Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bob Larter on 27 Oct 2009 03:51 Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: > I sometimes wonder why people feel the ne[*Yawn!*] -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 03:12 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:44:38 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:51:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser ><questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: > >>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell >><groupsRE(a)MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote: >> >>>something resembling a discussion >> >>Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike >>Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related >>equipment. > >I gotta laugh at this. Here's Mike - the Spam-meister - who could >write a book on digital photography and post-processing (or maybe he >has) being belittled by someone who has never taken a photograph good >enough to show us. > >Mike's got cattle. You just have a hat. Mike is here to spam his software. Probably lost sales due to the economy so he's not even caring that he's violating Usenet policies. An act of desperation on his part. Nothing more. I've tested his software. It's not that great. I no longer recommend it to anyone else. Did at one time, years ago, but other programs have become far better. You might want to look into the curve-generator for CHDK capable cameras, for custom curves done in-camera. Where you tweak all 4 RGGB channels. Can you count higher than 3? Are you going to hijack yet another thread as a desperate act of attention-getting behavior for yourself instead of staying on topic? No, of course not, you're just proving yourself to be nothing but a low-life troll, AGAIN. You can do no differently, and that is what is now expected of you. 2 or 3 hijacks in one day is way below average for normal trolls. Hijack a few more threads, you have a ways to go yet to reach troll's-par.
From: Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up on 27 Oct 2009 03:14 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:51:54 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: >> I sometimes wonder why people feel the ne[*Yawn!*] see: alt.kooks.lionel-lauer A valid group in the known net-trolls groups.
From: Savageduck on 27 Oct 2009 03:23 On 2009-10-26 23:19:18 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser > <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:17:51 -0400, "BobS" <no-spam(a)noplace.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have >>> with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how >>> up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with >>> various makes. >> >> I could, but that wouldn't matter. The problem is in their design. All of >> them. Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras. >> > I didn't check the exif date on the entries, but were any of the > photos in the Shoot-In done with a P&S camera? Most of the people who > have the balls to put their stuff up for open review probably own both > a dslr and a P&S. I know I do. My digital armory includes CP775 (permanently out to the step-daughter from Hell), CP5700 (gathering dust), Fujifilm E-900, D70, D300 & my latest purchase, my first Canon, a G11. > > It seems our P&S (excuse me, John, "compact zuperzooms") adherents are > shy about displaying their creations. Probably just a humanitarian > gesture on their part because they don't want to blow us away. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Thom Kast on 27 Oct 2009 03:56
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:23:58 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2009-10-26 23:19:18 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser >> <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:17:51 -0400, "BobS" <no-spam(a)noplace.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have >>>> with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how >>>> up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with >>>> various makes. >>> >>> I could, but that wouldn't matter. The problem is in their design. All of >>> them. Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras. >>> >> I didn't check the exif date on the entries, but were any of the >> photos in the Shoot-In done with a P&S camera? Most of the people who >> have the balls to put their stuff up for open review probably own both >> a dslr and a P&S. I know I do. > >My digital armory includes CP775 (permanently out to the step-daughter >from Hell), CP5700 (gathering dust), Fujifilm E-900, D70, D300 & my >latest purchase, my first Canon, a G11. > >> Be sure to leave that G11 on full auto mode. It might teach you how to take pictures some day. Well, at least poorly composed snapshots that don't have pink granite mountains and pink clouds during noon daylight. You know, the kind you take with a DSLR that you don't even know how to use. The rest about cameras and photography you'll have to learn on your own, a camera won't help you there. (Learning is not likely, we've see it. What a mountain to climb that'll be.) Going to troll off-topic again? Of course. The hallmark of a troll. You can be no less no more than that. |