«

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:08:58 -0400, Mike Stand <>
wrote:
> On 07/04/2011 10:45 AM, Rich wrote:
> >
> > Nonsense. It's often to make an argument or point. Unless you
think
> > every source used for an essay is the target of any said essay.
> >
> It is bizarre that somebody who claims to be a "photographer" will
have
> so little respect over  copyrights. I bet if somebody lifted his
images
> off of pBase and posted them elsewhere, Richard Anderson, would be
the
> first to fire off a DMCA NOI.

If his photography skills are anything like his discussion skills,
who would want to.

--
Peter from my Droid

On Apr 7, 1:08*pm, Mike Stand <n...@none.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/04/2011 10:45 AM, Rich wrote:
>
> > Nonsense. *It's often to make an argument or point. *Unless you think
> > every source used for an essay is the target of any said essay.
>
> *>
> It is bizarre that somebody who claims to be a "photographer" will have
> so little respect over copyrights. I bet if somebody lifted his images
> off of pBase and posted them elsewhere, Richard Anderson, would be the
> first to fire off a DMCA NOI.

It's already happened. Someone took an image off it to do sales on
Ebay.

On Apr 7, 1:06*pm, Mike Stand <n...@none.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/04/2011 1:21 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:> RichA<rander3...@gmail.com> *wrote:
> >> On Apr 6, 1:23 pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> >>> RichA<rander3...@gmail.com> *wrote:
>
> > Plus you did not just cite the source, you copied it
> > entirely to your own site. *A gross violation!
>
> > Copyright protection is a seriously important issue to
> > all photographers who use the Internet. *Having some
> > jerk that claims to be a photographer violating
> > copyright law doesn't make it any easier for the rest of
> > us to protect our own copyrighted materials. *You seem
> > to be such a jerk.
>
> So when DPreview (the site Rich/RichA has so much disdain off) files a
> DMCA Notice of Infringement to pBase, what will happen?

I'll wonder which Eddie Haskell clone in this group when crying to
them like a little baby.
But I'll take the image down. Truth is, snippets off groups are just
another form of advertising that benefits those groups.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 09:46:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
wrote:

>People where so enamoured of the DR, they must have missed this.
>Not the improvement we might have expected. In RAW, noise is
>noticeably worse than the D5000, and worse in chroma than the old
>D300. I wondered when I shot night shots if it didn't seem a bit high
>for such a new camera. You can see noise in the sky at 100 ISO in
>some of the shots I've taken.
>Dpreview cut example: 1600 ISO RAWs
>
>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133715388

The D3s is a super low noise camera though, and the D3x has a
very low noise sensor too, which actually beats some really high end
cameras from Hasselblad.

I'm surprised at this. I have a D3000 and there's no
noticeable noise at 100 ISO. It's good up to at least 400 ISO
according to what I've read, although I haven't specifically tested it
at that level.

I have taken some shots with it in the 100 iso range that
certainly don't show noise though, and it's markedly less expensive
than the D7000.

On Apr 8, 7:05*am, Neil Ellwood <cral.elllwo...@btopenworld.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:08:58 -0400, Mike Stand wrote:
> > On 07/04/2011 10:45 AM, Rich wrote:
>
> >> Nonsense. *It's often to make an argument or point. *Unless you think
> >> every source used for an essay is the target of any said essay.
>
> > It is bizarre that somebody who claims to be a "photographer" will have
> > so little respect over © copyrights. I bet if somebody lifted his images
> > off of pBase and posted them elsewhere, Richard Anderson, would be the
> > first to fire off a DMCA NOI.
>
> Why would ANYONE lift one of his images (if they even recognised them for
> what they are)?
>
> --
> Neil
> Linux counter 335851
> delete ‘l’ and reverse ‘r’ and’a’

I guess they figured since it was made with the camera they were
selling, and it was impressive (to them) it would help them sell said
camera.

On Apr 9, 6:52*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 7, 11:10 am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> >> RichA wrote:
> >> > People where so enamoured of the DR, they must have missed this.
> >> > Not the improvement we might have expected. In RAW, noise is
> >> > noticeably worse than the D5000, and worse in chroma than the old
> >> > D300. I wondered when I shot night shots if it didn't seem a bit high
> >> > for such a new camera. You can see noise in the sky at 100 ISO in
> >> > some of the shots I've taken.
> >> > Dpreview cut example: 1600 ISO RAWs
>
> >> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133715388
>
> >> How does it compare to your GH2?
>
> >I don't have a GH2, I borrowed one from a friend to compare them.
> >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/d7000_gh2_noise_tests
>
> If your D7000 is really as bad as you claim (as a D7000 user I find
> them slightly difficult to take seriously) you should take it back for
> a refund and wait until Panasonic GH2 bodies are available again.
>
> You know it makes sense.

How bad did I say the noise was? I said "considerable" (compared to
current cameras) and said nothing about it being "bad."

On Apr 8, 7:05*am, Neil Ellwood <cral.elllwo...@btopenworld.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:08:58 -0400, Mike Stand wrote:
> > On 07/04/2011 10:45 AM, Rich wrote:
>
> >> Nonsense. *It's often to make an argument or point. *Unless you think
> >> every source used for an essay is the target of any said essay.
>
> > It is bizarre that somebody who claims to be a "photographer" will have
> > so little respect over © copyrights. I bet if somebody lifted his images
> > off of pBase and posted them elsewhere, Richard Anderson, would be the
> > first to fire off a DMCA NOI.
>
> Why would ANYONE lift one of his images (if they even recognised them for
> what they are)?
>
> --
> Neil
> Linux counter 335851
> delete ‘l’ and reverse ‘r’ and’a’

I never make any claims to fame regarding my photos. But I wouldn't
mind a link to yours.

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
>
> > RichA <> wrote:
> >> On Apr 6, 1:23 pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
> >> wrote:
> >> > RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> >> > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133715388
> >>
> >> That appears to be a gross violation of copyright law, and
> >> probably something you want to remove before they send you
> >> threatening letters.

Yes, I quite agree..."gross violation" is an apt description
of Richard Anderson, himself.

> > It's no different than using a passage from a book to do
> > a book report in school an citing the source. There is
> > no commercial interest. Net nanny.
>
> It is a *lot* different. Are you really that dumb? (Okay,
> that's a dumb question...)

In his case, it's a rhetorical one, too.

> Fair use is using a quote from the book *when* *the* *purpose*
> *is* *to* *analyze* *the* *same* *book*. If on the other hand
> you went to the library and found someone else's review and
> lifted any significant amount about that book... it would not
> be legal. Commercial interest has little if any significance
> on whether it is a violation, but might be important in
> determining damages due the owner.
>
> Plus you did not just cite the source, you copied it entirely
> to your own site. A gross violation!

Rich has no regard for such trivial matters, as copyright laws.

> Copyright protection is a seriously important issue to all
> photographers who use the Internet. Having some jerk that
> claims to be a photographer violating copyright law doesn't
> make it any easier for the rest of us to protect our own
> copyrighted materials. You seem to be such a jerk.

Why are you insulting all of the fine "jerks" of the world,
by associating them with Rich?

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>

Mike Stand wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> So when DPreview (the site Rich/RichA has so much disdain
> off) files a DMCA Notice of Infringement to pBase, what
> will happen?


Nothing at all. They'll quickly learn that Richard Anderson
is only an impoverished Toronto garbage collector, before
moving on to bigger game.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>