Lying in wait.. for James Bond fans only?

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Mark Thomas, Jul 27, 2008.

  1. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Do you also both think that 'black' information is only carried in the
    green channel of RGB printer devises?
    Fascinating. I tried this
    (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=printer+devise&btnG=Search&meta=)
    and got very different results, but in any case I would point out that I
    was asking for cites. Cites being short for 'citations'. Generally I
    would expect such a citation to be sourced from a dictionary site of
    some sort...
    Now this is even more fascinating, but also a little funny when you see
    those two hits. Here are the actual results when I do exactly that, ie:
    http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=printer+devise&btnG=Search&meta=cr=countryAU
    =============================
    Did you mean: printer device?

    CPPA Monitor and printer calibration images
    .... balancing colour for the output of a specific printer** but oddly
    enough, ... for the express purpose of checking the colour of your
    output devise. ...
    www.cppa.org.au/resources.htm - 7k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

    DPexpert: [ EPSON STYLUS PHOTO R290 printer ]
    I wish that I could test the cost per print for every printer I review
    but at the moment it is not possible. I hope next year to devise a
    standardised test ...
    www.dpexpert.com.au/archives/2007/11/_epson_stylus_photo_r290_print.html
    - 17k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
    ==============================

    Firstly I will happily concede that the very *next* result is an example
    of the error, but the first two hits are not exactly supportive of your
    case. The second entry is simply not an example - devsie is correctlky
    used, but the first... well, that's the funny one.

    That first entry comes from the webpage of the 'famous' CPPA. Tony, do
    you know who/what the CPPA is? It is an 'association' (not yet
    incorporated!) for 'Certifying Professional Photographer's (sic)'. It
    appeared just a few months ago, at the very same time as Douglas
    MacDonald (aka D-Mac, aka 2Squid, etc) had an ebay auction saying he was
    certified by the CPPA. But who, you may ask, is the registered owner of
    the cppa website? You guessed it. Douglas himself. In other words you
    are using Douglas to back up Douglas. It's *his* (and perhaps his
    daughter's?) website. (O:
    Nor me, but the concise Oxford is here:
    http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/device?view=uk
    and it does not list devise as an option to device as a noun, nor do any
    of the US ones I've tried. So it would seem to be misuse, no matter how
    you look at it.
    Like I said, it was all secondary to the intent, but at least it led us
    in an amusing circle. (O:
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 31, 2008
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mark Thomas

    dj_nme Guest

    Of course, but don't forget that just being able to read and write was
    the mark of an educated man until quite recently (the last couple
    hundred years).
     
    dj_nme, Jul 31, 2008
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Apart from the fact that most car brochures do not show cars in dappled
    shadows under a canopy of trees, nor are they seeking a slightly dark,
    sinister effect... Did you actually read the OP? It was a quick grab
    in a carpark. I shot it with the intention of the car being
    deliberately, furtively parked in shadows, ie low-key. What part of
    'lying in wait' didn't you get?

    Now, what do you think the difference between a snapshot and a car
    brochure would be? Do you normally carry a 15-foot softbox with you?
    Gee, did *I* say it was a grab?
    Maybe you should actually add to the thread and tell us what you would
    have done with a single flash, and to achieve the desired result as
    explained above? All you have to do is find a similar low-key wide
    angle shot that was lit by flashgun, and looks better than mine. Surely
    if you were any good you would have one? Why not just shoot something
    next time you are in a carpark and bring it back here? Once you supply
    a better image, feel free to come back and explain the technique you
    used to the eager audience. I've explained what (little!) I did, I've
    offered you this image to manipulate as you wish to show the sort of
    lighting you would prefer, and all you do is... run for your life.

    Your choice, I guess. Me, I prefer to debate with examples.. and people
    who have the guts to post them.
    Ah yes, more of the troll's escape methodology... Next line will be
    "You are not worthy to see my images.."
    (grin) Yep. Pretty much as I thought. Run away!!!
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 31, 2008
    #43
  4. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Thanks, Doug. You're right... but no, *I* wouldn't have done all that,
    because I don't do commercial photography nowadays - it's too much like
    hard work!

    It's interesting how the mind of a Mr T (or D-Mac) works - it's all
    about making a buck. (And if money is the measuring stick of quality,
    then clearly KFC and MacDonalds make the state-of-the-art in chicken and
    burgers.)

    And only money-making photographers should post here, perhaps.. Gee,
    that would be just great.


    There will be a small postscript to this story later, I hope.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 31, 2008
    #44
  5. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    I thank you for the kindness, Jeff. I thought it was good-ish, if
    technically a little flawed.


    (O:
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 31, 2008
    #45
  6. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Like I said earlier, I'm sure we are not worthy of seeing his
    brilliance... And I think the old saying applies here:

    There are no stupid questions, just ignorant, egotistical pretenders who
    answer them rudely.

    (Wait. Have I got that right?)

    Thanks for the comments, MJ. (When are you posting more stuff? (O:)
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 31, 2008
    #46
  7. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Perhaps not the way DMac operates... As an example of how he operates,
    his copyright page used to contain these words:
    That is *absolutely* incorrect, and is inviting people to bring in
    professionally shot images for illegal reproduction.
    Correct, and that is why I just took my p&s.
    You did see the 'up to' part, didn't you? Car images are a dime a dozen
    at markets...
    Naturally, if I was shooting this sort of thing for sale, I would have
    to seek out the car owner. (Which I am doing anyway, to donate the shot
    to him/her if s/he wants it.)
    Exactly. As I stated initally, this was just a grab that I liked when i
    got home and looked at it. At the time I took it, I thought it would be
    rubbish. To Dmac and MrT, it is, but that's ok!

    Another piece of DMac *brilliance*. Not just 'page not found', there is
    no such domain. He's a genius at this web stuff.
    I'm sure there is a huge market here in DMac's head, but we know how
    that relates to reality.

    Perhaps DMac would like to link to where I *whine* about that? I've
    always said that I wouldn't get myself a dslr until they met my
    criteria, and it has only been recently that they have done so.. While
    I decide which way to go, the p&s I have does pretty well and I have
    'fallback' equipment for anything serious I might want to do. So my
    choice is not urgent.

    That's better than posting frequent crap like Dmac's, and saying how
    brilliant it is, lying about his certifications...

    To Dmac:
    That's ADVICE. This has come up many times recently. ADVISE is a verb.
    ADVICE is a noun. Just as DEVICE is a noun. DEVISE is a verb (not a
    printer..) Tell your daughter too.

    At last count that was only Dmac, Rita, and perhaps Mr T. I'm happy,
    nay delighted, with that result.

    But, as Dmac and Rita (where is MrT's portfolio?) so richly demonstrate,
    top-flight gear does not make good images.
    (I'm still waiting to hear why Dmac blew the skies in images 2 and 9
    here, given that was his sole initial complaint about my image:
    http://www.douglasjames.com.au/portfolio/weddings/ )
    All I can say is.. well put, Doug J.
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 31, 2008
    #47
  8. Geeez, all you would have had to do is hire a tow truck or 15 beefy
    lads, moved the car to a promontory, waited till it was overcast and low
    light, then made your shot.

    Oh, darn, then it wouldn't have displayed the furtive part.....
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 31, 2008
    #48
  9. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Nice to see a few others got it. (O:

    But clearly to satisfy some, I shall need to take my softbox, lighting
    setups and backdrops in future, because I should be shooting this sort
    of image...

    http://www.exoticcarsite.com/pictures/Cars/holden/efijy-concept/holden-efijy-concept-2005-1.jpg

    (No, not my image.. But it is an Australian car, so maybe MrT or DMac
    took it..?)
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 31, 2008
    #49
  10. Mark Thomas

    tony cooper Guest

    I have no idea what that sentence means. I'm either not smart enough
    to figure it out, or it's gibberish.
    A "cite" is a citation to a source that supports or disproves a
    statement. We can only cite the sources that are available to us. I
    don't have access to the OED or the Macquarie (Australian) Dictionary,
    so the only thing I have available is examples of usage.
    Yes, because it's under "device" that you will get most of the hits.
    That's the way Google works. The statement made, though, was that
    some people use "devise" for "device" and not that most people use
    "devise" for "device". Usage shows that some do.
    I wouldn't know that. I don't follow this feud, and I don't even know
    the names involved.
    If you want it to be an error or a misuse, that's up to you. I'm
    willing to accept it as a variation. As you can tell from other posts
    I've made, words and word usage interest me a great deal. I've had
    enough exposure to usage that I know that not everyone uses words or
    terms the way I would normally use them, and that there are idiomatic
    differences. This includes spelling.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 31, 2008
    #50
  11. Mark Thomas

    dj_nme Guest

    Ah!
    So you'll be the one dragging a (at least) 20 x 20 metre white tent, 40
    odd metres of white paper with stand and several giant softboxes in
    order to get a technically perfect showroom styled grab-shot?
    Not to mention, a team of assistants to help you carry it all around.
    That would be very covert and secretive, also furtive. NOT!
    The mind truly boggles with what results some people say they expect.
    The term "concept" appears in the URL and on the source website, so it
    might not even be an actual physical car.
    http://www.rsportscars.com/holden/2005-holden-efijy-concept/
    It seems to be a one-off custom-made concept car, so it does actually
    exist in some form.
    With "n/a" in various listed statistics, that may not be beyond being
    just a nice looking mock-up.
     
    dj_nme, Jul 31, 2008
    #51
  12. Hmmmm. I doubt anyone "took it", though it's possible to have started
    with a pic....

    Illustrator?
    Still, I think I get what you mean.
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 31, 2008
    #52
  13. Have you take on Floyd and his doggedly odd way of spelling "lense"??
    [He thinks it's the singular of "lenses"!]

    No? You should, and either he'll be too chicken to take you on, or he'll
    do so with 5-600 words and some cites including sites.
     
    John McWilliams, Jul 31, 2008
    #53
  14. Mark Thomas

    Frank ess Guest

    You are too kind, Neil.

    A sterner critic would have pointed out Mr Hunter's Skitt's Law error.

    http://confiteminidomino.blogspot.com/2007/01/skitts-law.html

    These are "lories", or lorikeets. Imagining them with bonnets on is
    fun:

    http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1150/1444342608_7435e445c1_o.jpg
     
    Frank ess, Jul 31, 2008
    #54
  15. Mark Thomas

    tony cooper Guest

    No, because that's designated as an archaic or a variant spelling.
    Legitimate if you want to appear to be archaic. I think Floyd uses it
    just to invite comment.
    Floyd has never been too chicken to take me on. I sometimes run
    across him in another newsgroup. We had some rounds in a photography
    group (perhaps this one) in a discussion about taking photographs in a
    commercial airplane and around airports. A discussion, if I remember
    correctly, started by an Australian. Those Aussies are troublemakers,
    aren't they?

    Floyd can be very, very right about some things of a technical nature.
    He's very informed and seldom caught out in the wrong on technical
    issues. His personal views, though, sometimes set my teeth on edge.
    He can come across as very condescending and know-it-allish, but
    that's a pot/kettle/black position for me to take.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 31, 2008
    #55
  16. Mark Thomas

    Frank ess Guest

    Ugly, though, my view.
     
    Frank ess, Jul 31, 2008
    #56
  17. Mark Thomas

    MJW Guest

    Its finally stopped raining around here, so I will
    be doing some more panorama experimenting soon!


    --
     
    MJW, Jul 31, 2008
    #57
  18. Mark Thomas

    D-Mac Guest

    You seem to have an opinion that doesn't fit the mould of a successful
    seller of photographs. I discovered very early in life - When I worked
    in the newspaper game, that causing a person to become emotional looking
    at a photo is the key to selling them, not all that crap about nailing
    composition. You use a camera, not a hammer.

    When I started work at the weekly times I was handed a 4x5 field camera
    with a 38mm lens on it and told; "Just make sure you get the subject in
    the frame and don't pop the bulbs on someone's dress, I can to the
    subject when I make the prints".

    The beetles arrived in town the next week and I took my shots holding
    the camera above my head, hoping like hell the lens was wide enough to
    get something on interest.

    The reality is knowing your market and what you can and cannot sell
    people. I guess that's the difference between me and those who criticise
    me and my pictures... I take photos for a living, they take them for a
    different reason.

    Here's some I took "for a different reason".
    http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix/ Not one of them has any commercial value.
    That's why there's a download button there!

    I've said it many times in the past. You don't need to be the world's
    best photographer to make a living at photography. What you do need is
    an understanding of why people take a liking to a picture and work on
    the emotion of the viewer... Bugger the rest of it. If you can appeal to
    someone's emotions, you can sell them the photo.

    Probably the single biggest reason I can make a living from it is
    because like all business people who have done the hard yards, I know at
    what point I can get away with something but an amateur thinks they have
    to do everything perfectly. You do if you want to win a competition but
    that won't put food on the table.

    Some of the world's most revered photographs are out of focus. Many have
    really obvious (to a photographer) flaws in them but they are still up
    there for all to admire.

    An interesting thing here Doug... Not everyone looks at photos the same
    way. I once took a photo of two girls and swapped the heads around.
    Totally different body shapes and ages. When they each showed the photos
    to their parents, all for of them failed to notice the swap!

    Those who pick shit at me and the "photos of interest" I post look not
    at the entertainment value of the photos but at the technical "quality"
    of them. Something 85% of people who buy photographs seldom do.

    There is more to photography than the technical level of images... Far
    more and if you ever try to sell your photos and wonder why people like
    me sell so many when you can't sell any, it might dawn on you that I
    took the time to discover buyer motives and see the technical level of
    the photos that sell as a lesser issue than the subject matter.
     
    D-Mac, Aug 1, 2008
    #58
  19. Actually the Efijy does in fact exist in the metal and last year won some
    major award or other for best custom car, and even led the drive by parade
    (so yes, it is drivable)
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Aug 1, 2008
    #59
  20. I have, very kindly, corrected DMac's link above (it's a dash, not
    underscore, Douglas.) - personally, I check my links to make sure they
    work before posting - you would think the site's author would know his
    own site name. Takes this stuff pretty seriously, does DMac..

    The link shows a very soft image and doesn't seem to have anything to
    do with screen savers..

    Even after reading his apology for the poor quality of the image (I
    note that it is OK for him to make excuses, but no-one else) one would
    have to question his mastery of the craft when he can't even get his
    own images sharp at that size.
    At least it's not on a commercial webpage. And the day that I post a
    highly reduced version of what is supposedly an image suitable for
    enlargement, with such awful loss of resolution... I'll hang up my
    hat.

    How's the CPPA going, I wonder? When and where is the next meeting
    again, Doug?
     
    mark.thomas.7, Aug 1, 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.