From: LOL! on
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:17:24 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2010-08-01 11:36:35 -0700, Doug McDonald
><mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> said:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4847902759_058421b547_b.jpg>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Why do people post URLs that are "unavailable"?
>>
>> Doug
>
>As for those posted by "Buffalo Bill" or one of his skins, availability
>seems to be related to his level of medication, or the lack of awe
>filled praise from all of the lesser beings who refuse to accept him as
>a photographic messiah.


>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:28:51 -0500, LOL! <lol(a)lol.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Are those enough photos now to prove that all the resident-trolls are
>>slanderous consummate liars?
>>
>>LOL!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>This will be even *more* entertaining with the trolls that have filtered on
>>this name. The won't see these posts and they'll go on and on as they
>>always have, making absolute fools of themselves. Those who didn't filter
>>on this name can enjoy the hearty laugh at their expense.
>>
>>LOL!!!!

LOL!

From: Paul Furman on
Superzooms Still Win wrote:
> severely bad color shifts in
> this image? There's not one Eucalypt leaf anywhere in that photo. It looks
> like the numbnutz forgot to take it off of cloudy white-balance or
> something. Or even worse, left it on auto white-balance which would easily
> account for the odd colors in this image. The auto white-balance trying to
> overcompensate for the green light source from the canopy so it removed
> green from the leaves turning them blue

Reducing the blue channel improves things a little bit (increase
yellow). Not increasing green, which makes a mess of it. If anything the
greens could be dropped a little and magenta boosted.


> and removed green from the brown of
> the fur giving it that nasty red magenta cast. If you've not done a lot of
> photography under a dense foliage canopy you probably don't have one clue
> about any of these things. There are many many many situations in nature
> photography where you CANNOT use auto white-balance.


From: Paul Furman on
Superzooms Still Win wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:25:10 +0100, Bruce<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:06:35 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
>> <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:51:22 +0100, Bruce<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:41:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
>>>> <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
>>>>>> small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
>>>>>> shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
>>>>>> that they detract from the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and
>>>>> why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nice grass. And so sharp!
>>>>
>>>> Look how well it hides that inconvenient animal ...
>>>
>>> Whoosh! Right over that cavity on your neck.
>>>
>>> You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear.
>>
>>
>> You're right. I don't take an afternoon drive, stop to take a
>> snapshot of a waterfall from the roadside, then claim it was some work
>> of art taken after a 14 day trek in the wilderness.
>>
>> No, I don't do that at all. ;-)
>>
>
> Doesn't matter what you believe. I know I wasn't on any road or in any
> vehicle when I shot that photo. But why is it that in all other images of
> those falls posted on the net that you can't see the east wall of the falls
> but in my photo it is clearly seen and makes the falls look so much better?

like this?
http://img43.imageshack.us/i/pbasetjodtrollmarthafal.jpg/


> Now explain how I drove a car to that peak far above the tree-lines in the
> Rockies where it was snowing in August and took that shot overlooking that
> valley a mile below. Must have been one helluva jeep, eh? Or how about that
> extremely rare plant deep in the swamps, must have been an Amphicar for
> that one, right? It's illegal to propagate that plant (they even made a
> movie about it), in case you didn't know that, so it can't be found
> anywhere near civilization. Or maybe that Mule-deer in the plains grasses
> just happened to be lying next to the road because it was hit. How come you
> didn't come up with these lies too? They're just as obvious, aren't they?
>
> You fuckingly useless insecure city-boy momma's-boy of a troll. I'm sorry
> that your life hasn't been as adventurous and wondrous as mine. And that
> you haven't seen and photographed as amazing things as I have all my life.
> But that's your own sorry excuse of a life and pathetic fault. Try to not
> take out your regret of a life on those who haven't lived as sheltered and
> wuss of a life as you have lived. You've made that quite obvious.
>
>

From: Superzooms Still Win on
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:12:35 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Superzooms Still Win wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:25:10 +0100, Bruce<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:06:35 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
>>> <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:51:22 +0100, Bruce<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:41:15 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
>>>>> <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:21:28 +0100, Bruce<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your inability to control depth of field (because of your camera's
>>>>>>> small sensor) means that foreground and background elements of the
>>>>>>> shot that should be rendered out of focus, can't be. The result is
>>>>>>> that they detract from the subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using shallow DOF in this shot would totally destroy why it was taken and
>>>>>> why it has to be shot this way in order for it to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4849242652_76160e4a2c.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice grass. And so sharp!
>>>>>
>>>>> Look how well it hides that inconvenient animal ...
>>>>
>>>> Whoosh! Right over that cavity on your neck.
>>>>
>>>> You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're right. I don't take an afternoon drive, stop to take a
>>> snapshot of a waterfall from the roadside, then claim it was some work
>>> of art taken after a 14 day trek in the wilderness.
>>>
>>> No, I don't do that at all. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't matter what you believe. I know I wasn't on any road or in any
>> vehicle when I shot that photo. But why is it that in all other images of
>> those falls posted on the net that you can't see the east wall of the falls
>> but in my photo it is clearly seen and makes the falls look so much better?
>
>like this?
>http://img43.imageshack.us/i/pbasetjodtrollmarthafal.jpg/
>


COOL! You found one of the people that stole some of the images from my
original web-pages. THANKS!

But the one on the left still doesn't show the image being taken from the
same location and angle. If you look at the strata in the rock structure on
that east wall, you can easily tell that mine was taken from a much lower
and further west vantage point than all motor-tourists shoot from.

Try again fuckwad! Sucks to never get out into the natural world like you
never do, doesn't it. This is going to keep burning you to no end. I love
it! Playing with basement-living trolls is turning into a fun hobby, making
their lives more miserable than they already are.

LOL!

>
>> Now explain how I drove a car to that peak far above the tree-lines in the
>> Rockies where it was snowing in August and took that shot overlooking that
>> valley a mile below. Must have been one helluva jeep, eh? Or how about that
>> extremely rare plant deep in the swamps, must have been an Amphicar for
>> that one, right? It's illegal to propagate that plant (they even made a
>> movie about it), in case you didn't know that, so it can't be found
>> anywhere near civilization. Or maybe that Mule-deer in the plains grasses
>> just happened to be lying next to the road because it was hit. How come you
>> didn't come up with these lies too? They're just as obvious, aren't they?
>>
>> You fuckingly useless insecure city-boy momma's-boy of a troll. I'm sorry
>> that your life hasn't been as adventurous and wondrous as mine. And that
>> you haven't seen and photographed as amazing things as I have all my life.
>> But that's your own sorry excuse of a life and pathetic fault. Try to not
>> take out your regret of a life on those who haven't lived as sheltered and
>> wuss of a life as you have lived. You've made that quite obvious.
>>
>>
From: Paul Furman on
Superzooms Still Win wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't get out much into the real world. That much is more than clear.
>>>>
>>>> You're right. I don't take an afternoon drive, stop to take a
>>>> snapshot of a waterfall from the roadside, then claim it was some work
>>>> of art taken after a 14 day trek in the wilderness.
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't do that at all. ;-)
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter what you believe. I know I wasn't on any road or in any
>>> vehicle when I shot that photo. But why is it that in all other images of
>>> those falls posted on the net that you can't see the east wall of the falls
>>> but in my photo it is clearly seen and makes the falls look so much better?
>>
>> like this?
>> http://img43.imageshack.us/i/pbasetjodtrollmarthafal.jpg/
>
> COOL! You found one of the people that stole some of the images from my
> original web-pages. THANKS!

Yeah? http://www.pbase.com/tjod/image/45883509

> But the one on the left still doesn't show the image being taken from the
> same location and angle. If you look at the strata in the rock structure on
> that east wall, you can easily tell that mine was taken from a much lower
> and further west vantage point than all motor-tourists shoot from.

Wow, you're right, these are very different:
http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/6982/verifypbasetjodtrollmar.jpg
And that tree on the left is so different.