Prev: Newton, up close and personal
Next: Don't view on a full stomach
From: SneakyP on 30 Jun 2010 16:26
From a little digging,
Message-ID: <a4aee245-8732-463c-96e4-a37bbbe4ce58
@m24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

revealed this nugget about our resident P&S trolltard:



http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=24769&p=300369#p300369

<quote>


Stephen Bishop wrote:
> If not for his abrasive attitude, I'm sure many people would be more

than willing to give him some favorable comments as well as
suggestions on how to improve.

And there's the rub. You only have to look at his postings at Steve's -
people *did* constructively point out issues with his images, quite
pleasantly, but he invariably went ballistic with silly defenses of his
images, rather than admit he had much to learn. He desperately wants to be
worshipped, and when he doesn't get it, he explodes and exacts his revenge.

On several different forums, he has taken such umbrage with his perceived
enemies that he made great shows of storming off, telling everyone that
they didn't deserve his help. Then to prove it, he laboriously *deleted all
his previous posts* from those forums. Hilarious - one is reminded of a
toddler's tantrum, yet a bit sad...

If nothing else, those examples demonstrate the strengths and
weaknesses of a p&s camera. They can be good for extreme close-ups in
good light, but they fall short when they are used for action shots or
in very low light.

And then there's print sizes. The best P&s/bridge/superzoom cameras can do
'quite nice' 13x19's, but when you get to those sizes and beyond, dslrs are
very obviously better (even at base ISO, kit lens, bright light). If you
add in low light or challenging action, the fat lady has sung. Frankly, if
you are doing serious work at poster sizes, then you probably shouldn't be
using 35mm format anyway - although the latest round of cameras are surely
going to shake up the MF market.

So we can only assume that Keoeeit has never seen a truly razor-sharp large
print, and it is obvious by his postings that he has never shot anything
decent or challenging in low-light, and doesn't understand the
opportunities that good high-iso performance offers - I am reminded of this
guy's work (warning - wedding photos!):
http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/page/4/
Check out the high ISO shots (Nikon D3, several at 6400!) and the superb
use of natural light.. But I'm sure Vern could squash those images flat
with his dinky little S3IS. (O:

The funny thing is, I use a bridge camera for ~95% of my stuff. I don't
usually do wildlife/sports, and most of my low-light stuff is just for the
family, so the p&s is ok. But if I was back in the weddings game...

</quote>


Sad sad life.

I wouldn't have noticed, except the persistent replies from a few people
have exposed the nymshifting idiot and I cannot filter those re-quoted
troll posts out.
Unless there's an overwhelming desire for others to stuff their killfile
with "From:" entries, there's an easier way to ignore the idiot.

Please email me for the details.

Or If you have another filter that does not only kill the troll, but the
replies to the troll automagically, please tell about it.


--
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

From: LOL! on 30 Jun 2010 16:34
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:26:15 -0500, SneakyP
<48umofa02(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> wrote:

>From a little digging,
>Message-ID: <a4aee245-8732-463c-96e4-a37bbbe4ce58
>@m24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
>revealed this nugget about our resident P&S trolltard:
>
>
>
>http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=24769&p=300369#p300369
>
><quote>
>
>
>Stephen Bishop wrote:
>> If not for his abrasive attitude, I'm sure many people would be more
>
> than willing to give him some favorable comments as well as
> suggestions on how to improve.
>
>And there's the rub. You only have to look at his postings at Steve's -
>people *did* constructively point out issues with his images, quite
>pleasantly, but he invariably went ballistic with silly defenses of his
>images, rather than admit he had much to learn. He desperately wants to be
>worshipped, and when he doesn't get it, he explodes and exacts his revenge.
>
>On several different forums, he has taken such umbrage with his perceived
>enemies that he made great shows of storming off, telling everyone that
>they didn't deserve his help. Then to prove it, he laboriously *deleted all
>his previous posts* from those forums. Hilarious - one is reminded of a
>toddler's tantrum, yet a bit sad...
>
> If nothing else, those examples demonstrate the strengths and
> weaknesses of a p&s camera. They can be good for extreme close-ups in
> good light, but they fall short when they are used for action shots or
> in very low light.
>
>And then there's print sizes. The best P&s/bridge/superzoom cameras can do
>'quite nice' 13x19's, but when you get to those sizes and beyond, dslrs are
>very obviously better (even at base ISO, kit lens, bright light). If you
>add in low light or challenging action, the fat lady has sung. Frankly, if
>you are doing serious work at poster sizes, then you probably shouldn't be
>using 35mm format anyway - although the latest round of cameras are surely
>going to shake up the MF market.
>
>So we can only assume that Keoeeit has never seen a truly razor-sharp large
>print, and it is obvious by his postings that he has never shot anything
>decent or challenging in low-light, and doesn't understand the
>opportunities that good high-iso performance offers - I am reminded of this
>guy's work (warning - wedding photos!):
>http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/page/4/
>Check out the high ISO shots (Nikon D3, several at 6400!) and the superb
>use of natural light.. But I'm sure Vern could squash those images flat
>with his dinky little S3IS. (O:
>
>The funny thing is, I use a bridge camera for ~95% of my stuff. I don't
>usually do wildlife/sports, and most of my low-light stuff is just for the
>family, so the p&s is ok. But if I was back in the weddings game...
>
></quote>
>
>
>Sad sad life.
>
>I wouldn't have noticed, except the persistent replies from a few people
>have exposed the nymshifting idiot and I cannot filter those re-quoted
>troll posts out.
>Unless there's an overwhelming desire for others to stuff their killfile
>with "From:" entries, there's an easier way to ignore the idiot.
>
>Please email me for the details.
>
>Or If you have another filter that does not only kill the troll, but the
>replies to the troll automagically, please tell about it.

Is this why the ONLY posts you reply to are those of the supposed P&S
Troll? And then you even psychotically net stalk others who you insanely
believe to be him too? Yeah, sounds like you really want to get away from
this guy, don't you.

"Knowledge may give weight,but actions give luster. And many more people
see than weigh."

Whatta MAROON! You outted your own self!


LOL!

From: Ofnuts on 30 Jun 2010 16:43
The who?

On 30/06/2010 22:26, SneakyP wrote:
> From a little digging,
--
Bertrand
From: SMS on 30 Jun 2010 16:54
On 30/06/10 1:26 PM, SneakyP wrote:

<snip>

> And there's the rub. You only have to look at his postings at Steve's -
> people *did* constructively point out issues with his images, quite
> pleasantly, but he invariably went ballistic with silly defenses of his
> images, rather than admit he had much to learn.

That's just his shtick, in reality he is learning a lot from everything
that is pointed out to him. He's just one of those types that finds it
difficult to admit that he does not know everything about everything.

For me, the most amusing thing about our troll is how upset he
apparently is that I have contributed to the documentation for the CHDK
firmware for Canon cameras. I was a bit worried that he would remove the
stuff I wrote, but then I realized that even though I've even posted the
same text I wrote almost verbatim in some rec.photo.digital posts he has
not figured out the sections of the Wiki that I have added to and edited.
From: SneakyP on 30 Jun 2010 17:49
NGBarfart <ngbarfart(a)ngflatulence.net> wrote in news:ngbarfart-
AF606C.14154330062010(a)nntp.charter.net:

> In article <Xns9DA79D01BE8BB48umofa02sneakemailc(a)127.0.0.1>,
> SneakyP <48umofa02(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>> From a little digging,
>> Message-ID: <a4aee245-8732-463c-96e4-a37bbbe4ce58
>> @m24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> revealed this nugget about our resident P&S trolltard:
>> trimmed
>
> You provoked him again.
> It would be interesting to see if he e-mails you for information on how
> to filter himself. That would be revealing.
> He remains a PIA.
>

Mr. Hamster is efficient today.

LOL!
James Nagler
Henry Olson
Better Info
Better Info
Henry Olson
C.P. Robbins [x2]
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Die Wahrheit [x3]
Outing Trolls is FUN!
LOL!




Nothing attempted in the email yet.


--
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Newton, up close and personal
Next: Don't view on a full stomach