Boi Toy of huge proportions physically and mentally!

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by D-Mac, Aug 19, 2008.

  1. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest


    Why not? You've taken everything else of mine without full size
    examples! LOL.
     
    D-Mac, Aug 27, 2008
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/08/2008 1:29 AM:
    No. It's called Gaussian blur.
    I don't need to get rid of the
    p&s to get nice blurred backgrounds.
    All I have to do is use the crap filters
    you use.


    BWAHAHAHA!
     
    Noons, Aug 27, 2008
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    What part of "no retouching in Photoshop" did you not understand?
    I could send you the RAW file if you'd like to put your money where
    your mouth is. But of course, we know you never accept those
    challenges.
    And that's the difference between you & D-Mac and myself.
    You guys talk crap and have nothing to back it up except more crap,
    while I post examples and offer to provide the RAW files to prove what
    I'm saying.
    I think I am about finished entertaining you two fuckwits.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 27, 2008
    #43
  4. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/08/2008 11:35 PM:
    From you? None.
    I don't like to load viruses in my systems.
    There is in fact a LOT more difference.
    But I won't go into that at the moment...
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    You provide what? ah yes, examples: of your FAKE images.
    Which you NEVER identify as such until someone points out
    to you the bleeding OBVIOUS fakes. Then, and only then,
    do you admit to having done it.

    Besides, it's you who came up with the "whatever it
    takes" as your photography mantra. Which pretty much
    defines how much trust anyone can have in ANYTHING you
    claim.

    and it's been very entertaining: once again, you
    fail to convince anyone of your "truth" in photography.
     
    Noons, Aug 27, 2008
    #44
  5. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    I don't feel an obligation to explain every step I took in making a
    photograph unless someone asks. Pointing out 4 or 5 examples where I
    OBVIOUSLY added something does not make all my pics fakes.
    And when you make an outright lie about a photo, like your recent
    assertion that the blurry background was caused by a Gaussian Blur
    filter instead of the natural DOF from the lens, I'll call you on your
    bullshit. Using your logic, since you were wrong about that photo you
    must be wrong abut ALL my photos.

    Sucks to be you, Portuguese Pussy.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 27, 2008
    #45
  6. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 28/08/2008 12:19 AM:


    You don't feel ANY obligation to anything.
    You said so many times.
    They are ALL fakes! There is not a SINGLE of your
    images that you claim were taken with a given
    piece of gear that has not been considerably
    altered!
    Get lost, pisshead. I claimed that ALL your backgrounds
    are altered with Gaussian blur. Not that particular image,
    which I didn't even link to or had a look at: couldn't care
    less.

    Haven't you got it yet that your crap is NOT WELCOME
    in aus.photo? How many times do you have to post your stupid
    links non-crossposted to aus.photo and get ZERO, ZILCH, NADA
    comments, before you cotton on that NO ONE there gives a fig
    about your crap?

    You call NOTHING. You have no authority to
    call ANYTHING on ANYONE.
    You're too stupid to understand ANY logic.
    **** you, you stupid redneck wank.
     
    Noons, Aug 27, 2008
    #46
  7. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Wanna bet?
     
    Annika1980, Aug 27, 2008
    #47
  8. D-Mac

    Vagabond Guest

    You have no film processing background? Do you know where much of the
    terminology use in Photoshop originated? Post processing is far from
    digital only innovation. Many a film photographer has had to take the shot,
    warts and all, then do the work later, sweat blood in the darkroom. I
    haven't worked in a darkroom for decades, but I can still smell the
    chemicals and feel the pressure as deadlines approach.
    What if the photographer's intention was to take a shot that could only
    possibly work with post processing? It is always an option nowadays. I will
    often bracket with the intention of combining the shots later to give me a
    better result, DOF, Dynamic range, polarising effects etc., etc. None of
    those shots would be worth looking at on their own, but once their
    "content" is altered you have the result you want but would otherwise be
    unable to get within the limitations of your equipment. Total reliance on
    Photoshop might not be a good thing, but to refuse to acknowledge that it
    is a very valuable tool to a photographer is rather pointless.

    Why so volatile? If he wants to process everything, is it really an issue?

    I have that same Sigma lens, 70-200 2.8 on a Minolta A mount (now used on a
    Sony A700) and it is pretty average considering its specs, the push/pull
    zoom is not something I favour, but still a nice lens for the price. I
    certainly can't get that degree of background blur, but it does give quite
    nice DOF for portraits but the level of blur is subtle and progressive, not
    overpowering as in those examples. They do look photoshopped with Gaussian
    rather than lens blur applied.

    I seldom use anything straight out of the camera, usually I'll tweak or
    crop it a little at the very least. I certainly don't do heavy post work on
    all my shots, in fact the post work that I find necessary improves my
    technique with whatever camera I used, particularly with different camera's
    idiosyncrasies regarding lighting. Once you have to fix something post more
    than once, you tend to automatically compensate for it when composing the
    shot and setting the camera up.

    Regards

    Tony
     
    Vagabond, Aug 27, 2008
    #48
  9. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    Oh goddie. Does that mean you are leaving?
     
    D-Mac, Aug 27, 2008
    #49
  10. D-Mac

    ^Tems^ Guest

    OMG Did you just call Bret "Goddie"?
    He is good at what he does but I wouldn't call him god.

    Maybe he should do what you do, announce he is leaving for good than
    come back as 3 different names oh uh I mean use 3 different computers.
     
    ^Tems^, Aug 28, 2008
    #50
  11. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Why can't ya just get it right in camera like D-Mac and Noons suggest?

    They may look that way if you aren't accustomed to seeing what a f/1.2
    lens can do. The internet is full of examples from this lens.
    Amazing how all of us used the same Gaussian Blur settings, huh?
     
    Annika1980, Aug 28, 2008
    #51
  12. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    Do they all exhibit the same chromatic aberrations?
     
    D-Mac, Aug 28, 2008
    #52
  13. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Vagabond > wrote,on my timestamp of 28/08/2008 7:50 AM:
    None whatsoever: all the thousands of photos I take
    on film - and process if in b&W - have just appeared out
    of thin air. Must be true, because you just claimed it?

    and that "proves" Ansel Adams didn't print his
    shots from negatives, because?...

    LOL! We get them in all shapes and sizes here...



    That is not a photo, that is an image. Period.
    Nothing wrong with that, but don't call it a photo.
    Simple, isn't it?
    And I said it was not, exactly where?

    Perhaps you should try to take one shot that has all that?
    Instead of heaps of crap that you then post-process into an
    image which you claim as a "photo"?

    and I'm quite sure Ansel took also all those shots
    and turned them into a single one with "post-processing"?
    LOL!

    Now: do you understand the fundamentally RIDICULOUS
    argument that is to claim that because Ansel dodged and
    burned, then photoslopping an entire background or a bird
    or a sky or combining 6 shots into a hdr image or
    stitching20 images in a pano is exactly the same process?

    Do you understand the fundamental difference between
    cropping or selectively exposing a portion of a photo
    and FUNDAMENTALLY altering its contents and elements?

    It's not hard...
    Good. Just don't call it a photo.
    Nothing wrong with doing all that.
    Just don't call it a photo.
    Is that sufficiently clear?


    Do you understand basic English? Where did I say, ANYWHERE,
    that Photoshop - or ANY other editing program for that
    matter - is not a valuable tool? Because the idiot Bret claims
    I did that doesn't make it a fact, diddums. Got it?

    On the other hand, you just reinforced my point:
    "*total* reliance on photoshop might not be a good thing".
    I call it "photoslop". Got it?


    It is, when someone insists on claiming it as "photography".
    It is not, it's image making. Nothing wrong with that either!
    Plenty wrong however when that someone claims it is all
    the direct product of a given camera, and doesn't explain
    they were substantially altered because there is NO WAY in
    the world said camera could have taken those shots natively.
    It's also called a scam.


    But nevertheless they are probably natural lens blur
    as they were taken with a 50/1.2. That is not the point.

    Note the moron produced those as a single example. Of
    course he expects in his usual lunacy that everyone will
    generalize it to every one of his other shots, taken with
    completely different lenses, which magically ALWAYS show
    the same green-olive brown blurred background, straight
    from his stock library of gaussian blurs.
    Same background in every photo. Got the picture?
    God for you. So do I. Nothing wrong with that.
    OK. Now, can you UNDERSTAND the basic tenet that
    Bret does such "heavy post work" with EVERYONE
    of his shots while claiming they come straight
    from his camera? And that is what is objectionable?


    Bingo. Yet nevertheless, that doesn't seem to penetrate
    the brain of the self-promoted "expert". That's why
    he continues to resort to the hip flask called photoslop.
     
    Noons, Aug 28, 2008
    #53
  14. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    The point is that you are a liar.
    Now you are saying it is natural lens blur?
    Just a few posts ago you said this:
    ===========================

    "They are ALL fakes! There is not a SINGLE of your
    images that you claim were taken with a given
    piece of gear that has not been considerably
    altered!

    I claimed that ALL your backgrounds
    are altered with Gaussian blur. Not that particular image,
    which I didn't even link to or had a look at: couldn't care
    less."
    ===========================
     
    Annika1980, Aug 28, 2008
    #54
  15. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Have you seen any? It is quite unlikely that you would ever see any
    in anything less than a full-size image like I posted. So where are
    your Olympus examples for comparison?
     
    Annika1980, Aug 28, 2008
    #55
  16. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 1:37 AM:
    No, Bret: YOU are the liar. Proven many times before,
    and admitted openly by you. YOU are the one
    opnely admitting doinf ANYTHING you can to make
    any image look good, no matter what it takes.
    YOU. Not anyone else, moron. YOU!
    I don't give a flying **** what it is,
    haven't you got that yet, dickhead?
    NOTHING you show is worth commenting on,
    or looking at. Haven't you got it yet
    that NO ONE comments your crap in aus.photo?
    Shit, it's not difficult: just look!
    Get the **** lost!


    Exactly. WTF has that got to do with
    the stupid moronic bokeh or otherwise
    of your rented lens, you MORON?
     
    Noons, Aug 29, 2008
    #56
  17. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest


    Uh, that was the subject we were discussing, after all.
    Do try to keep up.

    Right before you made the claim that ALL my backgrounds were fakes and
    then reversed yourself saying that the background was due to the
    natural bokeh of the lens.

    Make up your mind which story you want to go with.
    Oh well, at least by coming down on both sides you are right at least
    half the time.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 29, 2008
    #57
  18. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 11:47 PM:

    no, YOU do try to keep up.
    YOU brought up the moronic single example of a rented
    lens as "proof" you don't fabricate bokeh. Which is
    nothing more than perfect proof of your idiotic
    lines of argument.

    No, moron. Your backgrounds ARE fakes.
    What you produced in an exceptional SINGLE occasion
    with a rented lens is not what you do the vast majority
    of the time with the crap lenses you own.
    Got it or are you too thick to grasp simple
    concepts?


    Very simple: backgrounds in your
    photos are fake.
    I couldn't care less that you rushed out
    a rented lens to "prove" you do real bokeh:
    the lenses you own have nothing to do
    with a f1.2, hence why you use fake crap
    for backgrounds. It's perfectly obvious
    when looking at your photos, moron.


    Just like the wild claims that you need 1/15000
    to "freeze" a woodpecker's wings - or whatever the poor
    stuffed bird was. Like: you use a flash to freeze
    the body and somehow, magically, the wings beat
    so fast that not even a flash burst is capable of
    stopping them? So fast in fact that they show full
    motion in a flash shot? What: your flash has a burst
    of 1/30th of a second? As if...



    Oh, btw: shouldn't you be at work, you low-life?
    Ah yes: you're unemployable. Sorry, I forgot...
     
    Noons, Aug 29, 2008
    #58
  19. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    You constantly make a statement that ALL my backgrounds are fakes or
    that I NEVER get any replies from my posts. Yet when I post evidence
    of the contrary you try to backpeddle with "that was just ONE
    example."

    Well guess what, idiot? When you say ALL or NEVER it only takes one
    example to refute your dumb ass and prove you to be a liar.
    Woodpecker, hummingbird ..... ah, what's the difference?

    Yes, that is exactly what happens.
    You see, fucktard, the body is moving slower than the flash speed
    (usually 1/1000 sec) while the wings are moving faster.

    When you see a sharp photo of a plane or chopper and the props are
    blurred, that isn't magic. It's physics.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 29, 2008
    #59
  20. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 1:58 AM:

    What you don't get, you stupid fake "artist",
    is that you do NOT have ANY credibility to
    claim ANYTHING.

    Obviously fake hummingbird shots.
    Obviously fake stuffed bird shots.
    Constant use of the same recycled
    background in your bird shots.
    Use and abuse of photoslop techniques
    that you don't even bother to disguise anymore.


    Is there ANY shot of yours that is not a
    fabrication?


    WTF cares about the semantics of ALL and NEVER,
    you stupid arse? We're talking photography
    here, something you are obviously incapable of
    without your pathological toxico-dependency
    on photoslop.

    WTF CARES?

    The proof of your bullshit? Yes, that is
    exactly what happens!

    It's not "usually" 1/1000, you blithering RETARD!
    The flash at that distance is cut short, at
    around 1/10000. There is NO WAY those wings
    can be blurred to that extent at tyhat speed.
    What you are doing is blurring them - with a bad
    and obvious photoslop technique - to make the image
    appear "natural".

    No one uses flash to shoot a plane, fucktard.
    There is no "physics", don't try to weasel
    out of your stupid "proofs" with words
    you don't even understand the meaning of.
     
    Noons, Aug 29, 2008
    #60
    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.