Tech Support?

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 20:14:49 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-10-14 19:50:44 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:12:55 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 23:11:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that.

Here you are caught blatently lying in the true meaning of the word.

You have selectively deleted text from within the text you have been
quoting. Are really stupid enough to think that nobody would notice?

As you quoted above, I originally wrote:

"Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that."

Later, after inserting some text, you wrote:

"I'm not critiquing Peter here, rather Eric's hyperbole. Peter
himself quite clearly sees that he has lot to "improve" when it
comes to photography (as do we all, presumably), but Eric
described his photos as "OH MY GAWD" and how he wished he was able
to have shot a picture like that.

I don't think that Jonas picked up on the meaning of "OH MY GAWD" in
your post. After all, it could mean anything from "God Awful" to "I'm
truly impressed". The meaning intended is clear in context to me, but
Jonas evidently didn't understand the meaning. He will probably
weasel around and pretend he did.


That's when I wrote:

"Go back and read it again. You have quite messed up the meaning of
what I wrote."

My original expression described a range - from (A) to (B) - (A) and
(B) being limits. But as I have quoted (and you deleted) you changed
what I wrote from the description of a range to the joining of (A) and
(B).


Go back and read it again. You have quite messed up the meaning of
what I wrote.

It's still quoted above - I read it as it was written, how did I
supposedly "mess" it up?

But that's not the one you messed up, is it? Otherwise you would have
deleted it and acted as though it had never existed.


I know, I know - one should never take anything Eric says seriously, but
still..

Try this one.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/test2.tif

Uh... what about that one?

I would class that as an 'Oh My Gawd!'.

...or perhaps, "Holy Crap!!"

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Insults and personal attacks, that's all Peter is these days.

Not a single post about "improving his photography" which he claims is
the reason he posts here. Just trolling. Sad to see.

Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that.

Whatever that has to do with his trolling is anyone's guess.

It has a lot to do with improving his photography.

Wtf? What on *earth* does your opinion about his photography have to do
with him "improving his photography"? Are you saying that Peter only
improves by your opinion? You're making less sense than usual here.

It's not making sense to anyone for the simple reason that your
conclusions are twisted.

They're based on what you've written, and unless you provide a more
logical conclusion, this one stands.

Can't remember Peter posting any of his photos here, really...

You haven't been here very long though.

Yeah, 1996 was just about last week.

In this news group?

Among others

What was your alias?

Same as always.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Insults and personal attacks, that's all Peter is these days.

Not a single post about "improving his photography" which he claims is
the reason he posts here. Just trolling. Sad to see.

Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that.

Whatever that has to do with his trolling is anyone's guess.

Can't remember Peter posting any of his photos here, really...

In that case, you have a short enough memory

Or your photos are drowned out by all your posts that has nothing to do
with "improving your photography" and are all mere personal insults or
attacks.

that most of what you say will be ignored

Eh, you've always ignored most of my correction of your misinformation,
substantiation of your trolling and most other things that could have
helped you improve yourself. What's going to change?



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Straiforward question. What is the functional difference? I haven't seen
any. Perhaps someone here can answer this straight question. Or to
rephrase: What can you do with a tiff file that you cannot do with a
pdf. Both function as saved processed files. I am not playing word
games. I would like to be able to understand when to save in one format,
rather than the other.

Peter is actually seriously asking what the difference between TIFF and
PDF is... my god.


Stick you head back in your rectum, where it belongs, troll.

Insults and personal attacks, that's all Peter is these days.

Not a single post about "improving his photography" which he claims is
the reason he posts here. Just trolling. Sad to see.


Another answer your pathetic ego needs, but is only getting the one it
deserves.

I bet your photography got a lot improved by the above post.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that.

Here you are caught blatently lying in the true meaning of the word.

As opposed to you, I never lie.

You have selectively deleted text from within the text you have been
quoting. Are really stupid enough to think that nobody would notice?

This is another lie. I have not deleted text "from within" the text,
whatever that means.

As you quoted above, I originally wrote:

"Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that."

So I quoted you verbatim, not deleting text "within text".

Later, after inserting some text, you wrote:

"I'm not critiquing Peter here, rather Eric's hyperbole. Peter
himself quite clearly sees that he has lot to "improve" when it
comes to photography (as do we all, presumably), but Eric
described his photos as "OH MY GAWD" and how he wished he was able
to have shot a picture like that.

That's when I wrote:

"Go back and read it again. You have quite messed up the meaning of
what I wrote."

My original expression described a range - from (A) to (B) - (A) and
(B) being limits. But as I have quoted (and you deleted) you changed
what I wrote from the description of a range to the joining of (A) and
(B).

No I didn't. the teenager expression "OH MY GAWD" was in your quoted
text as a description of Peter's photography. I called that hyperbole
and when Tony stepped in to defend you (hehe) I asked which photos of
Peter that fits that moniker. You're confused as always.

Go back and read it again. You have quite messed up the meaning of
what I wrote.

It's still quoted above - I read it as it was written, how did I
supposedly "mess" it up?

But that's not the one you messed up, is it?

Which one is?

Otherwise you would have
deleted it and acted as though it had never existed.

That's what you do, not me.

I know, I know - one should never take anything Eric says seriously, but
still..

Try this one.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/test2.tif

Uh... what about that one?

I would class that as an 'Oh My Gawd!'.

Wtf? Are you serious? Or do you mean "Oh My Gawd! Why have you ruined a
perfectly good photo in post processing???"

I sort of took the juvenile teenager expression "Oh My Gawd!" to be
positive. Perhaps you meant it in the most negative way possible, given
the example you provided? But then again, this quote makes no sense:

Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that.

It's just not logical to interprete that as you talking about his
photographs as being "usually good" and range from "bleeding awful (oh
my gawd)" to "I wish I had done that"

I think "Oh My Gawd!!??" is a better use of the expression, if so.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

As you quoted above, I originally wrote:

"Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that."

Later, after inserting some text, you wrote:

"I'm not critiquing Peter here, rather Eric's hyperbole. Peter
himself quite clearly sees that he has lot to "improve" when it
comes to photography (as do we all, presumably), but Eric
described his photos as "OH MY GAWD" and how he wished he was able
to have shot a picture like that.

I don't think that Jonas picked up on the meaning of "OH MY GAWD" in
your post. After all, it could mean anything from "God Awful" to "I'm
truly impressed". The meaning intended is clear in context to me, but
Jonas evidently didn't understand the meaning. He will probably
weasel around and pretend he did.

Ok, so when Eric said this:

"which are *usually good to see* and range from 'Oh My Gawd'..."

You read that as:

"which are usually good to see and range from 'God awful' ..."

And think this meaning is "clear"? Seriously?




--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Just ignore the troll and just note his selective memory.

I think most people already ignore you...


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 10/14/2013 7:23 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

It has been said that anything you can do with a plugin, you can do
directly in PS.

who said that?

there are plugins that do stuff that *can't* be done in photoshop.


For example????

Talk about selective memory.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-10-14 22:24:09 -0700, Sandman said:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Insults and personal attacks, that's all Peter is these days.

Not a single post about "improving his photography" which he claims is
the reason he posts here. Just trolling. Sad to see.

Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that.

Whatever that has to do with his trolling is anyone's guess.

It has a lot to do with improving his photography.

Wtf? What on *earth* does your opinion about his photography have to do
with him "improving his photography"? Are you saying that Peter only
improves by your opinion? You're making less sense than usual here.

It's not making sense to anyone for the simple reason that your
conclusions are twisted.

They're based on what you've written, and unless you provide a more
logical conclusion, this one stands.

Can't remember Peter posting any of his photos here, really...

You haven't been here very long though.

Yeah, 1996 was just about last week.

In this news group?

Among others

What was your alias?

Same as always.

Strange, the first post I find where you used "Sandman" was back in
September 2010.
That was when you asked the usual suspects here for advise on shooting
a wedding in poor light with your D3S and D80.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-10-14 23:11:48 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 22:55:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-10-14 22:24:09 -0700, Sandman said:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Insults and personal attacks, that's all Peter is these days.

Not a single post about "improving his photography" which he claims is
the reason he posts here. Just trolling. Sad to see.

Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that.

Whatever that has to do with his trolling is anyone's guess.

It has a lot to do with improving his photography.

Wtf? What on *earth* does your opinion about his photography have to do
with him "improving his photography"? Are you saying that Peter only
improves by your opinion? You're making less sense than usual here.

It's not making sense to anyone for the simple reason that your
conclusions are twisted.

They're based on what you've written, and unless you provide a more
logical conclusion, this one stands.

Can't remember Peter posting any of his photos here, really...

You haven't been here very long though.

Yeah, 1996 was just about last week.

In this news group?

Among others

What was your alias?

Same as always.

Strange, the first post I find where you used "Sandman" was back in
September 2010.
That was when you asked the usual suspects here for advise on shooting
a wedding in poor light with your D3S and D80.

Jonas asking for advice? It really happened?

Yup! You better believe it. Here is a little re-post.


"From: Sandman
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Some recommendations about church/wedding pictures
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:57:49 +0200


So, I'm going to shoot a wedding later in october and I've never
actually shot people inside a dimly lit church before. The ceremony
will be at 2 pm so the large mosaic windows will surely let some light
in, but the church is usually pretty dark either way.

So, with that in mind, I'd like some easy pointers about how to shoot
the ceremony. Both for when they walk in and out of the church (i.e.
motion, albeit slow) and shots when they're up on the altar. My
equipment is this:

Nikon D3S
|- Sigma 28mm/1.8
|- Nikkor 50mm/1.4
`- Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3

Nikon D80
`- Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3 (same as above, but DX)

I will be going to the church prior to the shoot to do some test
shoots, but I was hoping to get some nudges in the right direction.
The D3S has awesome ISO so I was hoping that I wouldn't have to crank
down the aperture and thus get a deeper focus plane. I was also hoping
to get by without using a tripod.

Plus, I was kind of hoping to use the zoom lens when they walk into
the church, and since it has such high aperture, I am concerned about
the shutter speeds needed.

Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones "

--
Regards,

Savageduck