 |
 | 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 / May 2008BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576825 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576826 http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576827 > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576825 > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576826 > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576827 Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and plasticizing? And what the f.ck is all that photoshopped sh.t in the background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy with your composites. Rita  SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com > Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and > plasticizing? And what the f.ck is all that photoshopped sh.t in the > background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy > with your composites. The weight of being a thief weighs heavily on 'his' shoulders. mike >> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and >> plasticizing? And what the f.ck is all that photoshopped sh.t in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >mike I've looked at Annika's work on pbase, and I think he is an incredibly TALENTED artist and photographer. He has earned his bragging rights. The proof is there for all to see. He has an impressive amount of portfolios, and his work has been viewed by one million, 8 hundred thousand viewers, unless, he ran those numbers up himself ( I doubt it ). Nick >>> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and >>> plasticizing? And what the f.ck is all that photoshopped sh.t in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > viewed by one million, 8 hundred thousand viewers, unless, he ran > those numbers up himself ( I doubt it ). The point is somewhat moot. If Mother Theresa were a plagiarist would we think differently about her work with the poor? Then again, would that work make her any less of a plagiarist? Apples and oranges or, in this case, photographer and thief. mike >>>> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping >>>> and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > mike so please point out the stolen pictures. and Mother Teresa was nothing more than a whore for the Catholic church, and is quoted as saying that living in poverty was a blessing from God, guess where the tens of millions of dollars she raised went, yes that's right, the money was all sent back to the Catholic Church coffers in Rome, after all you cannot expect the Pope to travel "Business" Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg > so please point out the stolen pictures. http://www.dropshots.com/echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28 This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work. When I called him on it, he got abusive. A few days later he must have gotten sick of the bad publicity and he took it down. If I hadn't said anything in these groups, he'd still be claiming it as his own. I hate thieves. mike > > so please point out the stolen pictures. > > http://www.dropshots.com/echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28 > > This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger > scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work. Bullshit. I posted it in my "Testing" gallery and posted a link to it here. I even offered to fix your original for you. f.ck me for being so nice. Here is the entire thread. http://tinyurl.com/5mjc7f Note your original post attacking me. "Don't start none, won't be none." It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no desciption or attribution. I thought none was needed since the only people seeing the pic would have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it. > > > so please point out the stolen pictures. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and > you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it. When I first saw that image I thought, what a nice sunset. Then Bret cleaned it up a bit and showed the manger scene in the lower left hand side. Made a big difference in the feel of the image. Then he even offered to do the same on the original image for the original photographer and return the new image along with the original. As far as I can see, Bret offered help to another photographer to improve the image and got his head handed to him. The attacks on Bret seemed to me a bit over the top and with just to much whining. The image had been removed from the listing that Bret had done and that should have been the end of it. Maybe Bret did step over bounds a bit. But this continuing attacks on him and his personal images seems to be just freaking juvenile. Draco >>> so please point out the stolen pictures. >> http://www.dropshots.com/echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Note your original post attacking me. "Don't start none, won't be > none." Look dimwit, the following is NOT an attack. I was being civilized. I said: "As an aside, wouldn't some sort of attribution be in order?" > It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no > desciption or attribution. > I thought none was needed since the only people seeing the pic would > have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and > you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it. You obviously missed the part where I asked why my name wasn't on it. AND the following emails where you started swearing at me. Not only are you a thief, but apparently also a liar. My first mention of your posting: =================================================== As an aside, wouldn't some sort of attribution be in order? http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/72067191 May lead people to believe the photographer isn't who it actually is. mike II ==================================================== This thing can end in a number of ways. 1) You sincerely apologize publicly for your screw up and not do it again and I shut up about it from now on, or 2) I follow you around for the rest of your days, reminding people what a thief and liar you are. Your call. Think about it carefully before beaking off, Foghorn. mike > Look dimwit, the following is NOT an attack. I was being civilized. > > I said: > "As an aside, wouldn't some sort of attribution be in order?" You said this in your orignal post when you posted the pic: "As will be quickly noticed, much like Annika's shots, no attempt at composition or artistic merit was attempted." I consider that an attack. Once you lob the first volley, it's on. So you shouldn't be bitching about whatever happens next. As for me apologizing ..... yeah, hold your breath. So I guess you'll have to stalk me from now on. You can get in line behind the others. > As for me apologizing ..... yeah, hold your breath. > So I guess you'll have to stalk me from now on. You can get in line > behind the others. Quite condescending for a lying thief. mike On May 5, 10:33 am, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote: > Atheist Chaplain wrote: > > so please point out the stolen pictures. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger > scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work. Bullshit. I posted it in my "Testing" gallery and posted a link to it here. I even offered to fix your original for you. f.ck me for being so nice. Here is the entire thread. http://tinyurl.com/5mjc7f Note your original post attacking me. "Don't start none, won't be none." It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no desciption or attribution. I thought none was needed since the only people seeing the pic would have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it. and then your jibe back with this little gem "If I posted crap like that I wouldn't want anyone to see it either. However, even your weak effort can be rescued with a bit of Photoshop magic:" I too would be pissed with you Brett, you may be a good photographer but your certainly no angel. Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg > I too would be pissed with you Brett, you may be a good photographer but > your certainly no angel. Never claimed to be. I do have one, however. On May 5, 8:55 pm, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote: > I too would be pissed with you Brett, you may be a good photographer but > your certainly no angel. >Never claimed to be. I do have one, however. :-) Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg > It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no > desciption or attribution. A lying thief with a conscience? Hard to believe. mike >> so please point out the stolen pictures. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > mike OK then :-) from reading the links provided by Brett I can see why your pissed at Brett, maybe its time to get over it though, I expect getting an apology out of Brett is probably as hard as getting Douggie to admit he was wrong. Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg > OK then :-) > from reading the links provided by Brett I can see why your pissed at Brett, > maybe its time to get over it though, I expect getting an apology out of > Brett is probably as hard as getting Douggie to admit he was wrong. You should have seen how he attributed the shot. He named it "Some a.shole". it was so inappropriate for a festive Manger scene that it prompted Greg Campbell to comment on Anuska's class. mike >> OK then :-) >> from reading the links provided by Brett I can see why your pissed at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > mike ouch! Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg > You should have seen how he attributed the shot. He named it "Some > a.shole". it was so inappropriate for a festive Manger scene that it > prompted Greg Campbell to comment on Anuska's class. > > mike WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!! Who the f.ck is Greg Campbell? And why would you expect me to be civil when you go around calling me names? Like I said, "Don't start none, won't be none." But if you start with me, you get what you get. > But if you start with me, you get what you get. Coming from a lying thief, that's quite a threat. mike Mike, enough already, you have made your point now you are as bad as noons. Sent Bret emails take him to court pull the discussion off line. w.. . > > But if you start with me, you get what you get. > > Coming from a lying thief, that's quite a threat. > > mike > Mike, enough already, you have made your point now you are as bad as noons. > Sent Bret emails take him to court pull the discussion off line. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > mike I think there is more to it than Mike would even admit to himself. The fact is that Bret cleaned up a pic to help the guy out. It was suppose to be a nativity/manger scene. Nothing remotely resembling that could be seen in the original pic because it suffered with technical errors. When Bret pointed this out by improving and fixing the pic up, Mike couldn't accept the fact that he took an awful pic. Mike's ego/pride was hurt, and it's because of this he uses "he stole my image" theory to justify his attacks on Bret. It was only after Mike's attacks that Bret retaliated. Until Mike accepts this fact and moves on, it will continue to eat away at him. Mike, everyone takes a bad pic now and then. Get over it and move on. Sadly, I don't think he will and as a result I'll be on his hit list as well. Helen > Mike, enough already, you have made your point now you are as bad as noons. > Sent Bret emails take him to court pull the discussion off line. The problem isn't mine alone. How many others have had the same thing happen to them? If everyone forgets about it, the practice continues. When considering the culprit's portfolio, this must be kept in mind. How many of those pictures are actually his? Once you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar, it's hard to plead innocence the following times. Let's not even mention the time Anuska made pornography out of someone else's work in a failed attempt to discredit the artist. mike On 5/6/08 7:17 PM, in article cy6Uj.908$Yp.459@edtnps92, "m II" <c@in.the.hat> wrote: >> Mike, enough already, you have made your point now you are as bad as noons. >> Sent Bret emails take him to court pull the discussion off line. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > mike Stop being such an a.shole. >> Mike, enough already, you have made your point now you are as bad as noons. >> Sent Bret emails take him to court pull the discussion off line. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > When considering the culprit's portfolio, this must be kept in mind. How > many of those pictures are actually his? The good ones are his, the shitty ones are stolen.; ) Bret is a far better photographer than those who accuse him of stealing their photos. He has no need to steal photos from anyone. Once you're caught with your > hand in the cookie jar, it's hard to plead innocence the following times. > > Let's not even mention the time Anuska made pornography out of someone > else's work in a failed attempt to discredit the artist. > > mike >> How many of those pictures are actually his? > > The good ones are his, the shitty ones are stolen.; ) Bret is a far better > photographer than those who accuse him of stealing their photos. He has no > need to steal photos from anyone. ROFL! m II, you just got punked! > ROFL! > > m II, you just got punked! If you say so. In the mean time, you are still a thief and liar. mike > > ROFL! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > mike And you are a semi-anonymous D-Mac clone. Perhaps you should create a website detailing the whole incident and how you were abused? Then sit back, relax, and pop open a 6-pack of GETTHEFUCKOVERIT. BTW, what have I stolen from you or lied about? I never claimed your pic as mine as you claimed. I would never claim ownership of such a poor shot. > > The proof is there for all to see. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > mike People give Helen lotsa grief for the endless praise she heaps on my photos. So if we take Helen's comments out of it and take away my four pet stalkers with grudges (m2, Rita, Noons, D-Mac), we are left with a pretty good sampling of mostly unbiased comments. Most of my photos have been commented on favorably by the masses. I'm happy with that. But regardless of the comments I'll keep posting photos for as long as I feel like sharing them. <snip> > People give Helen lotsa grief for the endless praise she heaps on my > photos. So if we take Helen's comments out of it and take away my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm happy with that. But regardless of the comments I'll keep posting > photos for as long as I feel like sharing them. Bret, they say that imitation is the highest form of flattery. But if some people are not competent to imitate, then jealousy moves to the top of their list. As far as plagiarism goes, if any Australian posts a picture of an Eastern Bluebird, I'll know it's an outright theft. Keep up the good work. Allen > > > The proof is there for all to see. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I'm happy with that. But regardless of the comments I'll keep posting > photos for as long as I feel like sharing them. While I agree that I am given lotsa grief over my endless praise of your work, I feel I have to say that my comments are always unbiased and honest. Helen > While I agree that I am given lotsa grief over my endless praise of > your work, I feel I have to say that my comments are always unbiased > and honest. > Helen Balls. Utter balls > >> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and > >> plasticizing? And what the f.ck is all that photoshopped sh.t in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > viewed by one million, 8 hundred thousand viewers, unless, he ran > those numbers up himself ( I doubt it ). To be fair, mamy of those hits were by my best fans, D-Mac, Noons, and Rita. That number also doesn't include the over half a million hits I got on my previous pbase gallery at: http://www.pbase.com/annika1980 -Annika1980 -----> over 2 million served > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576825 > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy with > your composites. It's called a bush, dumbass! No Photoshop required. > >>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576825 >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >No Photoshop required. what do you expect from Rita, after all we have all seen the crap produced by that cheap arsed Nikon P&S (has to be a P&S because even a 4 year old could produce better photographs with a D3 than that over sharpened rubbish Rita says comes from a one) Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576825 > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576826 > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576827 All very nice. Could you e-mail me the raw for the first one? I want to play with it in PS. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. On May 5, 8:21 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/96576825 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cheers, > Alan IMAGE THIEF! IMAGE THIEF! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!! > On May 5, 8:21 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@freelunchvideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!! Image borrower ... seriously I'd like to compare the raw with some Sony raw files that I have. e-meil follows. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
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.