rich is not only dumb, he has no eye

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:46:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Aug 11, 7:58*am, PeterN wrote:


Scoundrel.

Your lack of a proper response is telling us that you have no reply.

--
Peter

The response fits your actions to a TEE.

I would write "to a t", but the "tee" version is common. Like most
phrases, the origin is not really known but it is probably a reference
based on "to a tittle".

A "tittle" is a tiny amount best known in the Biblical phrase "jot or
tittle". (Matthew 5:18) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled."

The "tee" version could not be a reference to a golf tee because the
phrase is recorded as first appearing in 1693.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 8/11/2011 3:44 AM, Sandman wrote:
In , PeterN
wrote:

RichA:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess
age39064364

Looks very "busy."

PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye):
You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see
to your inability to comprehend written material.

OG:
You really like the bokeh in the first photo?

PeterN:
Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are
others that are fine.

Rich:
Thanks for the 180, moron.

PeterN:
So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then
you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please explain
what does my intelligence level have to do with the equality of the
lens.

Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then?

If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a reason.
And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a discontinued lens.

Yah, that was me

But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a
personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor
if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm,
"confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P


--
Sandman[.net]

"Rich" wrote in message
...

"Charles" wrote in
:

Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and
boring studio shot. To each his own.

I don't like bokeh that seems to invoke great motion. A couple Voigtlander
lenses I've used have been similar, but stop them down 2 stops and they
look great.

Not bokeh ... the background can fight with the subject and overwhelm it.

On 8/11/2011 1:50 PM, Sandman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 8/11/2011 3:44 AM, Sandman wrote:
In , PeterN
wrote:

RichA:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess
age39064364

Looks very "busy."

PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye):
You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see
to your inability to comprehend written material.

OG:
You really like the bokeh in the first photo?

PeterN:
Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are
others that are fine.

Rich:
Thanks for the 180, moron.

PeterN:
So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then
you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please explain
what does my intelligence level have to do with the equality of the
lens.

Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then?

If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a reason.
And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a discontinued lens.

Yah, that was me

But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a
personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor
if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm,
"confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P


I have a pretty thick skin and don't really pay much attention to
personal attacks in a newsgroup.
Sadly, Rich uses a personal attack as a diversionary substitute for a
proper reply.



--
Peter

PeterN wrote in
:

On 8/11/2011 1:50 PM, Sandman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 8/11/2011 3:44 AM, Sandman wrote:
In ,
PeterN wrote:

RichA:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess
age39064364

Looks very "busy."

PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye):
You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see
to your inability to comprehend written material.

OG:
You really like the bokeh in the first photo?

PeterN:
Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are
others that are fine.

Rich:
Thanks for the 180, moron.

PeterN:
So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image.
Then you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please
explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the
equality of the lens.

Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then?

If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a
reason. And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a
discontinued lens.

Yah, that was me

But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a
personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor
if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm,
"confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P


I have a pretty thick skin and don't really pay much attention to
personal attacks in a newsgroup.
Sadly, Rich uses a personal attack as a diversionary substitute for a
proper reply.




My God, an amazing example of denial (thick skin??!) and hypocrisy.

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

RichA:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess
age39064364

Looks very "busy."

PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye):
You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see
to your inability to comprehend written material.

OG:
You really like the bokeh in the first photo?

PeterN:
Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are
others that are fine.

Rich:
Thanks for the 180, moron.

PeterN:
So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then
you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please explain
what does my intelligence level have to do with the equality of the
lens.

Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then?

If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a reason.
And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a discontinued lens.

Yah, that was me

But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a
personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor
if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm,
"confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P

I have a pretty thick skin and don't really pay much attention to
personal attacks in a newsgroup.
Sadly, Rich uses a personal attack as a diversionary substitute for a
proper reply.

Again, neither of that changes the fact that personal attacks in this
thread originated with you. I very much consider your subject change
and comments about his alleged inabilities to be in lieu of a proper
reply as well.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 8/12/2011 1:25 AM, Sandman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

RichA:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess
age39064364

Looks very "busy."

PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye):
You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see
to your inability to comprehend written material.

OG:
You really like the bokeh in the first photo?

PeterN:
Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are
others that are fine.

Rich:
Thanks for the 180, moron.

PeterN:
So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image. Then
you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please explain
what does my intelligence level have to do with the equality of the
lens.

Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then?

If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a reason.
And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a discontinued lens.

Yah, that was me

But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a
personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor
if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm,
"confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P

I have a pretty thick skin and don't really pay much attention to
personal attacks in a newsgroup.
Sadly, Rich uses a personal attack as a diversionary substitute for a
proper reply.

Again, neither of that changes the fact that personal attacks in this
thread originated with you. I very much consider your subject change
and comments about his alleged inabilities to be in lieu of a proper
reply as well.


They were in addition to, not in lieu of: I also suppose that he may
have done this in prior threads is irrelevant: But:
Tell ya what. The next time he posts a Richism, I will only comment and
ask a question. Let's see what happens.


--
Peter

On 8/11/2011 10:43 PM, Rich wrote:
wrote in
:

On 8/11/2011 1:50 PM, Sandman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 8/11/2011 3:44 AM, Sandman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

RichA:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...orum=1039&mess
age39064364

Looks very "busy."

PeterN (new subject: rich is not only dumb, he has no eye):
You may add safely add inability to comprehend what you see
to your inability to comprehend written material.

OG:
You really like the bokeh in the first photo?

PeterN:
Not really, but some small touch up would be nice, and there are
others that are fine.

Rich:
Thanks for the 180, moron.

PeterN:
So you admit that you judge the lens based upon one bad image.
Then you emphasize you point by making a personal attack. Please
explain what does my intelligence level have to do with the
equality of the lens.

Wait, what? What about the personal attack you made then?

If you mean changing the caption, I then backed it up with a
reason. And as someone else pointed out, He complained about a
discontinued lens.

Yah, that was me

But a personal attack followed up with a justification is still a
personal attack, you know. Maybe he wouldn't have returned the favor
if you hadn't done it first? I know Rich is a bit.. ehm,
"confrontational", but don't throw stones in glass houses. :P


I have a pretty thick skin and don't really pay much attention to
personal attacks in a newsgroup.
Sadly, Rich uses a personal attack as a diversionary substitute for a
proper reply.




My God, an amazing example of denial (thick skin??!) and hypocrisy.

then answer the questions.

--
Peter

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:21:22 -0400, "Charles"
wrote:
:
:
: "Rich" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Charles" wrote in
: :
:
: Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and
: boring studio shot. To each his own.
:
: I don't like bokeh that seems to invoke great motion. A couple Voigtlander
: lenses I've used have been similar, but stop them down 2 stops and they
: look great.
:
: Not bokeh ... the background can fight with the subject and overwhelm it.

But that's a different issue, isn't it? The reason bokeh matters is that we're
trying to get a distracting or unattractive background out of the way. It's
true that a lens with good bokeh won't necessarily make it possible for you to
do that effectively. But at least it won't make your task more difficult by
introducing its own ugly artifacts and distractions.

Rich's original point was that one expects an $1800 portrait lens to exhibit
non-intrusive bokeh. If the illusion of coins raining down from the ceiling
makes a given shot less bland and boring, that's beside the point, unless it's
worth $1800 to you to be able to get that effect.

Bob

On 2011-08-12 15:41:17 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:21:22 -0400, "Charles"
wrote:
:
:
: "Rich" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Charles" wrote in
: :
:
: Rich perhaps likes the diffused and bland background of a typical and
: boring studio shot. To each his own.
:
: I don't like bokeh that seems to invoke great motion. A couple Voigtlander
: lenses I've used have been similar, but stop them down 2 stops and they
: look great.
:
: Not bokeh ... the background can fight with the subject and overwhelm it.

But that's a different issue, isn't it? The reason bokeh matters is that we're
trying to get a distracting or unattractive background out of the way. It's
true that a lens with good bokeh won't necessarily make it possible for you to
do that effectively. But at least it won't make your task more difficult by
introducing its own ugly artifacts and distractions.

Rich's original point was that one expects an $1800 portrait lens to exhibit
non-intrusive bokeh. If the illusion of coins raining down from the ceiling
makes a given shot less bland and boring, that's beside the point, unless it's
worth $1800 to you to be able to get that effect.

Bob

Just to clarify, Rich sucked us in with that premise. However the
images in question were not shot with the new $1800 Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G,
but the older, less expensive "D" lens.
So all the comments critical of the $1800 lens have been misdirected.

The subject line in that forum post is: "D300s Nikon 85mm 1.4D Models
Kayla Donna", there is no mention of the 85mm f/1.4G.

I will await results from other tests, and results from other shooters,
before judging the new lens prematurely.

The lesson here is we need to read carefully whenever Rich posts
anything and implies a failure he finds disappointing.

--
Regards,

Savageduck