 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / April 2008Spring flowers in my yard
Just a few shots of the local flora. http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF >Just a few shots of the local flora. >http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF push for a *tad* more DOF to get the entire flower head in focus, IMO. >>Just a few shots of the local flora. >>http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF > > push for a *tad* more DOF to get the entire flower head in focus, IMO. Personally I them all except for the first one and that one needed "lots" more DOF IMHO, the OP's MMV of course and that is exactly what he wanted. >>>Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Personally I them all except for the first one and that one needed "lots" >more DOF IMHO, the OP's MMV of course and that is exactly what he wanted. How do you know, that's exactly what he wanted. And, subjectively speaking as an observer of the resulting image, I am not *happy* to see _most_ of the flower heads out of focus. Lg >>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > speaking as an observer of the resulting image, I am not *happy* to > see _most_ of the flower heads out of focus. I've been working on the limited DoF a bit, to make the flower look more like a landscape. The third (pink) flower, for example - I didn't even notice the curly stamen until I got in really close with my extension tube. Now, I have a completely different POV of that type of flower, which is why I like the macro+tube view. Most people seem to like it except for you and Mrs. Cynicor, but that's another story that is not related to the photographs but the photographer. You're right (Pete) in that the blue/white one probably needs more DoF. I might try it again tomorrow. I've also just recently discovered that a 1920x1200 screen gives you a LOT more of the photo than my old 1024x768. I am looking at my D300 pix at 33% or larger and fitting them onto my screen. Unfortunately, it's not a tablet. Oh well. > Most people seem to like it Have you considered that those that don't, might just not say so? >> Most people seem to like it > > Have you considered that those that don't, might just not say so? Nah, the people who have told me they do like them mostly dislike me intensely on a personal level, and with good cause. >> Most people seem to like it > > Have you considered that those that don't, might just not say so? That may be the case in the real world, but not here, not in this ng. No, no no. Nope. : > Most people seem to like it : : Have you considered that those that don't, might just not say so? In this newsgroup?? You're joking, of course. Bob >>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Lg I have to agree. At the very LEAST, the foreground should be sharp focus. : >>Just a few shots of the local flora. : >>http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : Personally I them all except for the first one and that one needed "lots" : more DOF IMHO, the OP's MMV of course and that is exactly what he wanted. That one would have worked if the center of the flower were in focus or if there were an insect (in focus) somewhere on the flower. Because the only parts of the image that are in focus are peripheral to the subject, the eye "hunts" constantly without coming to a resolution. Bob > Just a few shots of the local flora. > http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF Very nice. Never seen a daffodil those colours before.  SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. >> Just a few shots of the local flora. >> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF > >Very nice. Never seen a daffodil those colours before. Do you think the images could be improved if they looked like they weren't taken through coke-bottle glass? >>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Do you think the images could be improved if they looked like they > weren't taken through coke-bottle glass? They don't look like they were taken through coke-bottle glass. They're sharp and in focus. The EXIF data looks like a 105mm macro lens, I'd guess the Sigma. Very nice lens. DOF is very small with macro lenses at such short working distances, even f/8 and f/11 DOF is in the order of millimetres. The exposure looks like it was pretty well controlled considering all the white in the petals. Few hot spots, but at the colours seem ok. Probably could be a little overexposed, but not much. And let's not forget everyone's tastes are different. I liked them. You didn't. I'm not criticising your opinion. SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. >>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >They don't look like they were taken through coke-bottle glass. >They're sharp and in focus. Rent a pair of eyes the next time you're at Sears. >The EXIF data looks like a 105mm macro lens, I'd guess the Sigma. >Very nice lens. DOF is very small with macro lenses at such >short working distances, even f/8 and f/11 DOF is in the order of >millimetres. I have the ability, with no special equipment, to use MACRO mode to provide perfect focus for entire flower heads, without bringing into focus anything in front of, or behind it. >The exposure looks like it was pretty well controlled considering >all the white in the petals. Few hot spots, but at the colours >seem ok. Probably could be a little overexposed, but not much. > >And let's not forget everyone's tastes are different. I liked >them. You didn't. I'm not criticising your opinion. I'm critiquing the images. I think they rate as rank amateur. Is this forum comprised of rank amateurs? Then it is an appropriate post. Lg >>>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Rent a pair of eyes the next time you're at Sears. What's a Sears? I already have eyes anyway, thanks. Do "Sears" rent out good manners? Perhaps you could look into that. You seemed to have a lot of praise for Germans in another thread here. Something I found during my stay there was how friendly and warm they are. >>The EXIF data looks like a 105mm macro lens, I'd guess the Sigma. >>Very nice lens. DOF is very small with macro lenses at such [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > provide perfect focus for entire flower heads, without bringing into > focus anything in front of, or behind it. Perhaps the OP didn't want that look. Perhaps the OP doesn't have the same camera as you. Perhaps the OP is of a different skill level to you. Perhaps the flowers he/she is shooting are larger than yours or was shooting from a different working distance therefore different DOF. Perhaps it was accidental and the OP will learn from the critiques here. >>The exposure looks like it was pretty well controlled considering >>all the white in the petals. Few hot spots, but at the colours [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'm critiquing the images. No you weren't. You may have in another thread, but here you were responding directly to my post which was as simple as: TP: Very nice. Never seen a daffodil those colours before. LG: Do you think the images could be improved if they looked like they weren't taken through coke-bottle glass? I take that as you responding directly at my comment, and your subsequent smart-a.s reply about me needing to rent eyes is further down the appreciation list than that. > I think they rate as rank amateur. That's your opinion. We get that. > Is this forum comprised of rank amateurs? Not completely. I don't see a charter where only professionals and awesome photographers can post images. > Then it is an appropriate post. Critiquing the photos directly is probably on-topic. Having a go at me for expressing my opinion just because it's different to yours is not. Peace. SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. <snip> >I'm critiquing the images. I think they rate as rank amateur. Is >this forum comprised of rank amateurs? Then it is an appropriate >post. While new to this group, 12+ years of Usenet experience shows me that Usenet is comprised of people from every walk of life, skill level, belief system, and willingness to communicate in a mature fashion. Having recently graduated from point-and-shoots of increasing quality over the years to a relatively nice dslr I came here hoping to find some tips, as I'm sure many others have. I wonder how many of them were scared away by your arrogant contemptuousness? I've been reading posts in this group for all of a day and it's already apparent that your impoverished ego won't allow you to simply give some helpful advice without slamming anybody without your level of experience or willingness to part with unholy amounts of money for professional equipment. Go create a group named "rec.photo.digital.elitist_snobs" and hang out there, the rest us don't need your unwarranted hostility. Congratulations on being my first killfilter addition for this group, even before the spambots. > <snip> >> I'm critiquing the images. I think they rate as rank amateur. Is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Congratulations on being my first killfilter addition for this group, > even before the spambots. Forget him. How would you improve upon my photos? >Forget him. How would you improve upon my photos? Give your camera away to someone else. Okay, enough with the jokes. STUDY ART. buy a book and study Design Composition Lighting Lg <massive snip> >Forget him. How would you improve upon my photos? *Personally*, I think your photos venture into the realm of "art", which is to say that they're perfect if YOU like them. That being said, I would add a little more DOF; for example, in the pictures of the blue strip and the magnolia nothing really seems to be in focus to me. On the second, I would have put myself a little more in front of the light source. I like the composition of all of them (especially the daffodil) with the possible exception of the last hyacinth (very busy background, a tad distracting IMO). I guess I'm with Troy on this batch, though I must admit I haven't learned to control my exposure to that degree yet. ;-) Of course (with apologies to Mr. Miller) that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. ><snip> >>I'm critiquing the images. I think they rate as rank amateur. Is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Congratulations on being my first killfilter addition for this group, >even before the spambots. I see: a personal insult coming from you, because of a personal insult coming from me. Am I the ONLY ONE to see the irony here? f.ck him Lg > I'm critiquing the images. I think they rate as rank amateur. Is > this forum comprised of rank amateurs? Then it is an appropriate > post. > > Lg I'll butt in... First, an honest critique and, hopefully, some followup suggestions as to how to improve are exactly what I look for here. I know that I can count on critique, and I'm lucky to have some of that followup. Second, "rank amateur" is a relative term. This encompasses a wide range of skills and talents, from none to "not nearly as good as I can do." "Professional," as far as I can determine, means only one thing - got paid. Again, results vary widely. (I could make a case that I am, in fact, a professional, as I have print credits and photography has become a part [a small part] of my job description. But I would never claim to be a professional photographer by any stretch. Just why that is, I'm not sure.) Third, in any society or association or newsgroup, rank amateurs are to be welcomed with open arms. New blood, fresh perspective, perhaps even challenges are essential to the growth and vitality of any hobby or profession. Imagine what this (or any) newsgroup would be, if only certified professionals were allowed to post. A nonstop, eternal clash of egos, to be sure. As a dedicated amateur, myself, I enjoy seeing what others consider to be their better work. Every Spring, I take a thousand photos, most of which will never be seen by anyone else, and share the acceptable ones (IMO, naturally). Right now, it's all about my 100mm macro, with its somewhat unpredictable DOF. To think that the difference between f/6.3 and f/11 determines whether my photo qualifies as "rank amateur" has me wondering... Perhaps I should post three different versions of every shot. To Troy: The previous owners of our home planted those same white-orange mutants out front, and I've photographed them so much, that I'm now surprised to come across wholly yellow daffodils. http://www.tfrog93.com/digitals/lenses/100mm/0754.jpg I'm sure that they're some sort of man-massaged hybrid, but I don't care enough to look them up; all I know is that they look great in the setting sun. dwight >> I'm critiquing the images. I think they rate as rank amateur. Is >> this forum comprised of rank amateurs? Then it is an appropriate [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >dwight Points well taken. Lg > Points well taken. > > Lg We're all newbies at some time in virtually all circumstances. None of us comes out of the womb and hits the ground running. That's why I give the human species ten, maybe 15 generations, at most. dwight >> I'm critiquing the images. I think they rate as rank amateur. Is >> this forum comprised of rank amateurs? Then it is an appropriate [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > naturally). Right now, it's all about my 100mm macro, with its somewhat > unpredictable DOF. DOF shouldn't be 'unpredictable'. It is a very definable, and reliable relationship between distance to the subject, and the aperture. If you can't use a high enough F number, then add light. If you can't add light, then you will need to choose between having the foreground or background out of focus. Most people seem to feel that the foreground of the subject should be in focus, while they readily accept an out of focus background. At least those are MY PERSONAL feelings, and experience with DOF. > To think that the difference between f/6.3 and f/11 determines whether my > photo qualifies as "rank amateur" has me wondering... Perhaps I should post > three different versions of every shot. Only in the sense discussed above. > To Troy: The previous owners of our home planted those same white-orange > mutants out front, and I've photographed them so much, that I'm now [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > dwight >> As a dedicated amateur, myself, I enjoy seeing what others consider to be >> their better work. Every Spring, I take a thousand photos, most of which [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > should be in focus, while they readily accept an out of focus background. > At least those are MY PERSONAL feelings, and experience with DOF. All of this is true, for those who know what they're doing. I'm just an amateur, who learns best by screwing things up and then turns to newsgroups for help and advice. dwight : DOF shouldn't be 'unpredictable'. It is a very definable, and reliable : relationship between distance to the subject, and the aperture. If you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : focus background. At least those are MY PERSONAL feelings, and : experience with DOF. The principal subject should (almost always) be in focus, and it's in the foreground more often than not. Macro photography of flowers is a bit of a special case. I don't do it, but my wife does, and she'll sometimes pick out the center of the flower and let the edges of the petals go soft, even though they're more in the "foreground". If there's an insect perched on the flower, she'll focus on that and not worry about the flower itself. Most of the time that looks "correct" to me. Bob > : DOF shouldn't be 'unpredictable'. It is a very definable, and reliable > : relationship between distance to the subject, and the aperture. If you [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Bob hi i love flowers too me to i love flowers they r awsome hey email me @kg22888@gmail.com densh...@gmail.com wrote: > > : DOF shouldn't be 'unpredictable'. �It is a very definable, and reliable > > : relationship between distance to the subject, and the aperture. �If you [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > hi i love flowers too >>> Do you think the images could be improved if they looked like they >>> weren't taken through coke-bottle glass? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > this forum comprised of rank amateurs? Then it is an appropriate > post. This forum is comprised of a cross section of people, amateurs, serious photographers, and out-and-out camera snobs, although judging by the hostile comments of a small minority on here, it sometimes leads me to believe that I'm browsing rec.photo.dslr.elitists by mistake. Woe betide that someone dare mention a <spit> P&S camera on here, and some of the holier than thou dSLR owners come down on them like a ton of bricks! Back to the original topic, I tend to only find concrete in my yard (and most other peoples), I usually need to venture into the garden before I find an environment that is conducive to growing flowers. Just off to partake in afternoon tea and scones :-) >>>> Do you think the images could be improved if they looked like they >>>> weren't taken through coke-bottle glass? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >comments of a small minority on here, it sometimes leads me to believe that >I'm browsing rec.photo.dslr.elitists by mistake. I have owned and used many different types and brands of cameras over the years. I really enjoyed my twin lens reflex while I had it, in 120 format IIRC. But now, they are not to be found in camera stores anymore. This is interesting. A lot of things seems to be going electronic, even film cameras. My last Minolta 35mm film SLR had an electric motor advance and other electronic *features.* When the film advance motor stopped working, I decided to not throw good money after bad and just threw the camera away; it wasn't worth saving. Now film cameras are so outnumbered by electronic digital cameras, that the Great Yellow god Kodak itself has stopped manufacturing film cameras. Isn't that amazing? I think it is. Right now I have a Nikon Coolpix P&S 4100 (chough, cough), then a Fujifilm Finepix 6MP, and then a Nikon D80, and that's the entire inventory. I read an article that said Polaroid was stopping production of film for view camera film backs. I think if we went looking for a new in the box Polaroid camera these days, that uses Polaroid film, we would have a hard time finding one. Yet when I was a kid, this was all the rage. "Instant Phtography" and instant feedback, at a rather hefty price (for the film). Now that too is obsoleted. >Woe betide that someone dare mention a <spit> P&S camera on here, and some >of the holier than thou dSLR owners come down on them like a ton of bricks! Well, there are situations where the pocketable 4100 is more suitable than my other 2 cameras, because it is more touristy and less conspicuous. Otoh, the megapixel count is rather low on it so it doesn't get used very often. >Back to the original topic, I tend to only find concrete in my yard (and >most other peoples), I usually need to venture into the garden before I find >an environment that is conducive to growing flowers. This is a good time of year to be outdoors with a camera. >Just off to partake in afternoon tea and scones :-) Cheerio. Lg >>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > short working distances, even f/8 and f/11 DOF is in the order of > millimetres. It is the Sigma. I also tossed on some extension tube there to get closer. That blue/white flower is a bit smaller than a dime. > The exposure looks like it was pretty well controlled considering > all the white in the petals. Few hot spots, but at the colours > seem ok. Probably could be a little overexposed, but not much. That's the D300 helping me a little bit, too. It gave me enough latitude to expose to minimize hot spots. I was too lazy to haul out a pop-up shooting tent, which also would've helped a bit with the mild wind. > And let's not forget everyone's tastes are different. I liked > them. You didn't. I'm not criticising your opinion. (Scribbling in notebook: +1 taste point for Troy.) >>>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > (Scribbling in notebook: +1 taste point for Troy.) :) What do I win? SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. >>>>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > :) What do I win? Er...Lawrence will be by momentarily with a copy of his CV, and he'll call you a name. Second prize is being called two names. >>>>>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>>>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Er...Lawrence will be by momentarily with a copy of his CV, and he'll >call you a name. Second prize is being called two names. Listen, if you want to generate sh.t, then go ahead and generate sh.t. If you want to be a BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER, take your lumps and lessons. You can't have it both ways. Good Night. Lg On 4/19/08 11:00 PM, in article 3sfl049g9sp20nipdfkntgjovcg2h4gmt7@4ax.com, >>>>>>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>>>>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Lg Gawd! You a really a piece of work. You say you are married? Poor woman! >On 4/19/08 11:00 PM, in article 3sfl049g9sp20nipdfkntgjovcg2h4gmt7@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> >Gawd! You a really a piece of work. You say you are married? Poor woman! I am a piece of work, because in my business, nothing but RESULTS count. All bullshit gets shoveled out the door, and take off your shoes before entering please. You have lived a Life of Luxury, taking all the time you want to piss around. I've worked under the gun all my life. Produce RESULTS or you are out the door. You'll never know, so just shut up and go back to the peanut gallery where you came from. RESULTS, get it? Here, now, and always. Or go home, get out of the way for someone who can get the job done, NOW. Lg On 4/20/08 10:15 AM, in article bbnm04d0h4vllai3k96kma30vh9t1eikc3@4ax.com, >> On 4/19/08 11:00 PM, in article 3sfl049g9sp20nipdfkntgjovcg2h4gmt7@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > You have lived a Life of Luxury, taking all the time you want to piss > around. Spoken like a true retard whom could not distinguish sh.t from Shinola. >>> Gawd! You a really a piece of work. You say you are married? Poor woman! >> I am a piece of work, because in my business, nothing but RESULTS [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Spoken like a true retard whom could not distinguish sh.t from Shinola. Geez, thanks for coming out of your gold-encrusted treasure room for a moment to speak to us, Mr. Life of Luxury. :D On 4/20/08 1:21 PM, in article geudnWiZp_M4FJbVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@speakeasy.net, "Cynicor" <j.t..ru.p.in@sp.eake.a.sy.net> wrote: >>>> Gawd! You a really a piece of work. You say you are married? Poor woman! >>> I am a piece of work, because in my business, nothing but RESULTS [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Geez, thanks for coming out of your gold-encrusted treasure room for a > moment to speak to us, Mr. Life of Luxury. :D Aw shucks, it's nothin' special. Between you, me and the lamppost, I 'borrowed' it from a Steve Martin movie. Shhhh! Don't tell. Now, I must return to my Enormous Enclave Compound. For you commoners, I can only leave you with this: Qu'ils mangent de la brioche. LOL! > On 4/19/08 11:00 PM, in article 3sfl049g9sp20nipdfkntgjovcg2h4g...@4ax.com, > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - i love flowers On 4/29/08 4:02 AM, in article 9089b63c-ee63-47b0-9a8b-8fc1dec39a7d@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com, >> On 4/19/08 11:00 PM, in article 3sfl049g9sp20nipdfkntgjovcg2h4g...@4ax.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > i love flowers Are you Lg's old lady? >Er...Lawrence will be by momentarily with a copy of his CV, and he'll >call you a name. Second prize is being called two names. Maybe I was taking photos like yours when I was 10 years old. It is time for you to advance your skills level. You'll know you've arrived when you get a general consensus of opinion that your work is up to snuff. If you want banal platitudes, stick with Piggins. If you want an honest opinion, I have a lot of those. Lg : >Er...Lawrence will be by momentarily with a copy of his CV, and he'll : >call you a name. Second prize is being called two names. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : If you want banal platitudes, stick with Piggins. If you want an : honest opinion, I have a lot of those. What you don't seem to have is actual examples of your work that would prove that you're anything but mouth. Bob >: >Er...Lawrence will be by momentarily with a copy of his CV, and he'll >: >call you a name. Second prize is being called two names. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Bob At this stage of my Life, I don't have to PROVE anything to anybody. Especially nobodys and never beens like you. Have you ever heard of Wal Mart? Do you know where they process their film? Do you know HOW they process their film? Do you know whose machines they use to process their film? Do you know who REPAIRS and ADJUSTS the machines that process their film? Do you know what part of the country their labs are located at? Have you ever BEEN in a volume processing lab? The answer to all of the above of course, is no. You are lost in Space. Another Space Case...one among billions of similar disinteresting nitwits. Are you one of the types that thinks THE FILM FAIRY does overnight processing for all the people out there with film cameras? OTOH, I have images I can upload, but they aren't watermarked, so I am letting anybody who wants to, STEAL them. I'm not about to do that, for you of all people. Now I could go into Photoshop and put a watermark on them. But for YOU? f.cking get serious. Lg : >What you don't seem to have is actual examples of your work that would prove : >that you're anything but mouth. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] : Now I could go into Photoshop and put a watermark on them. But for : YOU? f.cking get serious. Let me see if I've got this straight: You once worked as a lackey in Walmart's film processing plant; so now you don't dare show us any of your photographs, because we might steal them. Well, I guess that makes as much sense as the rest of the crap you've posted here. Have it your way, Ansel. But at least remember to let me know when the Museum of Fine Arts schedules a retrospective of your work. My wife and I are members, and we wouldn't miss it for the world. We'll even come to your opening night cocktail party and get your autograph. :^) Bob >: >What you don't seem to have is actual examples of your work that would prove >: >that you're anything but mouth. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >Bob It is my understanding that the word JERK was around _before_ you were born? Or is it something that came into usage WHEN you were born? You can kiss my White American Jewish a.s, nitwit. Before I even give YOU personally, the Time of Day. Lg <edited for brevity> > >Have it your way, Ansel. But at least remember to let me know when the Museum > >of Fine Arts schedules a retrospective of your work. My wife and I are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Lg Hello, Lawrence: Hmmm...so, you're a WAJA (instead of a WASP), then? :-) Cordially, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> > At this stage of my Life, I don't have to PROVE anything to anybody. > Especially nobodys and never beens like you. WOW! Tell us (tinu), do you get nosebleeds from those lofty heights you seem to think you are perched on!?! Actually sport... Mr. Coe I would wager is a tad better known thoughout greater Usenet than you are, but I digress. > Have you ever heard of Wal Mart? Do you know where they process their > film? Do you know HOW they process their film? Do you know whose > machines they use to process their film? Do you know who REPAIRS and > ADJUSTS the machines that process their film? Do you know what part > of the country their labs are located at? Have you ever BEEN in a > volume processing lab? Yer kidding right!?! Wal Mart... This *IS* your big claim to fame. LOL! > The answer to all of the above of course, is no. You are lost in > Space. Another Space Case...one among billions of similar > disinteresting nitwits. Are you one of the types that thinks THE FILM > FAIRY does overnight processing for all the people out there with film > cameras? Really, Wal Mart turn around on prints is overnight? Not at any I've ever had to use for inexpensive printing... The last time it took almost a week, and I had to go back twice to get everything. I'm also thinking that they process far more digital than film these days. > OTOH, I have images I can upload, but they aren't watermarked, so I am > letting anybody who wants to, STEAL them. I'm not about to do that, > for you of all people. Why do YOU seem to think anyone would want to steal your fictitious imagery? You did copyright these valuable images of yours didn't you? Maybe you've had some published!?! Come on Lawrence, work with us (tinu), you are the one claiming to be the REAL DEAL after-all. > Now I could go into Photoshop and put a watermark on them. But for > YOU? f.cking get serious. I've heard that profanity is exclamation for the uneducated... something one resorts to when having difficulty making valid points to back-up ones claims of being the REAL DEAL. Didn't YOU claim to be leaving this newsgroup? - JT thinking you're just a KOOK, and AUK has an award waiting with your name on it SignatureSee Header for Improving Usenet's Signal-To-Noise Ratio "The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung >> At this stage of my Life, I don't have to PROVE anything to anybody. >> Especially nobodys and never beens like you. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >thinking you're just a KOOK, and AUK has an award waiting with your name >on it Your sole aim, is to discredit me. You are an enemy, and are therefore terminated with extreme prejudice. You aren't interested in the Truth, because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. That you and your cohorts are putz's. Now f.ck off into my killfile with the other cockroaches and rodents. Jesus christ on a popsicle stick, vermin like you breed like...vermin. Lg Lawrence_Glickman in message <7poq049lh0kh010ncu3tk9vl32acg49729@4ax.com> (which means I get to type S-L-O-W-L-Y just for him) wrote: > >> At this stage of my Life, I don't have to PROVE anything to anybody. > >> Especially nobodys and never beens like you. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Your sole aim, is to discredit me. You are an enemy, and are > therefore terminated with extreme prejudice. Typical TROLL response, make a bunch of claims and then tuck tail and run when asked to substantiate said claims... Lack of debating skill duly noted. > You aren't interested in the Truth, because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE > TRUTH. Translates to: If I can't dazzle you with my brilliance, then I'll baffle you with more BS. > That you and your cohorts are putz's. Again with the "you and your cohorts" schtick... > Now f.ck off into my killfile with the other cockroaches and rodents. > Jesus christ on a popsicle stick, vermin like you breed like...vermin. And this as they say, is the MMA (mixed martial arts) equivalent of a tap-out. - JT Still hasn't seen any evidence to support your claim of being the REAL DEAL. SignatureSee Header for Improving Usenet's Signal-To-Noise Ratio "The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung |> At this stage of my Life, I don't have to PROVE anything to anybody. |> Especially nobodys and never beens like you. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] | thinking you're just a KOOK, and AUK has an award waiting with your name | on it Don't they call it the "busted urinal" award? I vaguely remember a few years back being nominated for it myself. Can't recall exactly why but I never got it! Shows how insignificant I am, I guess... As I wait patiently for the film fairy! - -- from Douglas, If my PGP key is missing, the post is a forgery. Ignore it. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > =ms4x > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Doug, you and I have had out stoushes on Usenet, we have called each other everything under the sun and then made a few up as well, but I do credit you this, at least your man enough to post a pic to prove a point, this Glickman wannabe hasn't even got the intestinal fortitude to point us to the location of a single shred of evidence, a photojournalist would have had to have had some work published somewhere and with everyone putting their archives on the net in one form or another you would think that an egotist of his calibre would know where every shot he ever had published would be displayed on the web. You probably wont see this as I am apparently in your kill file so for what its worth, you couldn't hold a candle to Mr Glickman when it comes to the braggart stakes :-) Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg > Doug, you and I have had out stoushes on Usenet, we have called each other > everything under the sun and then made a few up as well, but I do credit [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > what its worth, you couldn't hold a candle to Mr Glickman when it comes to > the braggart stakes :-) Of course he'll see it. |> Doug, you and I have had out stoushes on Usenet, we have called each |> other everything under the sun and then made a few up as well, but I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | | Of course he'll see it. Only because of you "N". Each of us has the same ability to choose with whom we communicate. It is as important in Usenet to avoid those seeking conflicts as it is in real life. I see neither the atheist's nor Glickman's posts now thanks to a very efficient (if a little complicated) self hosted news server. I don't see the Chinese rubbish either. Amazing what happens when you take control of your life. - -- from Douglas, If my PGP key is missing, the post is a forgery. Ignore it. > |> At this stage of my Life, I don't have to PROVE anything to anybody. > |> Especially nobodys and never beens like you. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Don't they call it the "busted urinal" award? That would be one of many... They also have a kOOk deck of cards as well. > I vaguely remember a few years back being nominated for it myself. Can't > recall exactly why but I never got it! Shows how insignificant I am, I > guess... As I wait patiently for the film fairy! It's going to be a long wait... - JT should just place Glickman in the Galactic kill-file SignatureSee Header for Improving Usenet's Signal-To-Noise Ratio "The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung On 4/21/08 10:04 PM, in article DAcPj.3562$XY1.1105@trndny03, "JT's Ghost" <justatroll@mad.scientist.com> wrote: >> At this stage of my Life, I don't have to PROVE anything to anybody. >> Especially nobodys and never beens like you. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Yer kidding right!?! Wal Mart... This *IS* your big claim to fame. LOL! Yep. The made a film about Lg. It was called "One Hour Photo" and Robin Williams played Lg. You just didn't know that it was a documentary... >> (Scribbling in notebook: +1 taste point for Troy.) > > :) What do I win? The taste point indicates that you already won. A loser's reply should arrive before too long. LG (not a winner, he) is quite predictable. :) >> Just a few shots of the local flora. >> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF > > Very nice. Never seen a daffodil those colours before. There are some incredible daffodils available. http://www.web-ster.com/havensr/mitsch/garden.html >>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are some incredible daffodils available. > http://www.web-ster.com/havensr/mitsch/garden.html Notice that all of those photos show the whole flower in focus? Take a browse through here: http://www.ronvandongen.com/index.php >>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Notice that all of those photos show the whole flower in focus? Yeah, and they're trying to sell the flowers. I'm just creating a bunch of crappy semi-abstracts. If I were shooting for a catalog I'd switch lenses and back up. > Take a browse through here: > http://www.ronvandongen.com/index.php You take these? >> Cynicor wrote >>>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of crappy semi-abstracts. If I were shooting for a catalog I'd switch > lenses and back up. I shoot flowers for an online catalog and I generally use as shallow of a DOF as I can get away with. It's more moody and softens the background, just like human portraiture. The Daffodil examples are shot against a solid background. >> Take a browse through here: >> http://www.ronvandongen.com/index.php Nice. Oh, those have solid backgrounds and shallow DOF! One thing is the shallow DOF shots have the sharp part in the foreground, which generally works better, like this one: http://www.ronvandongen.com/image_detail.php?id=10000770&cat_id=color_flora or Cynicor's Magnolia, which is my favorite: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF#281799712_XJWfk The second shot has too much DOF & a distracting background: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF#281740241_J9Hpm >>>>> Just a few shots of the local flora. >>>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4754018_NrFaF [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You take these? No, if I were that good, I wouldn't be here using a single letter as an identity. |
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
|
©2008 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.