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

Err - "thanks" for "all that" - although really, a simple "no" would have
sufficed!


"pixby" wrote in message
...

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
I keep getting a "404 - Page not found error". Is the photo still up?


The Ryadia Server is off-line and the local network is being dismantled.
Probably will down be for several days while the network is relocated to
it's new premises. There is a response to Polson's stupid remark and the
masterbating clown's of the group who chimed in on queue without knowing
why, with an enlargement of the image he
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. 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.
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.

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.

The absolute jerk offs who get their rocks off by attacking anyone and
everyone with anything to contribute about Photography when they haven't
got
a clue themselves is likely the best reason to abandon the site
altogether.
I might have given them some consideration if they showed any real
evidence
any of them had a clue. Sadly they all melt back into cyberspace when
called
on to do so or worse... Come up with some argument on a tangent.

We're yet to see a photo posted by Polson - don't hold your breath now -
and Nixon who argued so strongly about the perspective of a photograph not
being related to focal length a few month's ago, now can't recall his own
posts. Lets hope he still strives to take a traditional portrait with his
fisheye lens and one day posts the results. Don't hold your breath for
this
one either.

The ferrel ****** from South Australia's rural coast "Chrlz Stevens" who
uses Australian Government computers to defame and deride people,
mysteriously can't explain how he deciphers information either. 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 only to come
back
with more bull**** and defamation when he thinks no one remembers. Nice
line
up of human trash in these three.

You could be excused for racial prejudice if they all came from the same
country but they don't. 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 if he though the behaviour of Chrlz and his ilk was what so many
of his fellow countrymen died to protect. Sub human behaviour from a total
loser.

I'm starting to think Alan Browne might not be so far off the mark when he
branded Polson as someone unable to provide any evidence he even owns a
camera, much less has ever taken a photograph. Where I sit I'd say he
needs
to see an eye specialist or get decent monitor. 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.

Douglas

I've just joined fototime.com - how do you generate the URLs in the format
that you posted - I end up with a much longer URL that also includes user
info etc.

Thanks in advance,

CC

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
he 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/...00670436SsDEHl
(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) ****** 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:

Cockpit Colin wrote:
I've just joined fototime.com - how do you generate the URLs in the
format that you posted - I end up with a much longer URL that also
includes user info etc.

Thanks in advance,

CC

Are you talking to me? You must be talking to me. Although I'm not the
only one here.

When you are looking at a picture, check the left column. There is a
choice "Create Link". Click it, choose the size you want your viewer
to see, copy the link and paste it.
http://www.fototime.com/24E192519588076/standard.jpg

--
Frank ess

pixby wrote:

The absolute jerk offs who get their rocks off by attacking anyone and
everyone with anything to contribute about Photography when they haven't got
a clue themselves is likely the best reason to abandon the site altogether.

Oh, please, abandon it! It's not like you have every contributed anything
about photography here.

and Nixon who argued so strongly about the perspective of a photograph not
being related to focal length a few month's ago,

Oh yeah, that *was* you, who insisted so incorrectly that perspective has
something to do with focal length. It's hard to keep track, with all the
different names you use. Funny how you would bring this up, since it's
just another example of how woefully little you know about photography.

--
Jeremy |

"Chrlz" wrote in message
oups.com...
...
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/...00670436SsDEHl
(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?

No, "*we*" saw nothing like that.

It was a small image - a couple of hundred pix wide. The "ears and eyes"
section was tiny.
On my monitor - a humble Samsung 17" - the portrait looked perfectly clear
and sharp, within the confines of its size. Of course it wouldn't stand
enlargement as posted - who would reasonably suggest it could? Who would be
silly enough to attempt to enlarge such a web-compressed image (?)

Anyone who claimed the "out-of-focus" criticism of that shot - as originally
posted - was clutching at straws and seeking to find a lame excuse to bag
out Douglas.

Uninteresting - arguably.
Composition - dull.
Poor background - maybe.
Compressed for the web - certainly!
Out of focus? Specious argument.

By all means, go ahead and taunt my northern countryman for his spelling and
grammar and somewhat silly views of life - he asks for that - but if you
want to cling onto some measure of credibility then at least get your
criticisms *right*.

--
Jeff R.
(who *can* tell the difference between jpg dithering and focus problems)

Many thanks.

Yes, I was talking to you - that's why I replied to your post, and not to
someone elses.

Thanks again.


"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Cockpit Colin wrote:
I've just joined fototime.com - how do you generate the URLs in the
format that you posted - I end up with a much longer URL that also
includes user info etc.

Thanks in advance,

CC

Are you talking to me? You must be talking to me. Although I'm not the
only one here.

When you are looking at a picture, check the left column. There is a
choice "Create Link". Click it, choose the size you want your viewer
to see, copy the link and paste it.
http://www.fototime.com/24E192519588076/standard.jpg

--
Frank ess

It's good to see Douglas has at least some support..

Jeff R. said:
And *we* all saw what looked
like out-of-focus eyes. Gee, wonder how we were sooooo misled...?
Whose fault would that be exactly?

No, "*we*" saw nothing like that.

Douglas made specific reference to Tony Polson, Jeremy Nixon and me.
That's 3 people - hence my reference to 'we'. Did I say 'everyone
here'? Did I name you? So, shouldn't your correct response be '*I*
saw nothing like that'? Otherwise you are doing exactly what you seem
to be criticising me for.

It was a small image - a couple of hundred pix wide. The "ears
and eyes" section was tiny.

Yes, indeed it was. And as shown by my enlargement, it was
ridiculously OVER-compressed, and there is significant
blurring/artefacting *everywhere*. because the ears are against an
almost black background, they appear relatively sharp compared to the
mess around the eyes - that was what my enlargement was meant to show.
If you look at it again, you will note that there is only one 8x8 jpeg
block in the eye area that looks vaguely sharp. So my point was, it
was OVER-compressed.

On my monitor - a humble Samsung 17" - the portrait looked perfectly
clear and sharp, within the confines of its size.

OK, how about you take a look at THIS version, and look carefully at
the left eye versus the right. *You* do the magnification if you
want..

http://community.webshots.com/photo/...01064104qzJZKF

(Before Douglas whinges, the image is posted for educational purposes
only, his copyright message remains, and it will be removed after 2
days. I think the financial losses he will sustain will be minimal.)

Do you notice *anything*? Is the right eye sharp? The left? All I
did was use Douglas' own large version of the area around his right
eye, roughly resize it and *properly* sharpen that small area before
pasting it back roughly in position. I then resaved the jpeg at a low
compression level to try to keep the original quality as close as
possible (but it is still only about 60Kb). Feel free to compare it
with Douglas' original image to ensure I haven't fudged it too much.
Now, if you can't see the difference around the right eye, well....
what can I say?

Of course it wouldn't stand enlargement as posted - who would
reasonably suggest it could?

Nobody did. I posted that first enlargement to show why 'we' (that's
Tony, Jeremy, me, ok?) thought the eyes looked unsharp - they *are*
unsharp, compared to a *properly* resized, sharpened and compressed
image..

Who would be silly enough to attempt to enlarge such a
web-compressed image (?)

Me. *Where it serves a purpose*... If you still can't tell the
difference, if you still think Douglas' image was appropriately
compressed, and if you still can't follow this line of logic, I simply
can't help you further.

If there is still some problem with my methodology, please state it. I
realise that the double compression has slightly lessened the quality
of the original, but as I stated, you are welcome to check the original
to determine for yourself if that is in any way significant. I can't
be much fairer than that, but if you have further requests for proof,
fire away...

l e o wrote:
Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:


I am sorry to disappoint you doug, I have not yet seen any single
picture from you that is worth the trouble to "steal." Not impressed!

Well of course, Leo. That's the whole idea.
Thanks for your contribution
--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.

Chrlz wrote:

Nobody did. I posted that first enlargement to show why 'we' (that's
Tony, Jeremy, me, ok?) thought the eyes looked unsharp - they *are*
unsharp, compared to a *properly* resized, sharpened and compressed
image..

*shrug* Doesn't really matter anyway. Maybe the shot was properly focused.
If so, oh well, it didn't look that way as it was posted, so, whatever, my
bad.

Douglas is a bit of a kook, anyway. I hadn't even remembered he was
involved in the whole "perspective is a product of focal length" discussion
a while back until he mentioned it. But he's someone who thinks he knows
all about photography, probably largely because he Gets Paid For It, as if
that matters; goes around posting his arrogant nonsense as if he's above
everyone else; and then refuses to accept that someone else might know
something he doesn't.

Indeed, he just sent a somewhat-insulting reply from this thread directly
to my email. When I replied asking why he had emailed me directly, he said:
"To discover who you are, who your ISP is and where you are. Thank you."
So, what, I'm supposed to think he's coming after me now?

Anyone here who happens to actually know who I am will of course know that
30 seconds at Google could have told him that and a whole lot more. It's
not like I've been exactly low-profile. It's no secret who I am, where I
am, whom I work for, or whatever else might happen to be out there.

But still, one has to wonder about someone who feels the need to "discover
who you are, who your ISP is and where you are", just because you happen
to know more about photography than he does.

--
Jeremy |