Prev: Backlash against pro camera prices? Finally??
Next: Need w/a attachment for Canon A710IS
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 22 Feb 2010 15:57
C Werner <none(a)noaddress.com> wrote:
> Re-sent because I didn't notice PuppyGang TrollBerg's typical troll's
> tactic of snipping original newsgroups being posted and replied to.

Oh, C Werner doesn't like to argue where
it's relevant and starts namecalling.

C stands for Chickenshit, right?
Plonk.

-Wolfgang
From: Paul Furman on 22 Feb 2010 20:55
ROFLMAO! wrote:
> the hand-held, night-time, lit
> by incandescent light only, photo of a burying-beetle in flight? Taken with
> a P&S camera. An image that no DSLR on earth could accomplish given its
> contents alone.

....that would barely fill a postage stamp...
From: Paul Furman on 23 Feb 2010 18:47
D. Wernar wrote:
>> ROFLMAO! wrote:
>>> >> the hand-held, night-time, lit
>>> >> by incandescent light only, photo of a burying-beetle in flight? Taken with
>>> >> a P&S camera. An image that no DSLR on earth could accomplish given its
>>> >> contents alone.
>> >
>> >...that would barely fill a postage stamp...
>
> That's a downsize-only, as
> stated before. But I will admit it has a very minor crop on 2 edges to see
> if I could do anything about the non-marketable composition, the cropped
> image containing about 95% of the original subject content. When I take a
> photograph I always make the whole frame count.

Then post a crop. Simple.
From: D. Wernar on 23 Feb 2010 20:24
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:47:13 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>D. Wernar wrote:
>>> ROFLMAO! wrote:
>>>> >> the hand-held, night-time, lit
>>>> >> by incandescent light only, photo of a burying-beetle in flight? Taken with
>>>> >> a P&S camera. An image that no DSLR on earth could accomplish given its
>>>> >> contents alone.
>>> >
>>> >...that would barely fill a postage stamp...
>>
>> That's a downsize-only, as
>> stated before. But I will admit it has a very minor crop on 2 edges to see
>> if I could do anything about the non-marketable composition, the cropped
>> image containing about 95% of the original subject content. When I take a
>> photograph I always make the whole frame count.
>
>Then post a crop. Simple.

I fail to understand why I should waste an hour of my life entertaining
you. I happened to have that downsize handy in my "throwaways to send"
folder on a backup HD that I was browsing one day and thought it'd be a fun
one to prove each and every last one of you DSLR-Trolls 100% wrong. You
want me to jump through hoops searching my catalogs of over 150 DVDs of
images of just one taken over 6 years ago in order to entertain a troll's
stupidity and ignorance? You forget, I'm far more intelligent than you'll
ever be.

No matter what size the original it still could not have been taken with
any DSLR on earth, evident by the content of it alone. That's what makes it
such a fine shareable example. Do you need to see a full-size image from a
camera in order to see the stars in a night sky when used to prove the
camera's low-light capabilities? Just because it was downsized yet the
stars remain? Or are you trying to tell the whole world that you're too
fuckingly stupid to even know why a 1:1 crop isn't even needed to prove
what that image proves? Yes, that's exactly what you are truly telling the
whole world.

You'll have to step up your silly and ignorant troll's tactics. This one
isn't working.

Try and troll someone more easily manipulated, PuppyGang TrollBerg. You've
bit off far more than you can chew.



From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 24 Feb 2010 14:58
D Wernar <is(a)an-idiot.com> wrote:

>>Then post a crop. Simple.

> I fail to understand

D as in Dumbass? Yes, you fail to understand.

Put up or shut up. Oh, sorry, I forgot you are a hair dryer:
Tons of hot air and not a gram of substance or proof.

BTW: PLONK

-Wolfgang
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Backlash against pro camera prices? Finally??
Next: Need w/a attachment for Canon A710IS