Appeal to the rpe35mm group

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Alan Browne, Feb 12, 2006.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    As we're facing another sh*tstorm from the same troll who's been
    plaguing us over the past few years, may I remind all of you that the
    only known, effective remedy for trolls is to ignore them.

    That includes not even discussing the troll, who, where he might be,
    etc. We know he's a loser and he's not worth mention or keyboard wear
    and tear. He's failed in the past and he will surely fail again for
    that is his destiny in life.

    The only damage the troll does manage is when we reply in crossposts to
    his silliness, or reply to the poor suckers from other x-posted groups.

    Just let it go, and the troll is starved of his oxygen.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 12, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    go go dancer Guest

    Interesting that this troll only targets people who post images to
    shootin and you are a stalwart of that activity, Alan. I notice an
    image posted by Douglas last month, resulted in a disgusting and
    insulting post about his wife. As I recall he gave up on shootin for
    that very reason a year or so ago. No one should be surprised then, to
    see an increase in shootin participation = an increase in filth and
    garbage from a very sick puppy.

    Whenever someone posts a negative comment about a sometime poster here,
    a few days later this stuff starts up again. To discover who it is, you
    need look no further than the last shootin. One of it's participants
    has taken offence and retaliated.

    Somewhere there needs to be restraint. When idiots here post comments
    about how bad other's pictures are, it invites retaliation. We all
    shoot duds. Stones and glass houses ought to be remembered. Those who
    only ever take perfect pictures, have yet to be born.

    I can't help but wonder what Lisa would have done when she thought up
    this idea, had she known the disgusting posts she would have to endure?
    It has to be a pretty bad indicator of the state of affairs in America
    to let such activities as whoever it is doing this seems complacant
    with.

    There is no doubt that a rise in depraved and disgusting posts from a
    sick minority has resulted in a large number of posters not posting
    anymore. Likewise idiots posting about blown highlights and lack of
    shadow detail ought to keep in mind their computer screen is not a
    photograph and you can't judge photos displayed on one.
     
    go go dancer, Feb 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Likewise idiots posting about blown highlights and lack of
    Would you like to expand on this, 'Maddy'? In my opinion, a
    well-adjusted monitor offers a very good way of determining this type
    of image content. And of course it is an *illuminated* medium, so it
    has a far *greater* dynamic range than paper. A competent operator
    should have no difficulty displaying images without these traits,
    unless the original capture was flawed, or, of course, if the effect is
    intentional, like on silhouettes or backlit images.

    So I don't understand your point. Perhaps you could link to some
    examples.

    By the way, it is good to see Douglas has such an interested and
    informed supporter, but I fail to see the direct relevance.. The
    spammer has targetted *many* folks, including me. But I don't take
    lunatics too personally. Water off a duck and all that.

    (...grin...)
     
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 13, 2006
    #3
  4. Alan Browne

    Manual Mode Guest

    I completely concur with these sentiments of yours. I used to be a regular
    in this group. I was forced to stop posting here, at least with my real
    name. The troll went too far and I had to do something to prevent the
    defamation of my family by this miserable cretin. People on this forum
    have dropped various names of who it MIGHT be, but nobody ever posted any
    actual evidence ... Glenn Travis, Michael Scarpitti, Tony Polson, Steve
    Young, who else, but it is likely that none of these people had anything
    to do with the trolling and they were all accused by people that had
    personal vendettas against them. Don't misunderstand me. I have a strong
    idea of who the culprit is... he's from Australia (not Douglas) and he
    never posts about photography but occasionally shows up when this group is
    under fire to act as some hero or savior. But I have no proof, so I won't
    name him, even though the puzzle pieces add up if you think about it.
     
    Manual Mode, Feb 13, 2006
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    no_name Guest

    Indeed. And how many take time to regularly calibrate their monitors?

    And how many of the viewers are using calibrated, "well-adjusted" monitors.
     
    no_name, Feb 13, 2006
    #5
  6. Alan Browne

    go go dancer Guest

    Your caustic suggestion that the mere mention of a name conveys support
    for the person is offensive. It is exactly this sort of comment - made
    as a bait, which starts off a flame war. Use some restraint, will you?

    Monitors do not have a dynamic range anywhere near that of a
    photograph. Where did you get such an idea? Perhaps you already know
    this and are trying to fire a debate?

    Nearly all people who are not professional photographers ( read that as
    more than 90% of this group) would not have well adjusted monitors
    anyway, just what their computer came with. And if they did actually
    get a monitor calibrated, I doubt a home user could afford monthly
    calibrations or the cost of a device to keep it that way.

    You might like to think "water and ducks" but when a person's family
    has to handle such filth, it is another thing. Maybe this is your way
    of giving support for the troll? Clearly you are trolling here by
    posting such rubbish.

    If you follow this group as you claim to, you would know what I am
    talking about. Why try then to ignite a discussion founded on baiting
    someone? Grow up, will you? If you have something constructive to say,
    say it.

    Maddy
     
    go go dancer, Feb 13, 2006
    #6
  7. FWIW, and to let the air out of your argument, I have never posted anything
    to the shoot-in. I too am a victim, and have been in the past as well, of
    the annoyances.
     
    James Philopena, Feb 13, 2006
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    JimKramer Guest

    Stop telling Douglas he's not right, he might have a "delete
    key"...<fading spooky music><sardonic laughter>

    Pointing out the obvious to Douglas is a colossal waste of time,
    because he just doesn't get it.

    Jim (getting grumpy again) Kramer
     
    JimKramer, Feb 13, 2006
    #8
  9. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest


    I didn't witenss what you refer to above as I don't have much time these
    days for the SI (unless it's a "5PM on Sunday and I can do it quick").
    I still support it, of course.

    The only point I want to get across is that the best way to kill off
    trolls is to ignore them. Even discussing them gives them recognition
    as well as additional "ammo" (as it were).

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 14, 2006
    #9
  10. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    I can't see who posted the a/r paragraph, however, while a monitor is
    not the best medium for evaluation photos it is absolutely honest at
    getting blown highlights, even if calibrated a bit under. Esp. if you
    use "info" in PS to point and see the content. Blown highlights may be
    part of an image as well, bit it mist be done as part of the overall
    composition.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 14, 2006
    #10
  11. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    That's sad to hear. But I think the best defence is to simply post and
    respond to the charter of this group and ignore the trolls. It is the
    time proven way to starve them.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 14, 2006
    #11
  12. What?? You think 'go go dancer' is 'douglas'? Surely not!!?

    (O:
     
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 14, 2006
    #12
  13. Use some restraint, will you?

    Certainly! I apologise from the bottom etc, etc...
    Pardon?

    Photo paper - 60:1 to 100:1 One of *many* references:
    http://www.imatest.com/docs/testcharts.html

    ...although I'll concede up to 250:1 is claimed for some platinum
    prints, eg here:
    http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/Monochrome_Printing_2005.htm

    Compared to:
    Monitor, LCD - mostly in range 300:1 to 1000:1
    Monitor, CRT - mostly in range 400:1 to 1000:1
    (I'm not bothering to give references, there are thousands, just RTM
    for your screen)

    So, even the best possible result for paper falls short of the worst
    monitors.

    Perhaps you mean gamut? It's easy to get your terms confused when you
    are new to all this, isn't it?
    Perhaps you should do a little more research, and try to post factual
    information in future?
    Relevance, links, references? or is that just supposition? Anyway, it
    is not the point. I repeat, photographic paper does not have the
    dynamic range of a monitor.

    And you are just wasting our time.

    Goodnight, 'maddy'. Is that short for MacDonald? (O:
     
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 14, 2006
    #13
  14. Alan Browne

    JimKramer Guest

    Actually, I just assumed that it was Santa Claus.
     
    JimKramer, Feb 14, 2006
    #14
  15. Alan Browne

    Peter Irwin Guest

    Under normal viewing conditions 60:1 is good for glossy paper.
    Some modern B&W papers have a measured reflection density
    of 2.3 or so suggesting that a 200:1 ratio is achievable, but
    you simply cannot see the difference between the more than
    100 shades of dead black that make the difference between
    a 60:1 and 200:1 ratio.

    Under special lighting, a spotlight masked to cover the area
    of the picture, such a print can look almost like a backlit
    transparency. But there's a catch: you need to print an image
    at a higher contrast in order for it to look right when
    displayed this way, so the actual range for human purposes
    is maybe only half as good as the 200:1 ratio would suggest.

    The same catch applies to viewing slides. A slide which shows
    a maximum density of 3.6 can show a ratio between the lightest
    and darkest bits of 4000:1. This sounds very impressive, and it
    is, but it can't represent a scene contrast of anything like
    that high. A slide can show a scene contrast of only something
    like 200:1 and that's being somewhat optimistic. The viewing
    conditions of slides require a high contrast to look "right"
    while prints under normal viewing conditions look "right"
    when the overall combined gamma from the negative, printing
    paper and the effects of lens flare is equal to one.

    I hope that you see where I'm going with this. You can't just
    compare contrast ratio numbers between photographic prints
    and monitors and come up with a meaningful comparison.
    Looking at a monitor is more like looking at a projected
    slide than looking at a print.
    Actually the 250:1 ratio is one he is claiming for high-gloss
    silver based prints. This is only practically obtainable under
    the special lighting described above.

    Looking at the pictures on that page might give you a pretty
    good impression of how the range of a good print compares
    with what your monitor is giving you in subjective terms.
    All but the very blackest parts of the prints should have
    considerable detail, and I'm sure this is true of his prints
    when seen in person. I find that I have to turn off my room
    lights in order for the blacks to show any detail. Even then
    I suspect that the prints have better looking blacks.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, Feb 14, 2006
    #15
  16. Alan Browne

    go go dancer Guest

    Saddly Jim's imagination is so vivid, he thinks he's a photographer as
    well as a physic. Why don't you ask him if he's the troll?

    Maddy.
     
    go go dancer, Feb 15, 2006
    #16
  17. I hope that you see where I'm going with this. You can't just
    Good post, and absolutely correct, Peter - although as you state
    yourself, the slide can achieve much higher ratios again. Projection
    is one area where digital isn't very close to reaching the quality of
    film - a good slide projector runs rings around digital projectors,
    both in resolution and dynamic range.

    The original point was raised in regard to 'go go dancer's uninformed
    assertion that prints have more dynamic range than monitors (wrong),
    and the silly claim that '90%' of the posters here could not use their
    monitors to identify blown highlights and blocked shadows.
     
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 15, 2006
    #17
  18. Off Topic...

    It's an amazing coincidence, given 'her' support for Douglas, that both
    'Maddy'/'go go dancer' and Douglas MacDonald/Ryadia/etc both misspell
    "saddly" in exactly the same way. Eg:
    http://tinyurl.com/cutg8
    http://tinyurl.com/dwhu3
    http://tinyurl.com/b2qf9

    And both now post from Telstra connections. Given the topic of gogo's
    initial post, it is rather quaint irony, really.. (O;

    And I wonder if Douglas has sent the samples out that he promised on
    the enlarging threads? Perhaps he might, in another astonishing
    coincidence, be reading this...?
     
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 16, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.