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

"Foto Ryadia's Studio" wrote in message
...
Jeff R wrote:


Oh, pull your head in, Douglas.
If there was *ever* a case of fair dealing - justified use - not for
profit - (etc etc) this would have to be it.

Argue the logic instead - not the twisted legality.
You'd be on a winner with the logic.

--
Jeff R.
(shutting up and bowing out)


Happy to oblige Jeff...
Er, What is the logic, by the way?

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
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.


You're getting more bizarre by the day.

Greg

"G.T." wrote:


"Foto Ryadia's Studio" wrote in message
...
Jeff R wrote:


Oh, pull your head in, Douglas.
If there was *ever* a case of fair dealing - justified use - not for
profit - (etc etc) this would have to be it.

Argue the logic instead - not the twisted legality.
You'd be on a winner with the logic.

--
Jeff R.
(shutting up and bowing out)


Happy to oblige Jeff...
Er, What is the logic, by the way?

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
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.


You're getting more bizarre by the day.


Yep, madness is just a short step away for Ryadia.

The detail at full size doesn't prove anything; in fact it just
muddies the waters still further. A major problem with evaluating
digital shots is that you can never really know how much unsharp mask
has been applied, and where, unless you are told.

This was never a problem with 35mm/120 slides, a loupe and a lightbox.

;-)

Why is it "Tony Polson" that when you get caught out with a totally wrong
call - right along with the other masterbaters in this thread - who chimed
in on your queue - Just postulate and stamp around like a spoilt brat who
didn't get his way when it becomes obvious you are clueless? You though
you'd just join in with a bit the group sport of head kicking, didn't you?
What a total loser you are.

Instead of ask *IF* the picture is in focus, you make the outragious
statement that it is and when I don't reply with a "yes Mr Polson, sorry
sir" reply, you prod me like you and Chrlz are from the same school of
dorks. You're out of line and wrong. Don't try and make excuses for
yourself.
--
Douglas.
My name never changes...
Just the name of the computer the messages are sent from sometimes does.
As is my right to do as the owner of the computer. This one is called pixby.


"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"G.T." wrote:


"Foto Ryadia's Studio" wrote in message
...
Jeff R wrote:


Oh, pull your head in, Douglas.
If there was *ever* a case of fair dealing - justified use - not for
profit - (etc etc) this would have to be it.

Argue the logic instead - not the twisted legality.
You'd be on a winner with the logic.

--
Jeff R.
(shutting up and bowing out)


Happy to oblige Jeff...
Er, What is the logic, by the way?

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
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.


You're getting more bizarre by the day.


Yep, madness is just a short step away for Ryadia.

The detail at full size doesn't prove anything; in fact it just
muddies the waters still further. A major problem with evaluating
digital shots is that you can never really know how much unsharp mask
has been applied, and where, unless you are told.

This was never a problem with 35mm/120 slides, a loupe and a lightbox.

;-)

"pixby" wrote:
Why is it "Tony Polson" that when you get caught out with a totally wrong
call - right along with the other masterbaters in this thread - who chimed
in on your queue - Just postulate and stamp around like a spoilt brat who
didn't get his way when it becomes obvious you are clueless?


I stand by my comments on the original (small) shot you posted. The
eyes look out of focus, the ears look sharp.

Several people here agreed with me. Not surprising, because the
effect seems clear. I asked the opinion of several photographer
friends, including two with ARPS qualifications. They all agreed, and
we enjoyed a laugh at your expense.

Now you post an enlarged version which is inconclusive. You haven't
told us how much unsharp mask was applied, and to which areas of the
shot. It is impossible to draw any conclusion, one way or the other,
from this enlarged portion.

Typically, however, you feel that this enlarged portion entitles you
to rant and rave about ... well about nothing of any importance.

Well go ahead, and enjoy. g

Perhaps, when you have both hands on the camera, or the keyboard,
instead of one permanently working away inside your trousers, you
might take better photos *and* make more sense. Until then, please
feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself on here.

Some more comparisons of your point and shoot and DSLR would be nice.

;-)

"Foto Ryadia's Studio" wrote in message
...
Jeff R wrote:


Oh, pull your head in, Douglas.
If there was *ever* a case of fair dealing - justified use - not for
profit - (etc etc) this would have to be it.

Argue the logic instead - not the twisted legality.
You'd be on a winner with the logic.

--
Jeff R.
(shutting up and bowing out)


Happy to oblige Jeff...
Er, What is the logic, by the way?


The quality of the pic, not the "legality" or otherwise of someone else
posting a modified version of the pic.


--
Jeff R.
(*Trying" to bow out of this one - honest!)

"Chrlz" wrote in message
ups.com...

And just so i don't get accused of not 'walking the walk', if you want
an example of (IMO) good sharpening and appropriate compression levels,
here's an old one of mine that is by no means a perfect image, but
sharpness-wise it is pretty close to the optimum - compare her eyes to
Douglas' image...

http://community.webshots.com/photo/...62783799qiQirO

She has *eyes*?
Where?

...


... No hard feelings! And if you *like* feuds, and you have a
half hour to waste, check out some of the full story on Douglas over in
the 'Enlarging Digital Images' thread, at:

http://tinyurl.com/9wuwl

Uh huh.
Actually, I've been lurking long enough to catch at least the tail-end of
much of the stuff you quote.

Fun, actually.
Feuds are much more fun than completely rational discussions. Sometimes the
truth will out only when passions are inflamed.

The focal length vs perspective debate actually taught me (*me*! a cranky
old goat!) something.

I'm trying very hard not to come across as a cranky, supercilious,
know-it-all *******, as I usually do in other NGs. So far....

--
Jeff R.
(batting .500 ?)

l e o 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



the flip side is you haven't establish you're a pro but just a grumpy
old man.

Maybe the possibility I'm both has escaped you Leo?

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.

http://community.webshots.com/ photo/... (rest of link snipped)

(Before Douglas whinges, the image is posted for educational
purposes only, his copyright message remains, and it will be
removed after 2 days.

Sorry if anyone is now chasing my versions of Douglas' images - as I
promised I would, I have taken them down. It seems this thread has run
it's course.

I don't make a habit of pulling any of my *own* images down if they
ever get a bad review, and all of my stuff is still there.