Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > What the future is going to bring

Reply
Thread Tools

What the future is going to bring

 
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:40:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"ROFLMAO!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:06:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just try to
>>>look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?

>>
>> "Logical argument"?!?
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Does the wholly illogical oxymoronic phrase of "blind photographer" mean
>> anything at all to you? How about "Quadriplegic ballet dancer"? Or maybe
>> there's a job for a "tongueless and noseless taste-tester"? Perhaps
>> there's
>> a job you can find in designing a comb for bald people. Wait! I know!
>> Maybe
>> when you become deaf you can become a speech therapist too!
>>
>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>> Logic? You don't even know the meaning of that word.
>>
>> Your blindness goes FAR beyond your eyesight.
>>
>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>>

>
>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ersonSmall.jpg
>
>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ower1Small.jpg
>
>Photograph taken by photographer, me who has less than 10% normal vision
>(definition of legal blindness), so I guess there is some meaning to the
>term "blind photographer."
>
>So, maybe I'm the one with real vision...
>
>What intrigues me is why it annoys you so much ...
>
>I mean, there's the attention thing, but that would mean that you're just a
>petty, immature goof who has to insult a blind guy in order to get
>attention, even though it means you prove to the whole world you're not all
>that bright...
>
>I've invited you to email me and discuss this in private, but you're a no
>show, so that reinforces the attention angle...
>
>I still like the Nazi thing, that you're just so ****ed that a disabled
>person can do something you think he should be shot for, just so others
>don't get any ideas and try to think they actually have a reason to live...
>
>That explains a lot, but says even less about you than the stupid idiot who
>likes attention theory...
>
>Which is it? Nazi or idiot?
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
>


Buy another more automated camera. Snap off more random crapshots. Waste
everyone's valuable time telling you which ones to pick out for public
display. Whichever ones the camera did best at, not you. I for one won't be
fooled by your desperate need for attention by your playing the part of
your own carnival freak-show act.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010

"LOL!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:40:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"ROFLMAO!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:06:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just try
>>>>to
>>>>look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?
>>>
>>> "Logical argument"?!?
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> Does the wholly illogical oxymoronic phrase of "blind photographer" mean
>>> anything at all to you? How about "Quadriplegic ballet dancer"? Or maybe
>>> there's a job for a "tongueless and noseless taste-tester"? Perhaps
>>> there's
>>> a job you can find in designing a comb for bald people. Wait! I know!
>>> Maybe
>>> when you become deaf you can become a speech therapist too!
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>
>>> Logic? You don't even know the meaning of that word.
>>>
>>> Your blindness goes FAR beyond your eyesight.
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>
>>>

>>
>>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ersonSmall.jpg
>>
>>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ower1Small.jpg
>>
>>Photograph taken by photographer, me who has less than 10% normal vision
>>(definition of legal blindness), so I guess there is some meaning to the
>>term "blind photographer."
>>
>>So, maybe I'm the one with real vision...
>>
>>What intrigues me is why it annoys you so much ...
>>
>>I mean, there's the attention thing, but that would mean that you're just
>>a
>>petty, immature goof who has to insult a blind guy in order to get
>>attention, even though it means you prove to the whole world you're not
>>all
>>that bright...
>>
>>I've invited you to email me and discuss this in private, but you're a no
>>show, so that reinforces the attention angle...
>>
>>I still like the Nazi thing, that you're just so ****ed that a disabled
>>person can do something you think he should be shot for, just so others
>>don't get any ideas and try to think they actually have a reason to
>>live...
>>
>>That explains a lot, but says even less about you than the stupid idiot
>>who
>>likes attention theory...
>>
>>Which is it? Nazi or idiot?
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>>

>
> Buy another more automated camera. Snap off more random crapshots. Waste
> everyone's valuable time telling you which ones to pick out for public
> display. Whichever ones the camera did best at, not you. I for one won't
> be
> fooled by your desperate need for attention by your playing the part of
> your own carnival freak-show act.
>


You're the one who started this...

I responded to the thread with a legitimate post, and you spouted off,
looking for attention?

Here's a challenge...

Let's see which of us can get a pic published in a legitimate publication
first... Any kind of long-standing newspaper (daily, weekly, it doesn't
matter), web-zine which is generally accepted by the members of this group
as being independant / legitimate, etc ...

Oh, wait, you are so ashamed of what you do / post you can't even use your
real name... Guess you're not up for the challenge...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:52:48 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"LOL!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:40:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"ROFLMAO!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:06:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just try
>>>>>to
>>>>>look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?
>>>>
>>>> "Logical argument"?!?
>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Does the wholly illogical oxymoronic phrase of "blind photographer" mean
>>>> anything at all to you? How about "Quadriplegic ballet dancer"? Or maybe
>>>> there's a job for a "tongueless and noseless taste-tester"? Perhaps
>>>> there's
>>>> a job you can find in designing a comb for bald people. Wait! I know!
>>>> Maybe
>>>> when you become deaf you can become a speech therapist too!
>>>>
>>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>>
>>>> Logic? You don't even know the meaning of that word.
>>>>
>>>> Your blindness goes FAR beyond your eyesight.
>>>>
>>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ersonSmall.jpg
>>>
>>>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ower1Small.jpg
>>>
>>>Photograph taken by photographer, me who has less than 10% normal vision
>>>(definition of legal blindness), so I guess there is some meaning to the
>>>term "blind photographer."
>>>
>>>So, maybe I'm the one with real vision...
>>>
>>>What intrigues me is why it annoys you so much ...
>>>
>>>I mean, there's the attention thing, but that would mean that you're just
>>>a
>>>petty, immature goof who has to insult a blind guy in order to get
>>>attention, even though it means you prove to the whole world you're not
>>>all
>>>that bright...
>>>
>>>I've invited you to email me and discuss this in private, but you're a no
>>>show, so that reinforces the attention angle...
>>>
>>>I still like the Nazi thing, that you're just so ****ed that a disabled
>>>person can do something you think he should be shot for, just so others
>>>don't get any ideas and try to think they actually have a reason to
>>>live...
>>>
>>>That explains a lot, but says even less about you than the stupid idiot
>>>who
>>>likes attention theory...
>>>
>>>Which is it? Nazi or idiot?
>>>
>>>Take Care,
>>>Dudley
>>>

>>
>> Buy another more automated camera. Snap off more random crapshots. Waste
>> everyone's valuable time telling you which ones to pick out for public
>> display. Whichever ones the camera did best at, not you. I for one won't
>> be
>> fooled by your desperate need for attention by your playing the part of
>> your own carnival freak-show act.
>>

>
>You're the one who started this...
>
>I responded to the thread with a legitimate post, and you spouted off,
>looking for attention?
>
>Here's a challenge...
>
>Let's see which of us can get a pic published in a legitimate publication
>first... Any kind of long-standing newspaper (daily, weekly, it doesn't
>matter), web-zine which is generally accepted by the members of this group
>as being independant / legitimate, etc ...
>
>Oh, wait, you are so ashamed of what you do / post you can't even use your
>real name... Guess you're not up for the challenge...
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
>


Fool. I've already won awards in several international competitions.

The ONLY reason someone would publish anything you shoot off haphazardly is
for people feeling sorry for you and wanting to make a buck off of your
freak-show.

 
Reply With Quote
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:51:17 -0700, Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>LOL! wrote:
>> Paul Furmanwrote:
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>> Plus, there is the huge benefit for macro work of a greatly
>>>> enhanced depth of field.
>>>
>>> This 'advantage' doesn't exist. A larger camera can always stop down&
>>> crank up the ISO for the same thumbnail sized results.

>>
>> While destroying any image quality with diffraction artifacts or noise.

>
>
>Exactly correct. The very same.


WRONG you freakingly ****ed-up stupid idiot of a MORON.

At large apertures where those deeper DOF's are available there are no
diffraction artifacts, and at ISO 400 or less in many P&S cameras there is
no image noise.

Keep trying to justify that those pieces of **** photography equipment of
yours. It just gets more and more laughable.

LOL!

 
Reply With Quote
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:51:17 -0700, Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>LOL! wrote:
>> Paul Furmanwrote:
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>> Plus, there is the huge benefit for macro work of a greatly
>>>> enhanced depth of field.
>>>
>>> This 'advantage' doesn't exist. A larger camera can always stop down&
>>> crank up the ISO for the same thumbnail sized results.

>>
>> While destroying any image quality with diffraction artifacts or noise.

>
>
>Exactly correct. The very same.


WRONG you freakingly ****ed-up stupid idiot of a MORON.

At large apertures where those deeper DOF's are available there are no
diffraction artifacts, and at ISO 400 or less in many P&S cameras there is
no image noise.

Keep trying to justify those pieces of **** photography equipment of yours.
It just gets more and more laughable.

LOL!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010

"LOL!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:52:48 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"LOL!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:40:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"ROFLMAO!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:06:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just
>>>>>>try
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Logical argument"?!?
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the wholly illogical oxymoronic phrase of "blind photographer"
>>>>> mean
>>>>> anything at all to you? How about "Quadriplegic ballet dancer"? Or
>>>>> maybe
>>>>> there's a job for a "tongueless and noseless taste-tester"? Perhaps
>>>>> there's
>>>>> a job you can find in designing a comb for bald people. Wait! I know!
>>>>> Maybe
>>>>> when you become deaf you can become a speech therapist too!
>>>>>
>>>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>>>
>>>>> Logic? You don't even know the meaning of that word.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your blindness goes FAR beyond your eyesight.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ersonSmall.jpg
>>>>
>>>>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ower1Small.jpg
>>>>
>>>>Photograph taken by photographer, me who has less than 10% normal vision
>>>>(definition of legal blindness), so I guess there is some meaning to the
>>>>term "blind photographer."
>>>>
>>>>So, maybe I'm the one with real vision...
>>>>
>>>>What intrigues me is why it annoys you so much ...
>>>>
>>>>I mean, there's the attention thing, but that would mean that you're
>>>>just
>>>>a
>>>>petty, immature goof who has to insult a blind guy in order to get
>>>>attention, even though it means you prove to the whole world you're not
>>>>all
>>>>that bright...
>>>>
>>>>I've invited you to email me and discuss this in private, but you're a
>>>>no
>>>>show, so that reinforces the attention angle...
>>>>
>>>>I still like the Nazi thing, that you're just so ****ed that a disabled
>>>>person can do something you think he should be shot for, just so others
>>>>don't get any ideas and try to think they actually have a reason to
>>>>live...
>>>>
>>>>That explains a lot, but says even less about you than the stupid idiot
>>>>who
>>>>likes attention theory...
>>>>
>>>>Which is it? Nazi or idiot?
>>>>
>>>>Take Care,
>>>>Dudley
>>>>
>>>
>>> Buy another more automated camera. Snap off more random crapshots. Waste
>>> everyone's valuable time telling you which ones to pick out for public
>>> display. Whichever ones the camera did best at, not you. I for one won't
>>> be
>>> fooled by your desperate need for attention by your playing the part of
>>> your own carnival freak-show act.
>>>

>>
>>You're the one who started this...
>>
>>I responded to the thread with a legitimate post, and you spouted off,
>>looking for attention?
>>
>>Here's a challenge...
>>
>>Let's see which of us can get a pic published in a legitimate publication
>>first... Any kind of long-standing newspaper (daily, weekly, it doesn't
>>matter), web-zine which is generally accepted by the members of this group
>>as being independant / legitimate, etc ...
>>
>>Oh, wait, you are so ashamed of what you do / post you can't even use your
>>real name... Guess you're not up for the challenge...
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>>

>
> Fool. I've already won awards in several international competitions.
>
> The ONLY reason someone would publish anything you shoot off haphazardly
> is
> for people feeling sorry for you and wanting to make a buck off of your
> freak-show.
>


Without a real name, your claims are just so much dust...

I guess that's enough to amuse your simple mind; it's not enough for me...

I like a REAL challenge...

And, I best the challenges I set for myself...

Your bitter antagonism just makes my victories that much sweeter...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010

"Paul Furman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> LOL! wrote:
>>
>> At large apertures where those deeper DOF's are available

>
> Eh?
>
>> and at ISO 400 or less in many P&S cameras there is
>> no image noise.

>
>
> Eh?


He'd actually have to use one to know anything about the subject; his
answer isn't surprising...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 05:03:02 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"LOL!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:52:48 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"LOL!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:40:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"ROFLMAO!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:06:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just
>>>>>>>try
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Logical argument"?!?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the wholly illogical oxymoronic phrase of "blind photographer"
>>>>>> mean
>>>>>> anything at all to you? How about "Quadriplegic ballet dancer"? Or
>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>> there's a job for a "tongueless and noseless taste-tester"? Perhaps
>>>>>> there's
>>>>>> a job you can find in designing a comb for bald people. Wait! I know!
>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>> when you become deaf you can become a speech therapist too!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Logic? You don't even know the meaning of that word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your blindness goes FAR beyond your eyesight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ersonSmall.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ower1Small.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>Photograph taken by photographer, me who has less than 10% normal vision
>>>>>(definition of legal blindness), so I guess there is some meaning to the
>>>>>term "blind photographer."
>>>>>
>>>>>So, maybe I'm the one with real vision...
>>>>>
>>>>>What intrigues me is why it annoys you so much ...
>>>>>
>>>>>I mean, there's the attention thing, but that would mean that you're
>>>>>just
>>>>>a
>>>>>petty, immature goof who has to insult a blind guy in order to get
>>>>>attention, even though it means you prove to the whole world you're not
>>>>>all
>>>>>that bright...
>>>>>
>>>>>I've invited you to email me and discuss this in private, but you're a
>>>>>no
>>>>>show, so that reinforces the attention angle...
>>>>>
>>>>>I still like the Nazi thing, that you're just so ****ed that a disabled
>>>>>person can do something you think he should be shot for, just so others
>>>>>don't get any ideas and try to think they actually have a reason to
>>>>>live...
>>>>>
>>>>>That explains a lot, but says even less about you than the stupid idiot
>>>>>who
>>>>>likes attention theory...
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is it? Nazi or idiot?
>>>>>
>>>>>Take Care,
>>>>>Dudley
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Buy another more automated camera. Snap off more random crapshots. Waste
>>>> everyone's valuable time telling you which ones to pick out for public
>>>> display. Whichever ones the camera did best at, not you. I for one won't
>>>> be
>>>> fooled by your desperate need for attention by your playing the part of
>>>> your own carnival freak-show act.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're the one who started this...
>>>
>>>I responded to the thread with a legitimate post, and you spouted off,
>>>looking for attention?
>>>
>>>Here's a challenge...
>>>
>>>Let's see which of us can get a pic published in a legitimate publication
>>>first... Any kind of long-standing newspaper (daily, weekly, it doesn't
>>>matter), web-zine which is generally accepted by the members of this group
>>>as being independant / legitimate, etc ...
>>>
>>>Oh, wait, you are so ashamed of what you do / post you can't even use your
>>>real name... Guess you're not up for the challenge...
>>>
>>>Take Care,
>>>Dudley
>>>

>>
>> Fool. I've already won awards in several international competitions.
>>
>> The ONLY reason someone would publish anything you shoot off haphazardly
>> is
>> for people feeling sorry for you and wanting to make a buck off of your
>> freak-show.
>>

>
>Without a real name, your claims are just so much dust...
>
>I guess that's enough to amuse your simple mind; it's not enough for me...
>
>I like a REAL challenge...
>
>And, I best the challenges I set for myself...
>
>Your bitter antagonism just makes my victories that much sweeter...
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
>


Victories? LOL!

WHAT victories?

That you can hold a camera and press a button in the general direction of
something that you can't even see if it's there or not? The "victory" in
owning a camera with auto exposure and auto-focus that will then do it's
very best to try to capture something in the random direction that you are
pointing that camera? If that's the case, then every person on earth who
owns a cell-phone camera, P&S camera, or DSLR in automatic mode is just as
victorious as you every time they accidentally press the shutter button
when not intending to.

Your seeing-eye dog with a camera strapped to its back could have
"victories" just as equal to yours.

LOL!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010

"LOL!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 05:03:02 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"LOL!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:52:48 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"LOL!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:40:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"ROFLMAO!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:21n8165jl62qa5u5middrgeh4evt1rudr8@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:06:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just
>>>>>>>>try
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Logical argument"?!?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the wholly illogical oxymoronic phrase of "blind photographer"
>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>> anything at all to you? How about "Quadriplegic ballet dancer"? Or
>>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>>> there's a job for a "tongueless and noseless taste-tester"? Perhaps
>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>> a job you can find in designing a comb for bald people. Wait! I
>>>>>>> know!
>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>> when you become deaf you can become a speech therapist too!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Logic? You don't even know the meaning of that word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your blindness goes FAR beyond your eyesight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ersonSmall.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ower1Small.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Photograph taken by photographer, me who has less than 10% normal
>>>>>>vision
>>>>>>(definition of legal blindness), so I guess there is some meaning to
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>term "blind photographer."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, maybe I'm the one with real vision...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What intrigues me is why it annoys you so much ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I mean, there's the attention thing, but that would mean that you're
>>>>>>just
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>petty, immature goof who has to insult a blind guy in order to get
>>>>>>attention, even though it means you prove to the whole world you're
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>all
>>>>>>that bright...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've invited you to email me and discuss this in private, but you're a
>>>>>>no
>>>>>>show, so that reinforces the attention angle...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I still like the Nazi thing, that you're just so ****ed that a
>>>>>>disabled
>>>>>>person can do something you think he should be shot for, just so
>>>>>>others
>>>>>>don't get any ideas and try to think they actually have a reason to
>>>>>>live...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That explains a lot, but says even less about you than the stupid
>>>>>>idiot
>>>>>>who
>>>>>>likes attention theory...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which is it? Nazi or idiot?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Take Care,
>>>>>>Dudley
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Buy another more automated camera. Snap off more random crapshots.
>>>>> Waste
>>>>> everyone's valuable time telling you which ones to pick out for public
>>>>> display. Whichever ones the camera did best at, not you. I for one
>>>>> won't
>>>>> be
>>>>> fooled by your desperate need for attention by your playing the part
>>>>> of
>>>>> your own carnival freak-show act.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're the one who started this...
>>>>
>>>>I responded to the thread with a legitimate post, and you spouted off,
>>>>looking for attention?
>>>>
>>>>Here's a challenge...
>>>>
>>>>Let's see which of us can get a pic published in a legitimate
>>>>publication
>>>>first... Any kind of long-standing newspaper (daily, weekly, it doesn't
>>>>matter), web-zine which is generally accepted by the members of this
>>>>group
>>>>as being independant / legitimate, etc ...
>>>>
>>>>Oh, wait, you are so ashamed of what you do / post you can't even use
>>>>your
>>>>real name... Guess you're not up for the challenge...
>>>>
>>>>Take Care,
>>>>Dudley
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fool. I've already won awards in several international competitions.
>>>
>>> The ONLY reason someone would publish anything you shoot off haphazardly
>>> is
>>> for people feeling sorry for you and wanting to make a buck off of your
>>> freak-show.
>>>

>>
>>Without a real name, your claims are just so much dust...
>>
>>I guess that's enough to amuse your simple mind; it's not enough for
>>me...
>>
>>I like a REAL challenge...
>>
>>And, I best the challenges I set for myself...
>>
>>Your bitter antagonism just makes my victories that much sweeter...
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>>

>
> Victories? LOL!
>
> WHAT victories?
>
> That you can hold a camera and press a button in the general direction of
> something that you can't even see if it's there or not? The "victory" in
> owning a camera with auto exposure and auto-focus that will then do it's
> very best to try to capture something in the random direction that you are
> pointing that camera? If that's the case, then every person on earth who
> owns a cell-phone camera, P&S camera, or DSLR in automatic mode is just as
> victorious as you every time they accidentally press the shutter button
> when not intending to.
>
> Your seeing-eye dog with a camera strapped to its back could have
> "victories" just as equal to yours.
>
> LOL!
>


I'm curious, if you disdain P&S cams so much, why do you extoll their
virtues so much?

Or, is it just because I'm blind that I can't use one?

It's interesting that you berate me for using a P&S cam in one post, and
then berate Paul for using a DSLR in the very next post... Truly, the mark
of a psychotic if ever there was one. Or, just another indication that you
truly are an immature little mind in search of some form of validation...

Sad, so very sad...

FYI, it's taken me about two years of trying different cams, but I've
finally worked out a procedure for evaluating the lighting of a scene
manually... So, what will your complaint be when the next pic I post is
shot in manual mode, manually focused (using audio feedback), and framed
acceptably to sighted viewers?

Take your time. Think of something cute. I know it's going to make your
little brain overheat a bit, but I trust you'll survive...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010

"LOL!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 05:19:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm curious, if you disdain P&S cams so much, why do you extoll their
>>virtues so much?

>
> Because ... I NEVER use them in their automatic modes. Got that? You
> ****ing mentally-blind idiot.
>
> LOL!
>


So, if I use mine in manual mode, then I'm a photographer, "just like you"!

Do you use a light meter to set your P&S cam in manual mode? If so, you're
basically just using one device to set the other ... Not much of a
challenge for a real master like yourself ...

Or, perhaps, you do that old slit your eyes and look at your subject trick
in order to "see" how it's going to translate to captured image ... And,
then you use the "sunny 16"rule to set your P&S cam manually ... Still, not
much of a challenge, since you're just looking to see if the sun is shining,
or if it's cloudy, in order to manually set those dials...

You truly are a master ... LOL

Now, why don't you try blind-folding yourself and checking out the lighting
....

Decide how much light there is and then set those manual dials ...

Trust me, it's a challenge ...

I figured out how to do it ... Surely, you are enough of a photographer to
do it too?

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT: Windows XP: Going, going ... gone? OTHMAN MCSE 2 03-25-2008 04:45 PM
XP search going all lame on me..explorer going crazy when trying tosearch. fotoobscura Computer Support 8 01-12-2008 01:09 AM
Firefighters at the site of WTC7 "Move away the building is going to blow up, get back the building is going to blow up." Midex Python 24 05-07-2007 04:23 AM
floppy drive just keeps on going and going and ... Weylon Bulloch Computer Support 1 09-07-2003 07:17 AM
VPN going up but traffic going one way PLP Cisco 1 07-11-2003 08:28 AM



Advertisments