Commenting On Unused Equipment

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:19:18 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:


Probably just a humanitarian
gesture on their part because they don't want to blow us away.

You aren't far from wrong. The other larger reason being, I would never
post my photographs amongst a collection of beginner's snapshots. Pretty
demeaning doing that. I have no need to try to get attention for my
photography, as all of you must do try to encourage yourselves to do
better. (How can anyone not do better? It's all "up" when you're that low.)
I removed all my sites online years ago just because of how many people
were stealing them for screen-savers and other unauthorized uses. Even
though they were only 640 x 480 images they still found them worthy for
their own gains. Resolution means nothing when the images are worth seeing.
But if you were any kind of photographer, you'd know that.

Want to play the "slam cameras that you know nothing about" game, again?
You just outted yourself as nothing more than another useless, pathetic,
and insecure DSLR-Troll.

I wonder how many more of them that this thread can trap and cause them to
out themselves. Should be mildly interesting.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell
wrote:

something resembling a discussion

Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike
Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related
equipment.

I gotta laugh at this. Here's Mike - the Curvemeister - who could
write a book on digital photography and post-processing (or maybe he
has) being belittled by someone who has never taken a photograph good
enough to show us.

Mike's got cattle. You just have a hat.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:44:38 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell
wrote:

something resembling a discussion

Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike
Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related
equipment.

I gotta laugh at this. Here's Mike - the Spam-meister - who could
write a book on digital photography and post-processing (or maybe he
has) being belittled by someone who has never taken a photograph good
enough to show us.

Mike's got cattle. You just have a hat.

Mike is here to spam his software. Probably lost sales due to the economy
so he's not even caring that he's violating Usenet policies. An act of
desperation on his part. Nothing more. I've tested his software. It's not
that great. I no longer recommend it to anyone else. Did at one time, years
ago, but other programs have become far better.

You might want to look into the curve-generator for CHDK capable cameras,
for custom curves done in-camera. Where you tweak all 4 RGGB channels. Can
you count higher than 3?

Are you going to hijack yet another thread as a desperate act of
attention-getting behavior for yourself instead of staying on topic? No, of
course not, you're just proving yourself to be nothing but a low-life
troll, AGAIN. You can do no differently, and that is what is now expected
of you. 2 or 3 hijacks in one day is way below average for normal trolls.
Hijack a few more threads, you have a ways to go yet to reach troll's-par.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:51:54 +1100, Bob Larter
wrote:

Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
I sometimes wonder why people feel the ne[*Yawn!*]



see: alt.kooks.lionel-lauer

A valid group in the known net-trolls groups.

On 2009-10-26 23:19:18 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:17:51 -0400, "BobS" wrote:


But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have
with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how
up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with
various makes.

I could, but that wouldn't matter. The problem is in their design. All of
them. Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras.

I didn't check the exif date on the entries, but were any of the
photos in the Shoot-In done with a P&S camera? Most of the people who
have the balls to put their stuff up for open review probably own both
a dslr and a P&S. I know I do.

My digital armory includes CP775 (permanently out to the step-daughter
from Hell), CP5700 (gathering dust), Fujifilm E-900, D70, D300 & my
latest purchase, my first Canon, a G11.


It seems our P&S (excuse me, John, "compact zuperzooms") adherents are
shy about displaying their creations. Probably just a humanitarian
gesture on their part because they don't want to blow us away.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:23:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-10-26 23:19:18 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:17:51 -0400, "BobS" wrote:


But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have
with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how
up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with
various makes.

I could, but that wouldn't matter. The problem is in their design. All of
them. Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras.

I didn't check the exif date on the entries, but were any of the
photos in the Shoot-In done with a P&S camera? Most of the people who
have the balls to put their stuff up for open review probably own both
a dslr and a P&S. I know I do.

My digital armory includes CP775 (permanently out to the step-daughter
from Hell), CP5700 (gathering dust), Fujifilm E-900, D70, D300 & my
latest purchase, my first Canon, a G11.



Be sure to leave that G11 on full auto mode. It might teach you how to take
pictures some day. Well, at least poorly composed snapshots that don't have
pink granite mountains and pink clouds during noon daylight. You know, the
kind you take with a DSLR that you don't even know how to use. The rest
about cameras and photography you'll have to learn on your own, a camera
won't help you there. (Learning is not likely, we've see it. What a
mountain to climb that'll be.)

Going to troll off-topic again? Of course. The hallmark of a troll. You can
be no less no more than that.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:12:41 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:44:38 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell
wrote:

something resembling a discussion

Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike
Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related
equipment.

I gotta laugh at this. Here's Mike - the Spam-meister - who could
write a book on digital photography and post-processing (or maybe he
has) being belittled by someone who has never taken a photograph good
enough to show us.

Mike's got cattle. You just have a hat.

Mike is here to spam his software. Probably lost sales due to the economy
so he's not even caring that he's violating Usenet policies. An act of
desperation on his part. Nothing more. I've tested his software. It's not
that great. I no longer recommend it to anyone else.

Mike is probably grateful for this.

Did at one time, years
ago, but other programs have become far better.

You might want to look into the curve-generator for CHDK capable cameras,
for custom curves done in-camera. Where you tweak all 4 RGGB channels. Can
you count higher than 3?

What are the four "RGGB" channels? Here's me thinking that there is
only one RGB channel and three other channels: red, green, and blue.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 10/26/09 10:27 PM, in article ,
"Curiouser and Curiouser" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:02:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-10-26 19:52:48 -0700, Michael said:

On 2009-10-26 22:33:32 -0400, John A. said:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:26:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
wrote:

I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments
on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered
as part of their camera gear.

You tell us. Why do you praise P&S cameras to high heaven while
denigrating DSLRs you've never used, touched, nor even considered?

We know why, of course: you're the infamous P&S Troll. We simply don't
know specifically why you are a troll, or why you chose to target this
group in particular. Nor do we care, actually.

I was wondering how many responses I'd read before someone recognized
our infamous friend.

It's all in the words.

I'd wonder how many of those DSLR psychotics would reply, never realizing
that I HAVE used DSLRs, sold them all when I found out P&S cameras were
better. So I *DO* have first-hand knowledge of what I speak about. How do
you think I know of so many of the glaring faults wrapped in the DSLR
design concept? Found the faults by using the cameras.

You will also note, that I *NEVER* go out of my way to slam any camera
unless some psychotic troll is inventing stories about P&S cameras they've
never used. I don't slam DSLRs, I only defend P&S cameras against the wild
imaginings of insecure and psychotic DSLR-Trolls. It's that simple.

I'm so far ahead of you psychotic, useless, ignorant, and inexperienced
trolls in experience and knowledge about photography and the required
equipment that you don't even have a clue.

I've concluded that you are suffering from a severe case of
Anatidaephobia...

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:12:41 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:44:38 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell
wrote:

something resembling a discussion
Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike
Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related
equipment.
I gotta laugh at this. Here's Mike - the Spam-meister - who could
write a book on digital photography and post-processing (or maybe he
has) being belittled by someone who has never taken a photograph good
enough to show us.

Mike's got cattle. You just have a hat.
Mike is here to spam his software. Probably lost sales due to the economy
so he's not even caring that he's violating Usenet policies. An act of
desperation on his part. Nothing more. I've tested his software. It's not
that great. I no longer recommend it to anyone else.

Mike is probably grateful for this.

Did at one time, years
ago, but other programs have become far better.

You might want to look into the curve-generator for CHDK capable cameras,
for custom curves done in-camera. Where you tweak all 4 RGGB channels. Can
you count higher than 3?

What are the four "RGGB" channels? Here's me thinking that there is
only one RGB channel and three other channels: red, green, and blue.

On the usual Bayer matrix there are two sensors for green for one blue
and one red. So the sensor output is four channels with two green ones.


--
Bertrand

"Curiouser and Curiouser" wrote in message
...




So what causes this need for people to pretend to be authorities on things
that they have no real knowledge about?

Are they just psychotic trolls?

Well, P&S trolls probably are. Better check in to a mental health clinic,
Dingleberry.