Re: 20D with 24~70 f2.8 tells a story in a face

OT - move along, nothing to see here...

>The Ryadia Server is off-line and the local network is being
>dismantled. Probably will down be..

Doing Yoda impressions now? Is there no limit to your identities,
Doug, Ryadia, One Million Pics, Techno Aussie, Sebastian Po, Alvie, The
Yowie, Alien Jones..? (and a few others, I see - we'll bring those out
a little later.. you've left quite a trail, Douglas, especially for one
who decries those who 'hide behind aliases'). How do you reconcile
that?

>..for several days while the network is relocated to
>it's new premises. There is a response to Polson's stupid remark..

and misspelled, I note..

> and the masterbating (sic) clown's of the group who chimed in
>on queue without knowing why, with an enlargement of the image
>here: http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceoftime.htm
>The original photo is here now:
>http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceofpast.jpg
>How anyone can pass judgement on an image posted to the
>Internet without it's EXIF data is beyond my comprehension.

Yes, that *would* be beyond your comprehension. It's beyond mine too,
because EXIF data tells you zero about whether the image is correctly
focussed. Most sane folk would agree that you have to go by the image
as posted. YOUR image, exactly as posted, when blown up to the size
you supplied later ACTUALLY looked like this:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/262782767/400670436SsDEHl
(sorry about popups - webshots sucks nowadays)

Forgive my mirth again. But *you* posted it. *You* jpegged it. *You*
decided how much compression to apply. And *we* all saw what looked
like out-of-focus eyes. Gee, wonder how we were sooooo misled...?
Whose fault would that be exactly?

>The pundits who do this can't explain either how they derive
>their "Information" when the images don't contain any in the
> first place.

I just explained. *You* posted the image. Perhaps when you get the
hang of jpeg compression, and the other basic digital concepts in
Digital Photography 101, we might be better able to judge your images.
For now, you are posting bad images. It is little wonder that people
call them.. bad images.

>They must surely be the advance vanguard of a race of people
>from another planet who speak our language but don't say anything
>anyone can understand.

Well, we haven't yet got the ability to somehow see a good image, when
it is cleverly hidden by bad processing. And your record for providing
good images is a little slim.

>Ryadia's new premises is due to be open by 26th of the month.
>Probably it will be then before the server is back on-line...
>If I decide to bother with a web presence again.

There ain't much point if you keep pulling your images, and password
protecting your galleries!

>The absolute jerk offs...

It's good to see *you* don't deride people...

>... who get their rocks off by attacking anyone and everyone

Actually, most other posters seem to get a pretty fair hearing. Again,
I wonder why that is?

>..with anything to contribute about Photography

The problem is, your contributions are either flawed, of very poor
quality, or you simply tell lies, and then get caught. Just as ONE
example, remember that magical algorithm that you 'patented' (hahah)
for enlargements? Well, perhaps you should explain why you said this
in another thread:

>The software I use alters some parts of the image to vector
>and others it leaves as bitmap. It cost an arm and a leg but it
>gets the results!

Hang on, Douglas - you said *you* developed it and have it patented...
Yet there you said you had to buy it... Although we noticed you did
get VERY shy when asked to quote a patent number. That's because no
such patent exists. I checked. Do prove me wrong, and I'll profusely
apologise.

>I might have given them some consideration if they showed
>any real evidence any of them had a clue.

No, Doug, that's not how it works. *We* are all pointing to recognised
reviewers and sites that use at least some semblance of reasonable
methodology to prove their assertions. And we agree with them. You,
however, keep posting assertions like that your prosumer outperforms
your DSLR. You 'back it up' by examples that simply show you have a
lack of understanding of the basics, let alone any grasp of advanced
concepts, like actually *measuring* dynamic range.

> Sadly they all melt back into cyberspace when called on to do so
>or worse... Come up with some argument on a tangent.

I'm here. No melting. I have a life. This stuff is just idly
amusing, and I'm not going to run around according to your timetable.

The problem is, Douglas, *here* you have run into people who actually
know what they are talking about. I'm sure you impress folk at
*parties*..

>We're yet to see a photo posted by Polson - don't hold
>your breath now - and Nixon who argued so strongly....

The fact that anyone posts images or not is irrelevant when it is YOU
posting YOUR stuff to prove YOUR fallacies. If a person posts
*correct* information that refutes your fallacy, they win. It's pretty
simple.

>The ferrel (sic) wanker from South Australia's rural coast...

Does 'ferrel' mean 'iron-willed'? Yep, that's me. If not... it's good
to see *you* don't deride people...

>"Chrlz Stevens" who uses Australian Government computers to
>defame and deride people, mysteriously can't explain how he
>deciphers information either.

Yes, I can. I just have to look. And, given the example shown above -
your image looks out-of-focus. And that's all I said on this thread,
without a single insult - you brought up all this other stuff.

>He posts lies and innuendos based on his warped sense "a fair go"
>yet when called on to substantiate them disappears off the groups
>for a while

Was it a lie that 'Graham Hunt' posted from your computer, and tried to
boost the value of your business? Would you care to post *any* of my
lies? I think it is a little rich to just say that and not give a
single example. Are you afraid of me dragging up your background
again, for all to see?

>only to come back with more bull*** and defamation when
>he thinks no one remembers.

Oh, don't worry, *I'll* remember. Anyone else interested can just read
the record and judge for themselves. And I'm still here. Your bluff
doesn't seem to be working. And a lot more folk seem to be, well,
shall we say, not exactly supporting you.

>Nice line up of human trash in these three.

It's good to see *you* don't deride people... (sorry, I seem to be
repeating myself)

>You could be excused for racial prejudice if they all came
>from the same country but they don't.

It's good to see *you* don't deride people... (oh dear...)

>Sometimes I'm ashamed to say I'm Australian. Certainly my
>father who all those years ago risked so much and fought
>under such terrible conditions to defend the freedom of this
>country would turn in his grave..

Umm, which country would that be? According to 'Kiah', who claims to
be your daughter and posts from that same old computer:

>I doubt someone with your fixed attitude could comprehend
>that an impovished (sic) family of rejected Poms laughed
>out of Oxford for a radical concept and an independent voice
>could actually find creativity after migrating to the colonies
>and come up with anything mathematically correct, much
>less make it work and actually do something with the formula.

Hmm. Gee, doesn't she sound just like her dear old Dad. But according
to that, your father would very likely have been British, not
Australian.. Feel free to tell us the whole story though, it sounds
fascinating!!!

>Sub human behaviour from a total loser.

It's good to see *you* don't deride people... (Dang there I go again)

>I'm starting to think Alan Browne might not be so far off the mark
>when he branded Polson....

Why don't you just stick to the subject, and express *your* views
instead of clinging to Alan's shirt-tail..

>Anyone who could claim a 600 pixel high image has an area
>about 15% of it's total with part of it out of focus is clearly too
>good to be wasting their time on my images. Maybe the
>enlargement I provided might give him more to go on.

Or perhaps you could have posted a better original in the first
place... It's not that hard...


Over to you Douglas. I have refrained from any naughty words or
insults (go on, check!), now see if *you* can do it. Betcha can't.
(O:

.

Loading