just about every respect, you just have to look at the amount of scorn and ridicule Douggie tries to pile onto any posting by that particular photographer to see the green monster :-) Signature[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi > Doug, > You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a > non-commercial Pbase site be considered spam? Well, Pbase is commercial in the sense that it asks for money for hosting the photos. Last person to send them any for the SI was me (I believe I paid for a 3 year subscription and up to xxx MBytes, but I don't really recall, Bowser has the keys to the site at present. Prior to me I believe Bret "Annika" paid the bill for the pbase site.) > The X-Posts were to groups where the proposal was relevant, and > therefore not offensive within posting guidelines. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 2 groups (RPDSS & RPE35mm) and the inclusion of alt.photography in the > X-Post. Dougie's just frustrated. He's welcome to participate in the SI (and has in the past), but as he goes on with his inane arguments he actually puts up arguments against himself participating. It's so oddly pathetic. At least even Dougie has participated in the SI. There are many self claimed professionals and experts in rpd.slr-systems and rpe35mm who haven't dared (and when the odd photo of theirs has leaked we can see why...). > Doug, > You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > bitching, and gets us back to thinking of photography. So on this issue > lighten up some. I see. So the rules: "Explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements" and "Whether personal private or commercial" should actually exclude advertising Shootin, should they? You can't have it both ways. Either all forms of advertising are "explicitly prohibited" or they are explicitly permitted. Which is it? You might think Shootin is "relevant" to the cross posted groups but the charter of them says differently. Are you suggesting then that everyone should ignore the rules Alan Brown formulated and make up their own (as he did) or just go back to anarchy and let anything prevail? If you don't follow the rules, everything is fair game. Including posting pornography and binary files in these groups (annika1980 is going to love the last bit if that's what you are suggesting). >> Doug, >> You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > posting pornography and binary files in these groups (annika1980 is > going to love the last bit if that's what you are suggesting). You are familiar with the term "anal" aren't you? SignatureRegards, Savageduck >> Doug, >> You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >posting pornography and binary files in these groups (annika1980 is >going to love the last bit if that's what you are suggesting). Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations. Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 3/07/2009 5:37 PM: > Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations. > Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment. Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific commercial site, namely pbase. Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son. > tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 3/07/2009 5:37 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > commercial site, namely pbase. > Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son. Not true. I have made submissions to SI and have yet to become a Pbase subscriber. In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and have no intention of doing so. I have 20GB (additional space is available) of storage on my mac.com (now me.com) iDisc and I share by posting links to any of my files stored there, or provide access to full file sharing to designated recipients. BTW this is not in anyway my archive method, 20GB would not do. So if I want to share a link to an individual resized file of an html (or to really piss some people off a Flash) web gallery, it is as easy as this http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ElCapitan_1100w.jpg . SignatureRegards, Savageduck > > Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific > > commercial site, namely pbase. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > subscriber. In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and > have no intention of doing so. Next, the idiot Noons and his butt-buddy, D-Mac, will be claiming that the Shootin is spam for Internet Explorer and Firefox since most people use them to view the pics. Or maybe it's spam for Apple if you have a Mac? Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:24 AM: > Next, the idiot Noons and his butt-buddy, D-Mac, will be claiming that > the Shootin is spam for Internet Explorer and Firefox since most > people use them to view the pics. > Or maybe it's spam for Apple if you have a Mac? Stop proving you are an idiot, Bret. >>> Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific >>> commercial site, namely pbase. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > people use them to view the pics. > Or maybe it's spam for Apple if you have a Mac? The cute thing about you Bret, is not your charming personality but your hill billy stupidity. Do you have to be careful not to scrape the scar when you shave? Anything you post pointing to a photo you have taken - regardless of where it's hosted - is *ADVERTISING* by the most pure of definitions. *ALL* advertising is *EXPLICITLY* (that big word means very specific, clear, or detailed) *PROHIBITS* (this big word means NOT ALLOWED). Now what part of that don't you understand? Posting links to Pbase (where lots of advertising of *PERSONAL* photos goes on) is *ADVERTISING* the location of personal photographs. All other *PROMOTIONAL* material (that big word can be read as advertising) like promoting shootin or your bloody pathetic attempt at being a Professional wedding photographer with a 16mm lens is *PROHIBITED* too. ------------------------------------------------------------------ "This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to photography." ------------------------------------------------------------------ You bigots can all pile sh.t on me all you like. The undeniable fact is that Alan Brown forked the R.P. Digital groups to reduce traffic and end the sh.t fights as well stop advertisements on Usenet photo groups. You brought to sh.t fights to a new hight of filth which raises the question: Were you the creep who posted the pornographic smut about poor Lisa? Now Bowser thinks he can stuff shootin down the throat of every group subscriber on the planet. Ignoring the fact that since he and the clown Brown have been running it... Participation in shooting is at an all time low. Tripling the number of entries per person has been a huge success at getting new entries. *NOT*. You need to get a life Bret. Defending the abhorrent behaviour of yourself and your cronies is no way for a family man to behave. SignatureD-Mac... Back from the near-dead! With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking. I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time! >>>> Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific >>>> commercial site, namely pbase. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Anything you post pointing to a photo you have taken - regardless of where > it's hosted - is *ADVERTISING* by the most pure of definitions. Nope. Here's a definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advertising We're not selling anything. Nothing. Case closed. > *ALL* advertising is *EXPLICITLY* (that big word means very specific, > clear, or detailed) *PROHIBITS* (this big word means NOT ALLOWED). Now [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > You need to get a life Bret. Defending the abhorrent behaviour of yourself > and your cronies is no way for a family man to behave. >> Anything you post pointing to a photo you have taken - regardless of >> where it's hosted - is *ADVERTISING* by the most pure of definitions. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Case closed. Well not so fast. You conveniently focused on "Advertising" whilst ignoring "Promoting". You are promoting shootin are you not? If I take away the part about advertising in the charter, what is left? ---------------------------------------------------------- "This newsgroup explicitly prohibits all other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to photography." ----------------------------------------------------------- These are the words I removed: "the posting of advertisements of any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as" What are you trying to achieve Bowser? All you are doing is arguing that you have the right to behave badly and ignore the rules of a group whilst everyone else must abide by your rules if they are going to submit photos to shootin. You really are a pathetic loser Bowser. Ignore the charter if you will but don't try to make out you are some sort of clean skin for abusing the rules that are supposed govern your behaviour. > What are you trying to achieve Bowser? > All you are doing is arguing that you have the right to behave badly and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but don't try to make out you are some sort of clean skin for abusing > the rules that are supposed govern your behaviour. The bottom line, Douggie, is that we can do any damn thing we want and there isn't one damn thing you can do about it. Sux to be you, D-Mac! >>> Anything you post pointing to a photo you have taken - regardless of >>> where it's hosted - is *ADVERTISING* by the most pure of definitions. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are promoting shootin are you not? If I take away the part about > advertising in the charter, what is left? No, you focused on advertising, and when I proved you absolutely wrong, you changed your argument. You have proven that any attempt to carry on a conversation with you is a total waste of time. Goodbye, and good luck. >>>> Anything you post pointing to a photo you have taken - regardless of >>>> where it's hosted - is *ADVERTISING* by the most pure of definitions. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you changed your argument. You have proven that any attempt to carry on > a conversation with you is a total waste of time. Goodbye, and good luck. They were right! Never give a mug an even break! SignatureD-Mac... Back from the near-dead! With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking. I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time! > You bigots can all pile sh.t on me all you like. Thanks Doug. I'll take that as explicit, written permission to continue to post my satirical review of your work: http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html ...and continue to invite you to refute *any* of the facts I present there. Any of them. Just one. (You can't, can you!) -- Jeff R. On 7/3/09 5:07 PM, in article 7b7dp9F22f0alU1@mid.individual.net, "D-Mac" <ping.me@news.group> wrote: >>>> Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific >>>> commercial site, namely pbase. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time! Too bad you can't add "photography" to that list of 'talents' that are so proud... Savageduck wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 1:50 AM: >>> Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations. >>> Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and have no > intention of doing so. You run your own server. How many other folks who are potential SI users do you think do that? 1? Before I get "heaps more", consider this: the number of potential server users in SI is a very small fraction compared to the number of those who use hosted servers. Which in this case is easier if it is pbase. Therefore, it is a scam. The fact there is one exception - yours- is no proof of lack of intention. > Savageduck wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 1:50 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You run your own server. How many other folks who are potential SI > users do you think do that? 1? Who knows? That is my choice, and since many ISPs provide some space on their servers most could use a similar option. > Before I get "heaps more", consider this: the number of potential > server users in SI is a very small fraction compared to the number of > those who use hosted servers. > Which in this case is easier if it is pbase. > Therefore, it is a scam. > The fact there is one exception - yours- is no proof of lack of intention. I think if you took an actual poll amongst the regulars in these NGs (& the lurkers) you might find many of them have accounts with more than one photo sharing site and quite a few use server space they have access to. I probably shouldn't have confused this further by saying how I did things. If you actually understood what I wrote, you might have noted that any individual, however late they come to the party can submit an image to SI. There is no obligation to share in the costs of the Pbase account, thanks to the altruism of some of the contributers to these NGs. At which point do you feel you have in anyway been solicited, or had your arm twisted to contribute financially?? ...and since you have decided you have no interest in SI, I suggest you filter on [SI] and not bother yourself with any of this discussion in the future. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >> Savageduck wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 1:50 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >one photo sharing site and quite a few use server space they have >access to. I have a (paid) SmugMug account and gallery, I use the (free) Photobucket image host, I (infrequently) use Flickr, my ISP provides me with some image hosting, and I have registered with two other hosts that I rarely use. I suspect that Noons has manufactured this excuse because he is insecure about his photographic abilities and wants some excuse not to enter submissions in the Shoot-In. Why, I don't know. I can't imagine anyone caring if he does or doesn't. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> Savageduck wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 1:50 AM: >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > to enter submissions in the Shoot-In. Why, I don't know. I can't > imagine anyone caring if he does or doesn't. I suspect "Noons" posts here - or anywhere - just to reassure himself he exists. I suspect your post (and mine) are exactly what he is after. I quit, twice and for all. SignatureFrank ess > I think if you took an actual poll amongst the regulars in these NGs (& > the lurkers) you might find many of them have accounts with more than > one photo sharing site and quite a few use server space they have access > to. I have phot accounts with photo.net (3 yr) and several others, non paid, that I don't use very much. Recently I've taken to adding photos to Google Earth via panorimo, however the time from uploading a photo to it appearing in Google Earth is 1 - 2 months (they do 1 cycle and upload every month). I don't know how Noons got the notion that the use of Pbase for the SI is some sort of scam to the benefit of Pbase. It's laughable. It was just the pick of Bret way back when the SI was founded and he volunteered to find hosting space for it - and paid the dues. If Noons were not such a lazy prat he could Google away for the conversations in rpe35mm around the time that Lisa proposed the SI and see how it came about. Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 5:55 AM: >> I think if you took an actual poll amongst the regulars in these NGs (& >> the lurkers) you might find many of them have accounts with more than [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > rpe35mm around the time that Lisa proposed the SI and see how it came > about. Stop lying, twit. > Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 5:55 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Stop lying, twit. He's telling the truth, genius. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 9:33 PM: >> Stop lying, twit. > > He's telling the truth, genius. Bwecause you say so, twit? > Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 5:55 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Stop lying, twit. He's not lying. We discussed all this sort of stuff at the time the SI was proposed. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- Savageduck wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 3:24 AM: >> You run your own server. How many other folks who are potential SI >> users do you think do that? 1? > > Who knows? That is my choice, and since many ISPs provide some space on > their servers most could use a similar option. "similar" does not mean "the same". > I think if you took an actual poll amongst the regulars in these NGs (& > the lurkers) you might find many of them have accounts with more than > one photo sharing site and quite a few use server space they have access > to. I think you have an over-inflated opinion about the number of people involved. The multiple voices from the trolls are not "people"... > I probably shouldn't have confused this further by saying how I did things. But it helps others understand my points, so thank you. > SI. There is no obligation to share in the costs of the Pbase account, > thanks to the altruism of some of the contributers to these NGs. <yawn> > At which point do you feel you have in anyway been solicited, or had > your arm twisted to contribute financially?? At the point where ANY photo posted that is not hosted in pbase is immediately pounced upon and commented or defaced in a derogatory manner by the pbase users here. > ...and since you have decided you have no interest in SI, I suggest you > filter on [SI] and not bother yourself with any of this discussion in > the future. I don't participate in the SI and I made it very clear. Nothing new there. But if you had the intelligence to go back to my first reply in this thread, you'd notice that it came about after the moron hillbilly twit decided to make a derogatory remark about me. THAT, I replied to and I shall do so ANY time it happens, and there is preciously NOTHING that will stop me from doing so. You don't want to see those in SI threads? Stop that twit from using the SI to make derogatory comments about others . Very simple. I told you twits a long time ago that I don't sit by and shut up when someone presses my buttons: never did, never will, and not a single one or all of you together will ever be able to stop me from doing so. Capice? > Savageduck wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 3:24 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Capice? "Capice?" ???! :-) SignatureRegards, Savageduck [...] >> Capice? > > "Capice?" ???! :-) "Understand?" He was having a Godfather moment. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He was having a Godfather moment. That much I understood. I was just amused at his strangely affected use of the word. Did he somehow think it was to be used to imply a threat? How pathetic. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Did he somehow think it was to be used to imply a threat? How > pathetic. I've read enough of his posts to know he's a bully so it wouldn't surprise me, even if he was unaware he was doing it. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Did he somehow think it was to be used to imply a threat? How pathetic. Some copper you turned out to be. Don't recognise an ethnic when (or before) you attack one. No doubt the people from European decent in the USA suffered badly whenever you insulted them and judging by your attitude in the groups, that would have been almost daily. >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Some copper you turned out to be. Far better than you will ever know. > Don't recognise an ethnic when (or before) you attack one. Oh please! Are you getting Holier than thou on us? "Capice?" from that old Siciliano wannabe Noons! Do you actually believe his intention, when he made that remark was a salute to some imagined Mediterranean ancestor? I doubt it. That was the ethnically insulting comment in this debate, due to the underlying implications of its usage, which Noons fully intended. > No doubt the people from European decent in the USA suffered badly > whenever you insulted them Insult them, what evidence do you have that I have made any insult to anyone based on ethnicity, particularly European decent, especially since I believe what my father told me, that we came from a long line of English chicken thieves. > and judging by your attitude in the groups, that would have been almost daily. ...and what attitude is that pray tell? What exactly is it that you could cite from any post I have made that would lead you to deduce how I would have conducted myself professionally on a daily basis? You and Noons certainly use your fair share of abusive epithets and racial stereotypical insults. At this point am I supposed to make some snide remark regarding how your current geographic location and choice of profession have led you to your attitude, which many in these Groups have easily identified? I think not, your attitude speaks for its self, and you would be burdened with it wherever you started out or end up. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > I think not, your attitude speaks for its self, and you would be > burdened with it wherever you started out or end up. The only thing Noons and I have in common past being photographers is our preparedness to not be put down buy loud mouthed jerks from the land of the free (snigger) trying to imitate compassionate and caring people. As long as your bum points to the ground and you feel the need to try and get some superiority over me in a conversation, you will find me in your face. I don't now or never have and never will speak for Noons but I'd say he has a similar attitude. If you find such an attitude threatening and need to get down and dirty with personal insults, expect retaliation. It's a funny thing about Usenet. It brings out the worst in American personalities. Why is that? I came here many years ago interested in an exchange of information - offering as I often do to help those getting started. What I found was a bunch of burnt out Yankees still waving the wrong flag who needed to somehow gain justification for living so long... All trying to take possession of an International group and call it their own... As if they couldn't create one for themselves. When someone else did, they tried to commandeer it and every other 'photo' group on the planet as well. Don't talk about my attitude without first looking in the mirror mate. Yours is seriously chipped too. >>>>> [...] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > your face. I don't now or never have and never will speak for Noons but > I'd say he has a similar attitude. I feel no need to gain "superiority" over you in any conversation. For me there have been times some of what you have posted has provoked me (and others)to comment. > If you find such an attitude threatening and need to get down and dirty > with personal insults, expect retaliation. Threatening? Hardly! I merely remarked on what was an attempt on Noon's part to appear threatening. I understand the nature of UseNet exchanges, and I choose to let whatever is fired at me miss. ...and even though I have made some remarks regarding various denizens of the UseNet, I would hardly call my efforts malicious, or as venomous as those you and others you have gone to war with, have exchanged. > It's a funny thing about Usenet. It brings out the worst in American > personalities. Why is that? I came here many years ago interested in an > exchange of information - offering as I often do to help those getting > started. Now who is it who is being regionally presumptive? Toxic personalities are not reserved for "Americans" ( I believe you are not including our continental brethren to the North & South in your remark.) The Internet and UseNet have given us Global toxic personalities. > What I found was a bunch of burnt out Yankees still waving the wrong > flag who needed to somehow gain justification for living so long... All > trying to take possession of an International group and call it their > own... As if they couldn't create one for themselves. Are you still planning your move to Florida to join us? Numbers will tell in any group, and effect the dynamic of that group. Certainly there are those among us who cannot get beyond their own neighborhoods. Personally there are many of my fellow US citizens, on & off the Web, I find intolerable. I have had what could be loosely described as a cosmopolitan upbringing, having an English mother & American father. I attended school in other countries, and as a result I have family and friends spread around the World. (That includes my 86 year old father who chose not to live in the US many years ago.) > When someone else did, they tried to commandeer it and every other > 'photo' group on the planet as well. Don't talk about my attitude > without first looking in the mirror mate. Yours is seriously chipped > too. You have yet to provide the evidence which supports your belief of my "seriously chipped" attitude, when yours is revealed in all its glory. I can't speak for others, but none of what I have posted in any group was done with the intention of "commandeering" those groups. I have always accepted the global nature of those groups. Strangely enough, a quick check on national bias will reveal the US is distinctly absent in establishing a nationally biased photo group, as compared to aus.photo, various fr.rec.photo groups, various uk.photography & free.uk groups, not one exclusive US group. ...and the only thing which has led me to other than non-flag waving groups has been X-Posting. Once there I have done whatever I could to be respectful of that group. SignatureRegards, Savageduck Savageduck wrote,on my timestamp of 6/07/2009 11:24 PM: > That much I understood. No, you did not. > I was just amused at his strangely affected use of the word. "strangely affected"? WTF does that mean, moron? > Did he somehow think it was to be used to imply a threat? How pathetic. Whenever I feel I have to threaten you, I'll do it directly, moron. No need to use foreign languages. Capice? > Savageduck wrote,on my timestamp of 6/07/2009 11:24 PM: > >> That much I understood. > > No, you did not. Whatever. >> I was just amused at his strangely affected use of the word. > > "strangely affected"? WTF does that mean, moron? OK. let me clarify. Not "strangely affected," but absolutely affected. Your use of "capice" could only be described as an affectation. affectation (noun) behavior, speech, or writing that is artificial and designed to impress: "the affectation of a man who measures every word for effect" 1. a studied display of real or pretended feeling 2. the affectations of a prima donna, pretension, pretensiousness, affectedness, artificiallity, posturing, posing Is that clear enough? >> Did he somehow think it was to be used to imply a threat? How pathetic. > > Whenever I feel I have to threaten you, I'll do it directly, moron. > No need to use foreign languages. Capice? I did say "imply a threat" and certainly anything that is posted in these Groups could hardly be considered a threat, however you seem to have a need to have the weight of your fragile ego felt by all. I think I have explained it adequately without calling you a moron, which seems to be your insult of the moment, or maybe your usage of the word is just a case of transference. Once more, if you did not get it, your posturing in any language is pathetic. SignatureRegards, Savageduck > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He was having a Godfather moment. I thought he meant, "caprice", but then I realized that this was not the musicians group....... > Savageduck wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 1:50 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Therefore, it is a scam. > The fact there is one exception - yours- is no proof of lack of intention. I have contributed to the SI, not nearly as frequently as I should have (I think it might only be twice), but I have never used pbase, nor paid them a cent, nor have I ever had pbase want money from me. While I know that at various times Alan & Bret (& possibly others) have paid the pbase subscription fee, at no time has either of these said "Doug, we want money from you if you are going to participate". If you are going to use the argument that every SI post is advertising pbase, then I will use the argument that every post made by someone use uses bigpond, aol, etc is advertising their isp. Someone who posts a letter is advertising Australia Post or the US Postal Service. This is rubbish. Just because you need (or choose) to use a commercial provider as a carriage medium doesn't mean you are advertising their services. As research for this post I went to their home page for the first time ever and looked at what they do offer for accounts. They don't offer free accounts, (other than 30 day trials), but that's not surprising because it (shock horror) costs money to provide their service. There are sites like Picasa & Flickr which will allow more storage for free than pbase, but they put advertising on their pages. They need to get the money to pay for the service from somewhere. I ask, which activity is closer to spam: hosting the photos on a commercial site that someone has paid a subscription fee so that the viewers don't see ads, or hosting the photos on a free site but every viewer gets subjected to ads? IMO neither is spamming the newsgroups, because in both cases it is the photo being promoted not the carriage medium, but the 2nd option does subject the viewer to more advertising. SignatureDon't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh! Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 8:26 AM: > If you are going to use the argument that every SI post is advertising > pbase, then I will use the argument that every post made by someone use > uses bigpond, aol, etc is advertising their isp. Someone who posts a > letter is advertising Australia Post or the US Postal Service. This is > rubbish. Just because you need (or choose) to use a commercial provider > as a carriage medium doesn't mean you are advertising their services. With the slight difference of course that the ones you described are ISPs and therefore essential to anyone online. While pbase is not a ISP nor does it need to be. I could go on, but let's not allow a simple fact like that destroy your well manufactured piece of flawed logic... >tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 3/07/2009 5:37 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >namely pbase. >Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son. Wazzat? Is that why you haven't entered the Shoot-In? You thought you needed to purchase a subscription? Pbase is an image host. One way or the other, all image hosts require someone to pay. It may be part of your ISP's bill, it might be by advertising, it might be by subscription, or it might be by purchasing a domain. In any case, *you* are not being solicited to subscribe to Pbase. Someone else has done that for you. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:10 AM: >> Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific commercial site, >> namely pbase. >> Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son. > > Wazzat? Is that why you haven't entered the Shoot-In? No. > You thought > you needed to purchase a subscription? No. > Pbase is an image host. One way or the other, all image hosts require > someone to pay. It may be part of your ISP's bill, it might be by > advertising, it might be by subscription, or it might be by purchasing > a domain. And that is new information exactly how? > In any case, *you* are not being solicited to subscribe to Pbase. > Someone else has done that for you. Perhaps someone who has a vested interest in pbase increasing its traffic and therefore attracting more customers? I call that a scam. >tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:10 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >And that is new information exactly how? Based on the type of comments you make here, that the sun appears first in the east may be new information for you. I would never make the mistake of over-estimating your knowledge of anything. >> In any case, *you* are not being solicited to subscribe to Pbase. >> Someone else has done that for you. > >Perhaps someone who has a vested interest in pbase increasing its traffic and >therefore attracting more customers? I call that a scam. Explain that. Pbase is owned by Chuck and Emily Neel out of Chapel Hill, NC. It appears to be a private venture by these two individuals. You can read about the particulars at http://www.pbase.com/slug/profile SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 4:12 AM: >>> Pbase is an image host. One way or the other, all image hosts require >>> someone to pay. It may be part of your ISP's bill, it might be by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > first in the east may be new information for you. I would never make > the mistake of over-estimating your knowledge of anything. That's ok, because I don't give a sh.t what you might think, say or do. > Explain that. Pbase is owned by Chuck and Emily Neel out of Chapel > Hill, NC. It appears to be a private venture by these two > individuals. You can read about the particulars at > http://www.pbase.com/slug/profile Are you saying they are the ONLY employees of that company? The ONLY ones? And that it is the only business they participate in? > tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:10 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Perhaps someone who has a vested interest in pbase increasing its traffic > and therefore attracting more customers? I call that a scam. The shootin has been "hosted" be several of the regs here. I'm just the latest one. I have no interest in Pbase, that's just where it was set up originally. If you can prove otherwise, have at it. I'll bet my house against a donut you can't. > tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:10 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Perhaps someone who has a vested interest in pbase increasing its > traffic and therefore attracting more customers? I call that a scam. Now you're just being stupid. In your opinion, where the hell is he supposed to host the photos? - They have to go *somewhere*! SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:23 PM: > Now you're just being stupid. In your opinion, where the hell is he > supposed to host the photos? - They have to go *somewhere*! Try a free site? > Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:23 PM: > >> Now you're just being stupid. In your opinion, where the hell is he >> supposed to host the photos? - They have to go *somewhere*! > > Try a free site? So which free site is free for the volume of images and views SI generates, and doesn't have ads? I can't say I've seen any free sites that are ad free, although I'd be glad to be proven wrong. Or are you saying you'd prefer everyone who looks at it be subjected to ads, rather than one or 2 people paying out of the goodness of their hearts, so that everyone else can see the photos sans-advertisements. If that is what you would prefer, then you are an idiot. > So which free site is free for the volume of images and views SI > generates, and doesn't have ads? I can't say I've seen any free sites [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ads, rather than one or 2 people paying out of the goodness of their > hearts, so that everyone else can see the photos sans-advertisements. Adblockers are a good thing you know >> So which free site is free for the volume of images and views SI >> generates, and doesn't have ads? I can't say I've seen any free sites [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Adblockers are a good thing you know Too complicated for this lot! >> So which free site is free for the volume of images and views SI >> generates, and doesn't have ads? I can't say I've seen any free sites [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Adblockers are a good thing you know Not necessarily......If you are rich and into spending money......... >> So which free site is free for the volume of images and views SI >> generates, and doesn't have ads? I can't say I've seen any free sites [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Adblockers are a good thing you know Yeah. Ads aren't a problem. Personally I couldn't give a damn where the thing is hosted. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of their stance. Apparently, by their warped view of the world: Pasting a link to an image stored on a "free" site that gets its revenue by advertising - OK. Pasting a link to an image stored on pbase, which directly charges it's users - NOT OK, because that is "advertising" a commercial website. Of course the finer points of that hypocrisy seem to be wasted on Noons and Doug/Shonkei or whatever his sockpuppet is this minute. Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 9:29 PM: >> Adblockers are a good thing you know > Yeah. Ads aren't a problem. Personally I couldn't give a damn where the > thing is hosted. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of their stance. Bullshit. > Apparently, by their warped view of the world: > Pasting a link to an image stored on a "free" site that gets its revenue > by advertising - OK. > Pasting a link to an image stored on pbase, which directly charges it's > users - NOT OK, because that is "advertising" a commercial website. No moron. Stop mis-quoting. It's scamming. Nothing to do with advertising, which is perfectly legit. Got it now, cocksucker? > Of course the finer points of that hypocrisy seem to be wasted on Noons > and Doug/Shonkei or whatever his sockpuppet is this minute. Of course simple reality is wasted on cocksuckers like you. >> Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:23 PM: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > If that is what you would prefer, then you are an idiot. You are joking aren't you Dougie? "Volume of viewers" is only because it's on Pbase. The whole shebang would do a hugely different deal if shootin was taken out of the group (now x4) and run entirely on Pbase as a business venture... Idiotic things like prizes with trips to Antarctica and D3 cameras and stuff but that would show up the piss poor quality of current participants 'happy snaps', wouldn't it? The big one is it would mean losing the prestige of running it under the guise of what "everyone" reading the photo groups wants. More likely just fantasy in the minds of a handful of wannabees looking for recognition for their unimaginative attempts. All magnified by three under current management. Three times as much crap discussed by the same half a dozen critics... Brilliant! Bret Douglas has on many occasions thought (wrongly) that he'd finally taken over r.p.E.35mm and it was his private group. At least he'd run out of crap to talk about if it was! Take it away and put it somewhere there is serious traffic (the competition would kill them) and the pathetic attempts by some pathetic hacks at proving to the world they spent hugely on their hobby and still can't get it right would fade into obscurity. Out of the goodness of their heart? Get real Jewel (no, not Bret's dog but hey...) Nobody except bona-fide charities and those associated with them does anything out of the goodness of their heart. Everyone else has a motive, including you. The notion 'Emily" and her lover have somehow contrived to knit a nice cosy little venture in their back yard sort of evaporates when you discover the size of their server farm and the data centre they own. But keeping the fantasy alive and well is part of their marketing method mate. > The notion 'Emily" and her lover have somehow contrived to knit a nice > cosy little venture in their back yard sort of evaporates when you > discover the size of their server farm and the data centre they own. But > keeping the fantasy alive and well is part of their marketing method mate.- Given how slow Pbase has been for the last year or so, it wouldn't surprise me if they ran it out of their basement. Surely, you can relate. > Out of the goodness of their heart? > Get real Jewel (no, not Bret's dog but hey...) Nobody except bona-fide > charities and those associated with them does anything out of the > goodness of their heart. Everyone else has a motive, including you. Oh yeah? What's my motive then, other than the pursuit of truth, for posting this: http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html ? Think hard before you reply, Doug. (If you can) -- Jeff R. >>> Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:23 PM: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that would show up the piss poor quality of current participants 'happy > snaps', wouldn't it? You just don't get it do you Dogless. SI is not, and never has been about pro-quality photos, winning cameras etc. It is about a bunch of people who read this newsgroup taking photos on a specific subject, then getting feedback on their photos to 1) widen people's photographic repertoire (so they don't get stuck in a rut of taking photos of dogs in Bret's case; or in your case, ugly dogs on their wedding day), and 2)allow people to receive constructive criticism on their photos. It is not, and never has been about taking photos that would hang in galleries, or grace the cover of National Geographic. Who cares if the SI entries are happy snaps? If someone sees the efforts of others, and learns from the constructive criticism received, then maybe their next photo will be a better happy snap. > The big one is it would mean losing the prestige of running it under the > guise of what "everyone" reading the photo groups wants. More likely > just fantasy in the minds of a handful of wannabees looking for > recognition for their unimaginative attempts. All magnified by three > under current management. Three times as much crap discussed by the same > half a dozen critics... Brilliant! There are oodles of photographic contests on the web and in magazines where you can win your D3 if that's what floats your boat. If that's what you want SI to be, then piss off and join one of those other contests. In the meantime leave SI participants alone. > Bret Douglas has on many occasions thought (wrongly) that he'd finally > taken over r.p.E.35mm and it was his private group. At least he'd run > out of crap to talk about if it was! Jealous because you couldn't take it over and make it a commercial venture? > Take it away and put it somewhere there is serious traffic (the > competition would kill them) and the pathetic attempts by some pathetic > hacks at proving to the world they spent hugely on their hobby and still > can't get it right would fade into obscurity. "pathetic attempt by some pathetic hacks... ...still can't get it right" - seems to describe you to a T doesn't it? Is your little obsession with causing sh.t in these newsgroups an effort to get out of obscurity? > Out of the goodness of their heart? > Get real Jewel (no, not Bret's dog but hey...) You could at least spell it correctly. >Nobody except bona-fide > charities and those associated with them does anything out of the > goodness of their heart. Everyone else has a motive, including you. So it hasn't occurred to you that some people can have altruistic motives? What do Alan Browne or Bret gain from having paid for the pbase subscription for SI? Both have handed control over to others, neither has asked for money from other contributors, and neither has received any special treatment in SI. They have done it because they believe in the notion of the SI as a means of friendly participation in photography. > The notion 'Emily" and her lover have somehow contrived to knit a nice > cosy little venture in their back yard sort of evaporates when you > discover the size of their server farm and the data centre they own. But > keeping the fantasy alive and well is part of their marketing method mate. Who the f.ck is Emily and what do I care what the size of their server farm and data centre is? Presumably you are making some reference to the owners of pbase. They run a website hosting photos. To do that requires a lot of storage and a lot of bandwith. Neither is free, so they charge for their service. They charge enough to make a profit. Woop-de-fuckin-doo, that is business. Considering how much you cry when someone copies one of your shitty snapshots, I would have thought you of all people would value the basic principle of business as being a means to earn money. But then, you don't even earn enough to register for GST, so maybe you are all piss and wind. Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 6:50 PM: > about pro-quality photos, winning cameras etc. It is about a bunch of > people who read this newsgroup taking photos on a specific subject, then "this" newsgroup? Given this crap has been cross-posted across half a dozen newsgroups as usual, it's very hard to figure out what sort of distorted, idiotic reality you live in when calling it the singular "this". > getting feedback on their photos to 1) widen people's photographic > repertoire (so they don't get stuck in a rut of taking photos of dogs in > Bret's case; or in your case, ugly dogs on their wedding day), and > 2)allow people to receive constructive criticism on their photos. Really? Here is a hint: open up a forum in pbase and do all that crap in there. Instead of polluting public newsgroups with your backyard ventures. > There are oodles of photographic contests on the web and in magazines > where you can win your D3 if that's what floats your boat. If that's > what you want SI to be, then piss off and join one of those other > contests. In the meantime leave SI participants alone. No. The SI Participants PISS OFF public newsgroups so they can be used by the general public. Instead of by a bunch of backyard rednecks. > Jealous because you couldn't take it over and make it a commercial venture? I'm glad you openly admit Bret's ulterior motives. > Is your little obsession with causing sh.t in these newsgroups an effort > to get out of obscurity? Now it's "these" newsgroups? Make up your mind, MORON! Is it one or many? > So it hasn't occurred to you that some people can have altruistic > motives? If next you get cry, I'm gonna throw up... > Who the f.ck is Emily and what do I care what the size of their server > farm and data centre is? Presumably you are making some reference to the > owners of pbase. They run a website hosting photos. Amazing. Just that, photos? Are you absolutely sure? Do you still believe in Santa as well? > principle of business as being a means to earn money. But then, you > don't even earn enough to register for GST, so maybe you are all piss > and wind. Given that you don't either, it's all piss and wind with you as well, eh? Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 6/07/2009 9:01 PM: >> Try a free site? > So which free site is free for the volume of images and views SI > generates, and doesn't have ads? The SI generates a dozen photos every second month or so. For chrissakes, stop mis-representing its relevance/importance/size! > I can't say I've seen any free sites > that are ad free, although I'd be glad to be proven wrong. So what? Couldn't care less about the adds. Never click on them anyway. Just bleeding ignore them. > Or are you saying you'd prefer everyone who looks at it be subjected to > ads, rather than one or 2 people paying out of the goodness of their > hearts, so that everyone else can see the photos sans-advertisements. And of course jack-up the traffic for pbase in the process? > If that is what you would prefer, then you are an idiot. And I think you are nothing but another low-life scumbag cocksucker scammer, like the lot of pbase are. >The SI generates a dozen photos every second month or so. For chrissakes, stop >mis-representing its relevance/importance/size! >And of course jack-up the traffic for pbase in the process? There's some deep thinking. First he points out that the Shoot In generates very few photos, then he claims the Shoot In jacks-up pBase traffic. How many additional hits-per-month does the Shoot In bring pBase? 15? 20? 30, maybe? It's a wonder pBase's system doesn't crash under that load. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida Some Crazy Croat Called Noons Crankily Created: > And of course jack-up the traffic for pbase in the process? Uhm... how does increasing view traffic on pbase help pbase? View traffic is what creates their cost, because they have to pay for the bandwith consumed by the views. They get their money from people who sign up to host their photos, not from click-throughs of people who look at the images. Those "free" sites that have advertising, on the other hand, do want view traffic because more views = more people likely to click on the ads = more income for them. I don't click on them, you probably don't, but some people do. The more traffic they generate the more likely someone will click on the ad and hence the more money they make. You have it totally arse about face. Do you have some other ax to grind, or are you just stupid? Personally, I don't use pbase to host my photos, never have, probably never will. But I couldn't give a rats arse if someone hosts their photos on pbase - that is their choice. Doesn't affect me one iota. What I won't click on is links to photos on plus613, because I've discovered that the page is also full of porn and other crap. I'd rather click on a pbase link and see just the target photo thankyou very much. >> If that is what you would prefer, then you are an idiot. > > And I think you are nothing but another low-life scumbag cocksucker > scammer, like the lot of pbase are. Resorting to school-boy insults. Are you 15? Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 11/07/2009 7:42 PM: >> And of course jack-up the traffic for pbase in the process? > Uhm... how does increasing view traffic on pbase help pbase? Yes. > View traffic is what creates their cost, because they have to pay for > the bandwith consumed by the views. They get their money from people who > sign up to host their photos, not from click-throughs of people who look > at the images. And I suppose if no one ever goes there, they don't spend anything with bandwidth, eh? Apparently, you don't have a clue what scamming is all about. > You have it totally arse about face. Do you have some other ax to grind, > or are you just stupid? Let me see: it's you, a moron troll who never posts anything of his work, who is going to define my level of intelligence? Piss off, dickhead! > never will. But I couldn't give a rats arse if someone hosts their > photos on pbase - that is their choice. Listen, dickhead: did anyone suggest folks should not use pbase if they want to? Are you completely incapable of reading the Queen's language r you just doing a special effort today? > I won't click on is links to photos on plus613, because I've discovered > that the page is also full of porn and other crap. I'd rather click on a > pbase link and see just the target photo thankyou very much. Check you buddies in pbase for their "valiant exploits' in that site... > Resorting to school-boy insults. Are you 15? No. And no. Are you? > Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:23 PM: > >> Now you're just being stupid. In your opinion, where the hell is he >> supposed to host the photos? - They have to go *somewhere*! > > Try a free site? A free site, so we'd have to look at ads when we look at the SI photos? No thanks. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 9:37 PM: >> Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:23 PM: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A free site, so we'd have to look at ads when we look at the SI photos? > No thanks. You don't have to look at ads, moron. > Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 9:37 PM: >>> Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:23 PM: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You don't have to look at ads, moron. You're an idiot, Noons. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 12/07/2009 1:36 PM: > You're an idiot, Noons. You are a moron, Bob. > tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 3/07/2009 5:37 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > site, namely pbase. > Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son. Say hi to your dad the Lama for me. You don't need any such thing to submit a photo for the Shootin. Just the correct e-mail address to send you pic. Nice try... > tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 3/07/2009 5:37 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific commercial > site, namely pbase. Huh? You mail your submissions to Bowser, & he puts them up on the page. No subscription or purchase required. > Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >> Doug, >> You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > "Whether personal private or commercial" should actually exclude > advertising Shootin, should they? An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts constitute advertising? Please explain. > You can't have it both ways. Either all forms of advertising are > "explicitly prohibited" or they are explicitly permitted. Which is it? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pornography and binary files in these groups (annika1980 is going to love > the last bit if that's what you are suggesting). > An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts > constitute advertising? Please explain. This is from a Wiki. There are thousands of other site providing descriptions of what constitutes an advertisment. Almost all of them mention alternative ways for you arouse awareness of shootin. Why don't you use them? You don't seem to be doing too well pissing people off with your cross posted crap. --------------------------------------- Organizations that frequently spend large sums of money on advertising that sells what is not, strictly speaking, a product or service include political parties, *interest groups*, religious organizations, and military recruiters. ---------------------------------------- It is quite wrong of you to presume just because you don't charge a fee or sell a product that you are not advertising a service as an interest. For that matter, you are promoting pbase although probably not intentionally. The service you advertise could well be seen as critique of entries or somewhere to display your alternative techniques. Whatever it is, you are offering a service - paid or not. You encourage critique activity which is also cross posted to groups where discussions of this nature are "Explicitly" off topic. I don't have a problem with shootin's existence or the plethora of mistakes each manager seems hell bent on reproducing. My concern is that the way you are promoting it is counter productive and very annoying. Where did you get the idea subscribers to a group don't read similar groups? The whole idea of forking RPD in the first place was to avoid sh.t like this being all in one big group. Here you are a few years on, going backwards so it is in one big group - Four of them! You are losing contributors, not gaining them and seem hell bent on destroying the whole thing out of bigotry and pig headedness. You made rules for shootin - why not follow the rules (charter) of the groups you cross post into? > You don't seem to be doing too well > pissing people off with your cross posted crap. Shon Kei come lately? *plonk* I killed him, as well. Another sock puppet, I guess... >> You don't seem to be doing too well >> pissing people off with your cross posted crap. > > Shon Kei come lately? > > *plonk* >> An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts >> constitute advertising? Please explain. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > rules for shootin - why not follow the rules (charter) of the groups you > cross post into? Actually YOUR the one doing his best to destroy it Douggie, after all your the only one here objecting to the SI postings, your the only one trying to pick the fights over the SI postings and your the only one dirty with the whole thing, and maybe a bit of history will show why, wasn't it you (In one of your many many guises/sock puppets/ever changing names) that suggested that you could host a photographic competition, hell you suggested that because of your standing within the industry you could even get sponsorship and prizes from major companies and maybe you could make a few dollars from the whole thing. That idea was soundly rejected by everyone and instead someone recommended that the SI be resurrected and a FREE photo sharing and critiquing (and I use this word loosely) competition was re-born. Everyone rejected your idea because lets face it, no one here trusts you as far as we could throw your fat ugly arse. So from then on you have had the dirt's with the SI and take every opportunity to try and stir dissent, it didn't work then and its not working now so maybe you should just man up, grow a spine (now that you finally have one surgically implanted) and maybe submit something instead of trying to bring it down. Signature[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi >>> An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts >>> constitute advertising? Please explain. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >(now that you finally have one surgically implanted) and maybe submit >something instead of trying to bring it down. The only ones destroying [SI] are those that are posting images to it. Seriously. Have you ever looked at those beginner's snapshots that people post there? C'mon. Get real. It's nothing but beginner snapshooters who are looking for praise for their lack of talent. That's all it is. I could care less if it exists or not. It's only meant to attract snapshooters who are trying to figure out if their camera purchase was worth it or not. That's all it is and ever was. So what if a bunch of happy snapshooters are looking for a place to congregate. All of Flickr is loaded to the brim with that type. What's the big deal if there's yet one more outlet for their doubts and insecurities about their inability to hold a camera properly. It matters not. Ghetta Gryp >>>> An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts >>>> constitute advertising? Please explain. [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > Ghetta Gryp Gee Douggie your really pulling out all the stops today in your trolling attempts :-) Signature[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi >>>>> An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts >>>>> constitute advertising? Please explain. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > Gee Douggie your really pulling out all the stops today in your > trolling attempts :-) Doug isn't to blame for that one. That was the nym shifting P&S troll. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>>>> An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts >>>>>> constitute advertising? Please explain. [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > > Doug isn't to blame for that one. That was the nym shifting P&S troll. sorry, jumping at shadows here. Its been a long day so far and it aint over yet :-) Signature[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi > Actually YOUR the one doing his best to destroy it Douggie, after all your > the only one here objecting to the SI postings, your the only one trying to > pick the fights over the SI postings and your the only one dirty with the > whole thing, and maybe a bit of history will show why Douggie is simply using the Shootin as a way to resurrect old battles with me and Alan Browne, and perhaps start some new ones with anyone who has anything to do with us. D-Mac conveniently forgets how he attempted to sabotage the old SI when I was hosting it by sending in fake pics under a variety of names. Right, Svetlana? >> Actually YOUR the one doing his best to destroy it Douggie, after all your >> the only one here objecting to the SI postings, your the only one trying to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > when I was hosting it by sending in fake pics under a variety of > names. Right, Svetlana? I seriously didn't send that one but I wish I had. It got you running around in circles like a chook with feather stuck up it's arse, big time! Ha, ha. Mine were a lot more conservative. Like the fake lightning bolt I pasted over a midday sun shot I darkened. You thought it was awesome! You, the self promoting, chest beating Photoshop Guru! ROTFL. Anything that makes you look stupid is good fun. > > D-Mac conveniently forgets how he attempted to sabotage the old SI > > when I was hosting it by sending in fake pics under a variety of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > around in circles like a chook with feather stuck up it's arse, big > time! Ha, ha. If you didn't post it then you wouldn't have known about me running around in circles. You must be talking about some e-mail correspondence I had with Svetlana. > D-Mac conveniently forgets how he attempted to sabotage the old SI > when I was hosting it by sending in fake pics under a variety of > names. Right, Svetlana? I knew Svetlana a long time ago. http://www.rfparts.com/tubesvet.html >> D-Mac conveniently forgets how he attempted to sabotage the old SI >> when I was hosting it by sending in fake pics under a variety of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.rfparts.com/tubesvet.html Ha, ha, ha... ROTFL. He never did get it and you had to go and spoil it all! > It's not a belief it's a known fact. *ADVERTISING IS SPAM*. > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - WHAT? Not one mention of me or EBAY accounts? I feel slighted! http://www.pbase.com/bret > WHAT? Not one mention of me or EBAY accounts? > I feel slighted! Then go to DPReview's forums and feel slightly better. A guy there (quite the egomaniac) claims to commune with a secret troll hunting society and occasionally refers to a master troll that taught "Annika80" all of the evil trollish arts. Not mentioning his name here just to see if you're even aware of who he is. > Netetiquette and most of the charters for news groups, as well as > Bowsers own news provider prohibit what he's doing and prohibit cross > posting to more than 3 groups. > For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you > as hypocrite too. Oh, the bloody irony. You, Mr Hypocrite, cross posted *your* reply to four groups. Rules, as described by you for everyone else, are to be obeyed, except by you? And, yes, I crossposted to four groups. The difference is, I don't regard four as excessive provided they're relevant. SignatureDyna All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged. > It's not a belief it's a known fact. *ADVERTISING IS SPAM*. And you have openly admitted that you use these newsgroups to promote your commercial websites and lift your google rankings. Very hypocritical don't you think. > Netetiquette and most of the charters for news groups, as well as > Bowsers own news provider prohibit what he's doing and prohibit cross > posting to more than 3 groups. And yet you've cross-posted your rant to 4 groups. Very hypocritical don't you think. > Bowser is following in the footsteps of Alan Brown by Cross posting to 4 > groups and only 2 of them are photography relative. The other two are > for discussion about equipment. And yet you've cross-posted your rant to 4 groups, including the 2 which are "photography relative" by your own admission. Very hypocritical don't you think. > "This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of > any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other > promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to > photography." Yet you've posted links to your commercial websites. Very hypocritical don't you think. > Tell me now John, that bowsers posts are not advertising shootin and > pbase. They are doing neither. Shootin is not "advertising". The best way to enhance photography skills is to take photographs and get critiqued on them, which is what shootin encourages. It is an invitation to take photographs and have them critiqued by other participants. Similarly they are not advertising pbase, they are merely using it as a medium to distribute the photographs because newsgroups don't allow binary posts. If posting a link to a photo that is stored on pbase is advertising then noone would be able to post any links to any photos. > Or are you less of a hypocrite than you come across as being? If posting a link to a photo stored on a photo site is advertising according to you, then posting a link to a photo stored on a website run by a professional (cough splutter) photographer is even more so. Very hypocritical don't you think. > Alan in his typical bigoted way, started the spam from shootin going to > groups where it is unwanted and in the process, totally ignored his own > rules. That makes three major transgressions by him of the rules he > formulated for that group. Alan's promotion of SI is only against the charter by your extremely narrow-minded definition. >What a bloody hypocrite You are, aren't you. > For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you as > hypocrite too. For you to be even more guilty of spamming, and then accuse the SI of being spam is more hypocritical than anything done by any of the SI promoters or participants. Why all the hatred against SI douggy? is it because people who aren't "professional" can take better photos than you? Is it because you think your photos are perfect and can't handle the critique when people advise tips on how they could be made better? Or is it just because you are a bitter old man? > Similarly they are not advertising pbase, they are merely using it as a > medium to distribute the photographs because newsgroups don't allow > binary posts. That says it all. So Dougie boy, if newsgroups don't allow binary posts and RPD.slr-systems doesn't allow discussions side tracking into even bizarre areas like critique of a photographic submission site - only about DSLR equipment, where is the difference? Oh, that's right! When you want to engage in an activity that is off topic to a group, you just accuse those who point out the charter of being against whatever it is that is prohibited in the charter and specifically whatever it is that you want to do. That makes sense - *NOT*! Slow night at the pizza shop is it? >> Similarly they are not advertising pbase, they are merely using it as >> a medium to distribute the photographs because newsgroups don't allow [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > bizarre areas like critique of a photographic submission site - only > about DSLR equipment, where is the difference? The difference, is in the mechanisms involved in transmitting the data. Most readers of the NG's don't care if someone posts something that is only marginally on topic. That's why posts have subject lines - you can skip over the subject lines to find the messages that are of interest to you. Most newsreaders allow filtering so you can chop out messages that you know will be irrelevant. It's only the handful of posters that get upset about completely off-topic posts, and an even smaller group of pedants who get upset by slightly off-topic posts. A binary on the other hand will get rejected by most newsfeeds because newsgroups are designed to be a low-bandwith communication medium. Although there are binary newsgroups, very few newsfeeds carry them. The standard method used for posting in an NG when binary information needs to be communicated, is to post a link. That way readers can choose whether they want to follow the link and download the binary content or not. This is the standard method that has been used pretty much since the time HTML / HTTP were first used to display graphics on a website, and maybe even before that. > Oh, that's right! > When you want to engage in an activity that is off topic to a group, you > just accuse those who point out the charter of being against whatever it > is that is prohibited in the charter and specifically whatever it is > that you want to do. For one, posting a link to a photo on a website is not advertising just because that website is commercial in nature. Posting links is standard practice to disseminate information that can't otherwise be posted due to the non-binary nature of newsgroups, and since almost all hosting sites are commercial, it's going to be pretty hard to post a link that isn't hosted on some commercial site. Furthermore, face facts: posts about a co-ordinated effort to take photos in a photographic equipment related newsgroup, are only slightly off-topic, because whether you like it or not, every photo ever posted on SI has been taken with photographic equipment. Furthermore, what is the point of all the photographic equipment if not to take photos. > That makes sense - *NOT*! Makes more sense than your hypocritical stance. I take it that since you didn't challenge me for calling you a hypocrite, that you agree you are? > Slow night at the pizza shop is it? Dunno, I decided to have a lovely home-cooked meal last night, instead of going out and buying pizza. I see you are posting on a saturday morning, what would normally be a very busy time for a wedding photographer. Slow day in the wedding photography business is it? Drove past 3 this morning... SignatureDon't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh! > It's not a belief it's a known fact. *ADVERTISING IS SPAM*. How? Where? Can you show me? > Netetiquette and most of the charters for news groups, as well as Bowsers > own news provider prohibit what he's doing and prohibit cross posting to > more than 3 groups. Once again, USE YOUR FILTER!!! And you'll never see these posts again. Why can't you just do that? > Bowser is following in the footsteps of Alan Brown by Cross posting to 4 > groups and only 2 of them are photography relative. The other two are for [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you as > hypocrite too. John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 3/07/2009 9:01 AM: > The mission posters are back. There are all of two of them who have > these weird beliefs about pBase... And the indecent pbase scamming you and others do who have a direct financial interest in pbase's membership is of course a scenario that conveniently is avoided. >Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos Interesting use of the word "all" to describe a minority activity. And a very small minority at that! ;-) >> Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos > > Interesting use of the word "all" to describe a minority activity. > > And a very small minority at that! ;-) <rolls eyes> We discussed all this when the SI was first invented. Get the f.ck over it. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > We discussed all this when the SI was first invented. Get the f.ck over it. What was agreed to when Shootin was born was that it would exist in rec.photo.equipment.35mm. There was never any discussion to cross post the every newsgroup only vaguely related to photography - whilst excluding those groups specifically related to photography. It is all too easy for photographers to see no difference between talking about their new 1200mm lens and discussing photographic techniques - but there is a difference and groups exist to differentiate them. Targeting high traffic groups to cross post into whilst leaving relative but low traffic groups where the activity would be welcome, to fend for themselves... Fantastic behaviour by fanatical individuals who can't get attention any other way but to stick their crap in where it is forbidden from being. Sort of ironical, isn't it? There was never any agreement to ignore the charter of other groups. There was never any discussion about the ethics of posting to groups where in depth discussion of a person's photographs is prohibited. In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin. Claiming it was an off topic activity in r.p.e.35mm and doing your hardest to get rid of it. Quite a turn around for you. Less than a handful of people in shootin now. Cosy little thing the proponents of are very loud in promoting and defending. I might be swayed into accepting that in the USA Advertising is directly related to selling something. I might also be swayed into accepting that shootin is not advertising anything but you seriously can't try to tell me the posts Bowser is making are not "promoting it". -------------------------------------------- "This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, *as well as all other promotional material*, whether or not it is in any way related to photography." -------------------------------------------- I remember Alan Brown going into depth discussing this issue when he formulated the forked groups and the rules were specifically written to prevent this sort of activity. There is quite simply no excuse for even trying to defend it, much less continuing with it. GET THE HELL OUT OF R.P.D.slr-systems > I might also be swayed into accepting that shootin is not advertising > anything but you seriously can't try to tell me the posts Bowser is making > are not "promoting it". *Every time* you talk about your Canon or Nikon or whatever camera (film or digital) you use; you are "promoting that brand and model. So the question is......... what is your point? [...] > In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin. Claiming it was > an off topic activity in r.p.e.35mm and doing your hardest to get rid of > it. Quite a turn around for you. That's an out & out lie. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Shoot-In from day one. I've even submitted a few pictures to it. > I remember Alan Brown going into depth discussing this issue when he > formulated the forked groups and the rules were specifically written to > prevent this sort of activity. There is quite simply no excuse for even > trying to defend it, much less continuing with it. Rubbish. By your 'logic', Douggie, you've frequently promoted your own business in all these groups. > GET THE HELL OUT OF R.P.D.slr-systems Go f.ck yourself, hypocrite. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin. A "resister"? It was no effort at all to resist the SI, and I can assure you I made no effort at all! >Claiming it was >an off topic activity in r.p.e.35mm and doing your hardest to get rid of >it. Quite a turn around for you. What turnaround? I have *never* changed my opinion; the Shoot-In is, and always has been, a futile exercise in mediocrity and an insult to capable photographers. And yes, it is also off-topic. ;-) >> In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And yes, it is also off-topic. ;-) Watch out Lionel... Your socks are showing! >>> In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Watch out Lionel... >Your socks are showing! Sorry, it was my mistake. I didn't take sufficient care checking the attribution before replying. Lionel has been in my kill file for years along with a few other parasites so I see none of his posts. I didn't immediately realise that you had replied to Lionel, not me. > Lionel has been in my kill file for years > along with a few other parasites so I see none of his posts. Is Tony Polson in there? Or would that be self defeating? >>> In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Watch out Lionel... > Your socks are showing! That's not me, you moron. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > What turnaround? I have *never* changed my opinion; the Shoot-In is, > and always has been, a futile exercise in mediocrity and an insult to > capable photographers. One that you've never had the balls to submit a photo to, right? Given your standard of photography, you can't make many claims now, can you? http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6688626 http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000a.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000b.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000c.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000d.jpg >> What turnaround? I have *never* changed my opinion; the Shoot-In is, >> and always has been, a futile exercise in mediocrity and an insult to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000a.jpg If the mandate is ever "noise", this would be the one to submit. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> What turnaround? I have *never* changed my opinion; the Shoot-In is, >>> and always has been, a futile exercise in mediocrity and an insult to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If the mandate is ever "noise", this would be the one to submit. Far be it for me to stick up for the swine but those rail photos were taken in the days of film and with very high ISO stuff at that. Then he cropped them which makes the grain even more prominent. Polson's lies about being terminally ill and at death's doorstep in one group and being a hard working Paris Match cover shooter (where the editors having no knowledge of him) and his willingness to be critical of other people's images when he really hasn't a clue are what gets him into trouble. He got off side with me when he said a photo I used Corel Photopaint to get the size down on, was out of focus when in fact it was perfectly focused. Had he apologised when I posted an uncompressed version I wouldn't be on his case now. Like Alan Browne. Getting an apology out of him is like pulling teeth from a chook. He seems to think it is possible to measure Lpmm with 12 inch ruler! Bruce wrote,on my timestamp of 3/07/2009 7:21 PM: >> Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos > > Interesting use of the word "all" to describe a minority activity. > > And a very small minority at that! ;-) Shhhhhhhh! Don't go around upsetting the voices... >>> On 7/2/2009 8:11 AM Bowser spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Since you and that Jackass from Tennessee began spamming every bloody > newsgroup on the planet with links to it. unlike you posting links to your COMMERCIAL web sites eh Douggie. Might be time for me to point this out every time you link to one of your "commercial" web sites, though from all the evidence so far, they could be classed as "Not for Profit" LOL Signature[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi > Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from? I wonder if Hormel has a www.spam website? >>> Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If >>> you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from? The idiot kook edited the quoted material. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If you've > shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send them in. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/kodachrome Might have to load up with some I have in the cupboard gathering dust. Personally I am normally a RealA person. > Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If > you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/kodachrome I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is the ability to control color rendition. >> Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If >> you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is > the ability to control color rendition. You have company on that one, but I really liked the way Kodachrome displayed whites and how it looked for landscapes. Flesh tones were OK, but you had to like the films overall look in order to live with it. Also, I agree it's no competition for a good digital camera, and that's why it's gone. But for those of us who have been shooting since the 60s, and earlier, we may have some fond memories of what was a great film. >> I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I >> won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >why it's gone. But for those of us who have been shooting since the 60s, >and earlier, we may have some fond memories of what was a great film. It's gone because it's too expensive to manufacture and too difficult to process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or surpassed it in terms of quality. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) >>> I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I >>> won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or > surpassed it in terms of quality. I always preferred the look of K25 to the new stuff, but that's highly subjective, of course. Never cared for Velvia, or any of the hypersaturated films. Some of the Kodak Ektachromes weren't too bad, but I always went back to K25. Of course, shooting at ASA 25 was a real issue. and yes, it was a money loser. Can't compete with digital, though. >>> I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I >>> won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or > surpassed it in terms of quality. None of the above. Kodachrome died because the whole landscape universe switched over to Velvia 50, leaving Kodachrome without a niche. It has nothing to do with digital, and nothing to do with Velvia being "better quality" (if anything, it's worse). It's that Velvia, with it's insane contrast, ultrasaturation, and off the wall color rendition "out-Kodachromed" Kodachrome. My reading between the line of Fuji's own dance of death over Velvia and Velvia 100F is that Fuji's film engineers where horribly embarrassed at Velvia 50's shortcomings, and decided to fix them in Velvia 100F. Velvia 100F has the same high contrast and the same supersaturation, but it has much more accurrate color rendition, finer grain, better MTF characteristics, and far superior reciprocity characteristics than Velvia 50. You'd have to be nuts to prefer the grossly inferior Velvia 50. But everyone _hates_ Velvia 100F, and Fuji was forced to reintroduce Velvia 50 after discontinuing it. SignatureDavid J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> It's gone because it's too expensive to manufacture and too difficult to >> process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >everyone _hates_ Velvia 100F, and Fuji was forced to reintroduce Velvia 50 >after discontinuing it. Tortured and entertaining straw man hand waving that doesn't really contradict what I wrote. ;) From "Velvia vs. Provia 100F, A Digital Perspective" <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/velvia_vs_povia.shtml> "Soon after its introduction a number of years ago, Velvia became the film of choice for many professional landscape photographers..." There is no one perfect film, Kodachrome included. Velvia is my choice for some things. Provia or Astia or Kodak Elite would be my choice for other things. It all depends on what I'm shooting and the kind of results I want. SignatureBest regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others) > There is no one perfect film, Kodachrome included. Velvia is my choice > for some things. Provia or Astia or Kodak Elite would be my choice for > other things. It all depends on what I'm shooting and the kind of > results I want. Yes, but I hate to see them discontinued, one by one.......Pretty soon, there won't be any left, and my F-5 will become a museum piece.......$2,000 worth of beautiful machinery with absolutely no purpose.... > Yes, but I hate to see them discontinued, one by one.......Pretty soon, > there won't be any left, and my F-5 will become a museum piece.......$2,000 > worth of beautiful machinery with absolutely no purpose.... Kodak Gold will probably be all that's left pretty soon. I think that will last a bit longer. Better get used to it :-( MrT. On 7/2/09 3:18 PM, in article NYGdnZR8eaqei9DXnZ2dnVY3goudnZ2d@giganews.com, >>>> I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I >>>> won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > everyone _hates_ Velvia 100F, and Fuji was forced to reintroduce Velvia 50 > after discontinuing it. I never liked Velvia because it reminded me of cheap cheese... > I never liked Velvia because it reminded me of cheap cheese... That must have been why Herb Cain never shot it either...... > Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If you've > shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send them in. Show > us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or variation of emulsion). > Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how they've held up. The older the > better. Here's one from 1948, not taken by me, obviously. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/73548875 I think I've taken a roll or two of Kodachrome. I'll have to look for them. > Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If you've > shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send them in. Show [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/kodachrome I have seen others kodachrome slides that have not faded after 50 years, I don't seem to have had that much luck. I am not real sure if the slide faded or if the colors were simply off right from the start but this is one of my kodachrome slides, left side is how it looks and the right is after adjusting the colors. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/114542061/original That photo is just a bit over 25 years old, taken in June of 1984. In looking at the slide it really does look like the left side of the image. On the plus side my kodachrome slides seem to be sharper then about any other film I used. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.