Re: Whither high resolution Digital Images?
 

On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:

> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
> appreciated.

> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.

Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!

--
Bertrand

Re: Whither high resolution Digital Images?
 

On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>
>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
>>> appreciated.
>>
>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.
>>
>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!
>
> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
> one month.

More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
grand total of 3 readers.

But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
blow it back to original size, and compare.


--
Bertrand

Re: Whither high resolution Digital Images?
 

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
wrote:

>On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
>>>> appreciated.
>>>
>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.
>>>
>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!
>>
>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
>> one month.
>
>More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
>couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
>grand total of 3 readers.
>
>But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
>Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
>blow it back to original size, and compare.

I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.
All he managed to do was not destroy an already majestic scene. There's no
talent in that.

But if we had to compare the above example you've given with any of your
photography on even the best camera in existence? Ansel's downsized, noise
added, upsampled image would beat anything you could do, without question.
Between the two guess whose photographs would sell? NOT yours.

Re: Whither high resolution Digital Images?
 

On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
>>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
>>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
>>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.
>>>>
>>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!
>>>
>>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
>>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
>>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
>>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
>>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
>>> one month.
>>
>> More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
>> couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
>> grand total of 3 readers.
>>
>> But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
>> Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
>> blow it back to original size, and compare.
>
> I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.

Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.


--
Bertrand

Re: Whither high resolution Digital Images?
 

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
wrote:

>On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
>>>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
>>>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
>>>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!
>>>>
>>>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
>>>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
>>>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
>>>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
>>>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
>>>> one month.
>>>
>>> More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
>>> couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
>>> grand total of 3 readers.
>>>
>>> But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
>>> Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
>>> blow it back to original size, and compare.
>>
>> I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.
>
>Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
>you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.

And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER*
post any marketable shots to the net" means. I learned my lesson long ago
when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed
publications. You stupid ****wad.

[Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I
found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the
original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't
been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum
were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was
slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many
more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died.
This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna
structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure
only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally
expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for
concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not
learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for
publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the
rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A
good lesson for all.]

Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or
medium-frame camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all wait
while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just upload
any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't even own
one camera.

YOU ****INGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE,
OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.

Re: Whither high resolution Digital Images?
 

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
wrote:

>On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
>>>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
>>>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
>>>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!
>>>>
>>>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
>>>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
>>>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
>>>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
>>>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
>>>> one month.
>>>
>>> More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
>>> couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
>>> grand total of 3 readers.
>>>
>>> But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
>>> Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
>>> blow it back to original size, and compare.
>>
>> I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.
>
>Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
>you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.

And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER*
post any marketable shots to the net" means. I learned my lesson long ago
when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed
publications. You stupid ****wad.

[Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I
found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the
original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't
been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum
were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was
slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many
more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died.
This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna
structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure
only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally
expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for
concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not
learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for
publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the
rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A
good lesson for all.]

Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or
medium-format camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all
wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just
upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't
even own one camera.

YOU ****INGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE,
OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.

Re: Whither high resolution Digital Images?
 

On 04/08/2010 14:27, Jeff Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
>>>>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
>>>>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
>>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
>>>>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
>>>>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
>>>>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
>>>>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
>>>>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
>>>>> one month.
>>>>
>>>> More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
>>>> couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
>>>> grand total of 3 readers.
>>>>
>>>> But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
>>>> Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
>>>> blow it back to original size, and compare.
>>>
>>> I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.
>>
>> Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
>> you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.
>
> And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER*
> post any marketable shots to the net" means.

Yes, that means "My shots are a lot lousier than what I pretend them to
be". Why should we believe anything else? Has anyone seen your shots in
all their glory? If they are so good & desirable, why haven't you made a
fortune by publishing them in a book? And if you made a fortune, what is
the ISBN?

> I learned my lesson long ago
> when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed
> publications. You stupid ****wad.
>
> [Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I
> found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the
> original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't
> been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum
> were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was
> slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many
> more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died.

Yet more fiction. The rarest insect on earth comes dying on your porch,
brought by a spider. You're really entertaining... maybe you don't make
money with your pictures, but you can make a fortune writing novels.
Title for your first: "Otiocerus and the magic spiders in Mount Rainer
waterfalls".


> This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna
> structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure
> only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally
> expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for
> concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not
> learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for
> publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the
> rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A
> good lesson for all.]

And you are going to keep it for yourself, of publish a paper? Waiting
for the paper with baited breath, as well as the full name of the
species, since you seem to have identified it...

> Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or
> medium-format camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all
> wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just
> upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't
> even own one camera.

>
> YOU ****INGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE,
> OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.

Yes! More!

--
Bertrand

Re: Whither high resolution Digital Images?
 

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:45:40 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
wrote:

>On 04/08/2010 14:27, Jeff Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
>>>>>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
>>>>>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
>>>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
>>>>>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
>>>>>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
>>>>>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
>>>>>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
>>>>>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
>>>>>> one month.
>>>>>
>>>>> More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
>>>>> couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
>>>>> grand total of 3 readers.
>>>>>
>>>>> But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
>>>>> Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
>>>>> blow it back to original size, and compare.
>>>>
>>>> I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.
>>>
>>> Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
>>> you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.
>>
>> And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER*
>> post any marketable shots to the net" means.
>
>Yes, that means "My shots are a lot lousier than what I pretend them to
>be". Why should we believe anything else? Has anyone seen your shots in
>all their glory? If they are so good & desirable, why haven't you made a
>fortune by publishing them in a book? And if you made a fortune, what is
>the ISBN?
>

You're an annoying and insulting **** of a pretend-photographer troll, and
then you expect me to give you the answers you want?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not so insecure that I have to prove ANYTHING to some low-life ****
like you. It's much more entertaining for me watching you flip-out over
anyone having a life more interesting, adventurous, fulfilled, productive,
talented, and valuable than yours will ever be, with no regrets whatsoever.
99.9999999999999% of the population has a better life than you'll ever
conceive of having. You were a waste since you were born and that's what
really bugs you, because you know it.

And you are?

Some low-life peon newsgroup TROLL living in his mommy's basement who
happened to learn how to use an idiot's user-friendly computer?

Yep!

PROVE you are NOT.

LOL!

>> I learned my lesson long ago
>> when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed
>> publications. You stupid ****wad.
>>
>> [Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I
>> found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the
>> original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't
>> been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum
>> were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was
>> slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many
>> more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died.
>
>Yet more fiction. The rarest insect on earth comes dying on your porch,
>brought by a spider. You're really entertaining... maybe you don't make
>money with your pictures, but you can make a fortune writing novels.
>Title for your first: "Otiocerus and the magic spiders in Mount Rainer
>waterfalls".
>
>
>> This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna
>> structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure
>> only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally
>> expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for
>> concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not
>> learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for
>> publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the
>> rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A
>> good lesson for all.]
>
>And you are going to keep it for yourself, of publish a paper? Waiting
>for the paper with baited breath, as well as the full name of the
>species, since you seem to have identified it...
>
>> Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or
>> medium-format camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all
>> wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just
>> upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't
>> even own one camera.
>
>>
>> YOU ****INGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE,
>> OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.
>
>Yes! More!

Re: Whither high resolution Digital Images?
 

Jeff Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:45:33 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2010 13:25, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:07:20 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:16, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:09:06 +0200, Ofnuts<o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/08/2010 12:00, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And none of what concerns you matters in the least. If there is worthwhile
>>>>>>> content then even a 1 megapixel image could be blown up to the size of a
>>>>>>> wall (with proper upsampling) and it would still be admired and
>>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>>> A cellphone camera can create just as much of a photographic masterpiece as
>>>>>>> any Hasselblad on the planet. It just all depends on who is holding it.
>>>>>> Somebody to give a Nokia to Ansel Adams (or his successor)!
>>>>> Since you can't comprehend that, how about if we put you and Shakespeare
>>>>> sitting next to each other. Him on a 1976 word-processor (him having been
>>>>> previously brought up to speed on how to use one), and you on the latest
>>>>> gaming machine with a terabyte of RAM in it. On the count of three, both
>>>>> start writing. See who creates the greatest and most memorable prose after
>>>>> one month.
>>>> More like him with a slab of granite and a chisel. He will write a
>>>> couple of sonnets before the arthitis takes the better of him and have a
>>>> grand total of 3 readers.
>>>>
>>>> But anyway we are talking about photography here... So take an Ansel
>>>> Adams photography, reduce it to one million pixels and add some noise,
>>>> blow it back to original size, and compare.
>>> I never thought Ansel Adams was that much of a photographer to begin with.
>> Your recent shots of Mount Rainier waterfalls indeed demonstrate that
>> you have a very different understanding of what makes a good picture.
>
> And you have a very different understanding of what the words "I *NEVER*
> post any marketable shots to the net" means. I learned my lesson long ago
> when even 240x180 pixel images of mine can be stolen for printed
> publications. You stupid ****wad.
>
> [Aside: Good thing I learned that lesson too, because just last evening I
> found another one of those rarest-insects-on-earth (the subject of the
> original 240x180 images of mine that were stolen). An insect that hasn't
> been seen alive since 1908 and the only two known specimens in a NY museum
> were lost to storage conditions and time, back in the 1940's. This one was
> slowly dying on my porch, having been attacked by a spider. So I took many
> more photographs of it (after freeing it from the spider) before it died.
> This particular genus of insects, /Otiocerus/, have a unique antenna
> structure that doesn't survive any preservation process. Its full structure
> only visible on live or recently deceased specimens. After it finally
> expired from the spider venom I preserved it in a small jar with label for
> concrete proof that they still exist, and exist on my land. Had I not
> learned that lesson that even a 240x180 image can be stolen for
> publications, you would all be seeing a high-resolution image of one of the
> rarest insects on earth. Now you won't even get to see a 24x18 pixel one. A
> good lesson for all.]
>
> Show us some images of yours from the latest and greatest full-frame or
> medium-format camera that can beat a 1 megapixel Adams photo. We'll all
> wait while you to prepare one of YOUR photos for uploading. Oh hell, just
> upload any photo of YOURS at all. Because we already know that you don't
> even own one camera.
>
> YOU ****INGLY USELESS, BLATANTLY TRANSPARENT, CHILDISHLY MANIPULATIVE,
> OFF-TOPIC, THREAD-HIJACKING, PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.
>

Again you post twice. Is this because you don't know how to post or are
you anxious we not miss one word of your rant.

Re: Whither high resolution Digital Images?
 

On 04/08/2010 18:39, Jeff Jones wrote:

>
> You're an annoying and insulting **** of a pretend-photographer troll, and
> then you expect me to give you the answers you want?
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I'm not so insecure that I have to prove ANYTHING to some low-life ****
> like you. It's much more entertaining for me watching you flip-out over
> anyone having a life more interesting, adventurous, fulfilled, productive,
> talented, and valuable than yours will ever be, with no regrets whatsoever.
> 99.9999999999999% of the population has a better life than you'll ever
> conceive of having. You were a waste since you were born and that's what
> really bugs you, because you know it.
>
> And you are?
>
> Some low-life peon newsgroup TROLL living in his mommy's basement who
> happened to learn how to use an idiot's user-friendly computer?
>
> Yep!
>
> PROVE you are NOT.
>

Why should I? I am inded a low-life peon who indeed learned to use a
computer on the very user-friendly (it had a keyboard, mind...) IBM
1130. I'm not claiming I'm Alan Turing... And by the way, since you are
talking about computers, remember the last time we discussed software?
Another good laugh.

--
Bertrand