«

jean wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 1:51 PM:

>
> Scott, you are asking a lot from an illiterate and uneducated idiot.

how about you shove your opinion
where the sun doesn't shine, diddums?
Might actually match for once the
quality of your posts.

On Aug 30, 12:23*am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> The wings in your hummie shhots are COMPLETELY blurred
> because you used photoslop to do so, moron.
> Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it
> would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred.
> What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing,
> which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power.

Bullshit. And I can of course prove it if you are willing to put your
cash where your big fat mouth is.

On Aug 29, 10:24*pm, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
> > At lower power, say 1/16, a large attachment flash is on the order of
> > 1/10,000s.
>
> And that's why they recommend multiple flashes.
> String a couple and you got twice the power
> at same fast speed.

NUNO SOUTO: HUMMINGBIRD PHOTO EXPERT!

And just think, only two days ago you said this:
"If you used the default synch speed of your camera of around 1/200,
the wings would be nearly frozen solid."

I guess even a stupid old mutt can be taught something.

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:37 PM:
> On Aug 30, 12:23 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> The wings in your hummie shhots are COMPLETELY blurred
>> because you used photoslop to do so, moron.
>> Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it
>> would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred.
>> What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing,
>> which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power.
>
> Bullshit. And I can of course prove it if you are willing to put your
> cash where your big fat mouth is.
>

of course, the hawker scammer resorts to illegal
betting. try leaving those tactics to the low-life
places you frequent, instead of polluting the Usenet
even more than you already do.

once more, to make sure it registers:
Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it
would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred.
What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing,
which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power.

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:38 PM:

> And just think, only two days ago you said this:
> "If you used the default synch speed of your camera of around 1/200,
> the wings would be nearly frozen solid."

which they would. That setup is only for those producing
jim's kind of shot. Not the photoslop FAKE results of yours,
with totally blurred wings.

> I guess even a stupid old mutt can be taught something.

I guess a stupid smelly midget can always be shown
the mediocrity of his arguments.

On Aug 30, 12:42*am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
> once more, to make sure it registers:
> Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it
> would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred.
> What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing,
> which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power.

Keep spouting those lies, Noons. Maybe somebody will believe you,
despite the fact that everyone else (those who have posted and the
links we provided) agrees with what I'm saying. I've offered to post
the RAW file for any pic you choose, but you run away like the
chickenshit that you are. I'm done with your stupid, neanderthal ass.

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
jimkramer <> wrote:

> If a hummer beats his wings at 50 beats per second then the wings will
> make one full cycle of motion in 1/50 of a second. At a shutter speed
> of 1/200 of a second the wings will go through 1/4 of their total
> cycle of motion. In other words they'll move a couple of inches in
> the time that the shutter is open. So tell us again how 1/200 is
> going to freeze the motion? Better yet, provide us ANY examples of
> that happening without the use of high-speed flash.

Actually, you don't want "high speed flash", that is, a flash
setting for faster than x-sync. That'll just have the flash
stutter at a very fast rate, not freezing anything. :-/

Use a flash (or many flashes) at a low(er) power setting to
freeze by flashlight.

-Wolfgang

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 31/08/2008 1:44 AM:

>> once more, to make sure it registers:
>> Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it
>> would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred.
>> What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing,
>> which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power.
>
> Keep spouting those lies, Noons. Maybe somebody will believe you,
> despite the fact that everyone else (those who have posted and the
> links we provided) agrees with what I'm saying. I've offered to post
> the RAW file for any pic you choose, but you run away like the
> chickenshit that you are. I'm done with your stupid, neanderthal ass.
>

NO ONE "agrees" with you except the "voices"
in your head, moron. Not one of your sock
puppets has produced ANY evidence other than
out of context or off-topic quotes of sites
that if anything reinforce exactly and precisely
what I said! Don't confuse your wild and idiotic
claims of what I said with facts, dickhead.

Here are a few once more, to make sure it registers:
Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it
would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred.
What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing,
which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power.

On Aug 30, 11:53*am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
>
> Does that mean you'll finally KF him and stop your inane discussions
> with the void-brain?

Yes, it's possible that I will ignore him (I don't use killfiles since
they are for dweebs). That way I'll have more time to devote to that
other ****wit, McWilliams.

"FU SET! FU SET!"

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:10:57 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

>> Yes, it's possible that I will ignore him (I don't use killfiles since
>> they are for dweebs).
>
> People who use KF's are certainly not dweebs, but folks who get the
> wisdom of "avoid people vexatious to the spirit."

One size fits all descriptions let a lot of people through the
cracks. Some, but not all may be dweebs. For the other OSFA
description, take SMS for example. He certainly uses KFs to "avoid
people vexatious to the spirit", but "wisdom" is hardly the reason
why he uses them.

In this, I agree with Annika (ouch!). If he used killfiles he'd
think of himself as a dweeb. Whether true or not, I take him at his
word that that's how he'd feel. Maybe it would be better said that
if he used killfiles he wouldn't respect himself in the morning.