D-MAC = GEORGE PREDDY !

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Oct 6, 2007.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Long-time readers of these groups will remember George Preddy, the
    troll who always used to tout Sigma cameras until he was finally run
    off in shame. Well, it turns out that Preddy has remained here all
    along in the form of one Douglas St. James MacDonald. I suspected it
    for a long time, but when Doug posted the pic of his butt-ugly cat the
    other day I remembered the infamous Preddy Cat.

    http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/POD/06-09-07.htm

    Done in by a pussy. Ain't the first time that's ever happened.
    Still got the old SD-9, Douggie?
     
    Annika1980, Oct 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    I forgot to mention what tipped me off. Usually, when someone busts D-
    Mac's ass on something he goes apeshit and comes back frothing at the
    mouth and attacking that person. This is a pattern that anyone paying
    attention has probably noticed.

    Well ever since the other day after I mentioned that D-Mac's cat
    looked like the Preddy Cat, he's come out firing at me with both
    barrels, even threatening to re-post his Annika1980.com site with my
    pics that he stole from me. He's even dragged my name out in posts
    that had nothing to do with me.

    As Mike Vick says, "The bit dog barks the loudest."

    D-Mac, you are nothing if not predictable.
     
    Annika1980, Oct 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:29:00 -0700, Annika1980 <> wrote:

    >I forgot to mention what tipped me off. Usually, when someone busts D-
    >Mac's ass on something he goes apeshit and comes back frothing at the
    >mouth and attacking that person. This is a pattern that anyone paying
    >attention has probably noticed.
    >
    >Well ever since the other day after I mentioned that D-Mac's cat
    >looked like the Preddy Cat, he's come out firing at me with both
    >barrels, even threatening to re-post his Annika1980.com site with my
    >pics that he stole from me. He's even dragged my name out in posts
    >that had nothing to do with me.
    >
    >As Mike Vick says, "The bit dog barks the loudest."
    >
    >D-Mac, you are nothing if not predictable.
    >
    >
    >


    Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
    it's going totally off topic.

    The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

    Try to eat some more red-herring, it's still not going to make you a
    photographer worth mentioning to anyone.
     
    nelson_franklin, Oct 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin <> wrote:
    >
    > Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
    > it's going totally off topic.
    >
    > The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.


    I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!

    Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original
     
    Annika1980, Oct 6, 2007
    #4
  5. On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:26:49 -0700, Annika1980 <> wrote:

    >On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
    >> it's going totally off topic.
    >>
    >> The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

    >
    >I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!
    >
    >Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:



    I'd go look, but I don't have the time to waste on some useless attention whore,
    so I'll just do what I normally do when replying to all doing the same as you,

    <worthless URL snipped>

    I've already seen your photography in the past. None of it has ever shown any
    signs of why I should waste my time on any new ones from you. From what I read
    from others your new photos haven't improved in the least, probably even became
    worse, so there's no reason to bother on anything you've posted since then. Con
    some other sucker who doesn't know anything about photography into trying to
    praise your crap. You're barking up the wrong tree. I know what qualifies for
    decent photography. Yours isn't it.
     
    nelson_franklin, Oct 6, 2007
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Guest

    On Oct 6, 12:26 am, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
    > > it's going totally off topic.

    >
    > > The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

    >
    > I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!
    >
    > Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original



    I truly hope you don't listen to such rubbish that comes from people
    who are jealous "armchair quarterbacks". I urge these critics to
    compare your work with some of the top wildlife photographers on
    National Georgraphic. But then these naysayers wear blinders and
    refuse to see. Bret you have grown so much over the past years into a
    professional. It is astounding, and I am not alone with this fact.
    Helen
     
    , Oct 6, 2007
    #6
  7. On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:11:53 -0700, wrote:

    >On Oct 6, 12:26 am, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >> On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
    >> > it's going totally off topic.

    >>
    >> > The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

    >>
    >> I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!
    >>
    >> Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original

    >
    >
    >I truly hope you don't listen to such rubbish that comes from people
    >who are jealous "armchair quarterbacks". I urge these critics to
    >compare your work with some of the top wildlife photographers on
    >National Georgraphic. But then these naysayers wear blinders and
    >refuse to see. Bret you have grown so much over the past years into a
    >professional. It is astounding, and I am not alone with this fact.
    >Helen


    Ah good, you found one. Just as I said:

    "Con some other sucker who doesn't know anything about photography into trying
    to praise your crap."
     
    nelson_franklin, Oct 6, 2007
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Guest

    On Oct 6, 1:22 am, nelson_franklin <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:11:53 -0700, wrote:
    > >On Oct 6, 12:26 am, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > >> On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin <> wrote:

    >
    > >> > Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so now
    > >> > it's going totally off topic.

    >
    > >> > The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

    >
    > >> I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!

    >
    > >> Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original

    >
    > >I truly hope you don't listen to such rubbish that comes from people
    > >who are jealous "armchair quarterbacks". I urge these critics to
    > >compare your work with some of the top wildlife photographers on
    > >National Georgraphic. But then these naysayers wear blinders and
    > >refuse to see. Bret you have grown so much over the past years into a
    > >professional. It is astounding, and I am not alone with this fact.
    > >Helen

    >
    > Ah good, you found one. Just as I said:
    >
    > "Con some other sucker who doesn't know anything about photography into trying
    > to praise your crap."- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I haven't had the opportunity to see your work. How about posting
    some of your images?
    Helen
     
    , Oct 6, 2007
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Matthew Winn Guest

    On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:26:49 -0700, Annika1980 <>
    wrote:

    > Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original


    I can take that picture with a point and shoot:

    http://i21.tinypic.com/2eyb6kk.jpg (114 KB)

    Just as good as yours. Actually, it's a bit dark. Fortunately the P&S
    can take care of that:

    http://i24.tinypic.com/16jectw.jpg (54 KB)

    There you are: a picture many point and shoot users would be proud to
    have taken.

    (Note: the curvature is in the lens, not the subject. Point and shoots
    rule: I had to pay £499 to get a non-rectilinear lens on my FSLR.)

    --
    Matthew Winn
    [If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
     
    Matthew Winn, Oct 6, 2007
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Harvest Man Guest

    On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 10:17:01 +0100, Matthew Winn <*@matthewwinn.me.urk> wrote:

    >On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:26:49 -0700, Annika1980 <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >> Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:
    >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original

    >
    >I can take that picture with a point and shoot:
    >
    >http://i21.tinypic.com/2eyb6kk.jpg (114 KB)
    >
    >Just as good as yours. Actually, it's a bit dark. Fortunately the P&S
    >can take care of that:
    >
    >http://i24.tinypic.com/16jectw.jpg (54 KB)
    >
    >There you are: a picture many point and shoot users would be proud to
    >have taken.
    >
    >(Note: the curvature is in the lens, not the subject. Point and shoots
    >rule: I had to pay £499 to get a non-rectilinear lens on my FSLR.)


    Most anyone who owns a Sony P&S camera can take much better photos than that,
    without having to cannibalize their camera to do so too. IR mode is built in as
    part of a normal function of the camera. You can take IR photos hand-held with a
    Sony P&S camera, day or night, even in total darkness it matters not. No need to
    even put it on a tripod for long shutter speeds like most every other camera
    requires. I have a ton of IR photography. At least my IR photography show some
    semblance of composition, something of interest. This reminds me of those idiots
    that think if they turn their meaningless snapshots into B&W it'll be a work of
    art. The same is true of some that think an IR capable camera will make their
    lousy photography into something work looking at. Quite frankly I don't know any
    respectable photographer that would offer an image like Annika just did and
    expect to be praised for it. A snapshot like that is used for testing the
    camera, maybe, but as something worth displaying publicly? They know they'd be
    laughed at for something like Annika just posted.

    I was just looking at some of my IR photography yesterday, some test shots I was
    doing when comparing different filters to use with the Sony. You have to cut
    down the IR levels in daylight otherwise there's too much and easily overexposes
    the image. This is what makes doing hand-held IR photography so easy with the
    Sony P&S. The photos are nothing special, just test shots of foliage and dark
    skies against glaring white clouds. At least my test shots show some pleasing
    composition compared to what he just posted.

    This photo of his was just a joke, right? It's got to be. I can't think of any
    other reason someone would bother posting a photo like that than to waste
    everyone's time.

    Fess-up Annika, this was a joke, right?
     
    Harvest Man, Oct 6, 2007
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Guest

    On Oct 6, 7:19 am, Harvest Man <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 10:17:01 +0100, Matthew Winn <*> wrote:
    > >On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:26:49 -0700, Annika1980 <>
    > >wrote:

    >
    > >> Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:
    > >>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original

    >
    > >I can take that picture with a point and shoot:

    >
    > >http://i21.tinypic.com/2eyb6kk.jpg (114 KB)

    >
    > >Just as good as yours. Actually, it's a bit dark. Fortunately the P&S
    > >can take care of that:

    >
    > >http://i24.tinypic.com/16jectw.jpg (54 KB)

    >
    > >There you are: a picture many point and shoot users would be proud to
    > >have taken.

    >
    > >(Note: the curvature is in the lens, not the subject. Point and shoots
    > >rule: I had to pay £499 to get a non-rectilinear lens on my FSLR.)

    >
    > Most anyone who owns a Sony P&S camera can take much better photos than that,
    > without having to cannibalize their camera to do so too. IR mode is built in as
    > part of a normal function of the camera. You can take IR photos hand-held with a
    > Sony P&S camera, day or night, even in total darkness it matters not. No need to
    > even put it on a tripod for long shutter speeds like most every other camera
    > requires. I have a ton of IR photography. At least my IR photography show some
    > semblance of composition, something of interest. This reminds me of those idiots
    > that think if they turn their meaningless snapshots into B&W it'll be a work of
    > art. The same is true of some that think an IR capable camera will make their
    > lousy photography into something work looking at. Quite frankly I don't know any
    > respectable photographer that would offer an image like Annika just did and
    > expect to be praised for it. A snapshot like that is used for testing the
    > camera, maybe, but as something worth displaying publicly? They know they'd be
    > laughed at for something like Annika just posted.
    >
    > I was just looking at some of my IR photography yesterday, some test shots I was
    > doing when comparing different filters to use with the Sony. You have to cut
    > down the IR levels in daylight otherwise there's too much and easily overexposes
    > the image. This is what makes doing hand-held IR photography so easy with the
    > Sony P&S. The photos are nothing special, just test shots of foliage and dark
    > skies against glaring white clouds. At least my test shots show some pleasing
    > composition compared to what he just posted.
    >
    > This photo of his was just a joke, right? It's got to be. I can't think of any
    > other reason someone would bother posting a photo like that than to waste
    > everyone's time.
    >
    > Fess-up Annika, this was a joke, right?



    Let's see some of your work. You claim it is good. Let us be the
    judge of that.
    In the meantime, shut up!
    BTW: no profile........hummmmm another sockpuppet of you-know-who
    perhaps?
    Helen
     
    , Oct 6, 2007
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Harvest Man Guest

    On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:13:34 -0700, wrote:

    >On Oct 6, 7:19 am, Harvest Man <> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 10:17:01 +0100, Matthew Winn <*> wrote:
    >> >On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:26:49 -0700, Annika1980 <>
    >> >wrote:

    >>
    >> >> Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:
    >> >>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original

    >>
    >> >I can take that picture with a point and shoot:

    >>
    >> >http://i21.tinypic.com/2eyb6kk.jpg (114 KB)

    >>
    >> >Just as good as yours. Actually, it's a bit dark. Fortunately the P&S
    >> >can take care of that:

    >>
    >> >http://i24.tinypic.com/16jectw.jpg (54 KB)

    >>
    >> >There you are: a picture many point and shoot users would be proud to
    >> >have taken.

    >>
    >> >(Note: the curvature is in the lens, not the subject. Point and shoots
    >> >rule: I had to pay £499 to get a non-rectilinear lens on my FSLR.)

    >>
    >> Most anyone who owns a Sony P&S camera can take much better photos than that,
    >> without having to cannibalize their camera to do so too. IR mode is built in as
    >> part of a normal function of the camera. You can take IR photos hand-held with a
    >> Sony P&S camera, day or night, even in total darkness it matters not. No need to
    >> even put it on a tripod for long shutter speeds like most every other camera
    >> requires. I have a ton of IR photography. At least my IR photography show some
    >> semblance of composition, something of interest. This reminds me of those idiots
    >> that think if they turn their meaningless snapshots into B&W it'll be a work of
    >> art. The same is true of some that think an IR capable camera will make their
    >> lousy photography into something work looking at. Quite frankly I don't know any
    >> respectable photographer that would offer an image like Annika just did and
    >> expect to be praised for it. A snapshot like that is used for testing the
    >> camera, maybe, but as something worth displaying publicly? They know they'd be
    >> laughed at for something like Annika just posted.
    >>
    >> I was just looking at some of my IR photography yesterday, some test shots I was
    >> doing when comparing different filters to use with the Sony. You have to cut
    >> down the IR levels in daylight otherwise there's too much and easily overexposes
    >> the image. This is what makes doing hand-held IR photography so easy with the
    >> Sony P&S. The photos are nothing special, just test shots of foliage and dark
    >> skies against glaring white clouds. At least my test shots show some pleasing
    >> composition compared to what he just posted.
    >>
    >> This photo of his was just a joke, right? It's got to be. I can't think of any
    >> other reason someone would bother posting a photo like that than to waste
    >> everyone's time.
    >>
    >> Fess-up Annika, this was a joke, right?

    >
    >
    >Let's see some of your work. You claim it is good. Let us be the
    >judge of that.
    >In the meantime, shut up!
    >BTW: no profile........hummmmm another sockpuppet of you-know-who
    >perhaps?
    >Helen


    With a mouth like that I hope it has more uses than for communicating. Otherwise
    someone should just duct-tape it shut and show you to the door. Why do I get the
    feeling that they already have, many times.

    Here's one of the tests I was doing with some filters on my P&S Sony the other
    day, taken hand-held.
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2314/1495921691_a582592cbe_o.jpg Something like
    this isn't even worth printing. A commonplace IR snapshot. The photographers
    that I know would agree with me. How anyone could take pride in an even lesser
    snapshot like Annika posted boggles the mind. If that's the best that he can do
    with a DSLR I'm glad I didn't waste any money on one.

    Besides, the very least that your little internet buddy could have done was
    level his photo. Not being able to see how crooked it is just shows how bad his
    eyesight and composition skills are, not to mention your own for praising
    something that mediocre and crooked.That must be the cause of why his
    photography is so bad if he can't even see something that obvious. Either that
    or your ass-kissing is distracting him. That lonely and desperate are you? It's
    easy to see why. Try putting your mouth where it'll do some good next time. Get
    some knee pads. That would help both of you. It would keep him away from his
    camera and not wasting our time, while keep your mouth full and shut. Plusses
    all around.
     
    Harvest Man, Oct 6, 2007
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Allen Guest

    wrote:
    > On Oct 6, 7:19 am, Harvest Man <> wrote:


    > Let's see some of your work. You claim it is good. Let us be the
    > judge of that.
    > In the meantime, shut up!
    > BTW: no profile........hummmmm another sockpuppet of you-know-who
    > perhaps?
    > Helen
    >

    Yep, Captain Easy yet again.
     
    Allen, Oct 6, 2007
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    JohnR66 Guest

    Isn't it a better idea just to ignore the group trolls?
    It is lost time from behind the viewfinder.
    John
     
    JohnR66, Oct 6, 2007
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    Guest

    On Oct 6, 8:59 am, Harvest Man <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:13:34 -0700, wrote:
    > >On Oct 6, 7:19 am, Harvest Man <> wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 10:17:01 +0100, Matthew Winn <*> wrote:
    > >> >On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:26:49 -0700, Annika1980 <>
    > >> >wrote:

    >
    > >> >> Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:
    > >> >>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original

    >
    > >> >I can take that picture with a point and shoot:

    >
    > >> >http://i21.tinypic.com/2eyb6kk.jpg(114 KB)

    >
    > >> >Just as good as yours. Actually, it's a bit dark. Fortunately the P&S
    > >> >can take care of that:

    >
    > >> >http://i24.tinypic.com/16jectw.jpg(54 KB)

    >
    > >> >There you are: a picture many point and shoot users would be proud to
    > >> >have taken.

    >
    > >> >(Note: the curvature is in the lens, not the subject. Point and shoots
    > >> >rule: I had to pay £499 to get a non-rectilinear lens on my FSLR.)

    >
    > >> Most anyone who owns a Sony P&S camera can take much better photos than that,
    > >> without having to cannibalize their camera to do so too. IR mode is built in as
    > >> part of a normal function of the camera. You can take IR photos hand-held with a
    > >> Sony P&S camera, day or night, even in total darkness it matters not. No need to
    > >> even put it on a tripod for long shutter speeds like most every other camera
    > >> requires. I have a ton of IR photography. At least my IR photography show some
    > >> semblance of composition, something of interest. This reminds me of those idiots
    > >> that think if they turn their meaningless snapshots into B&W it'll be a work of
    > >> art. The same is true of some that think an IR capable camera will make their
    > >> lousy photography into something work looking at. Quite frankly I don't know any
    > >> respectable photographer that would offer an image like Annika just did and
    > >> expect to be praised for it. A snapshot like that is used for testing the
    > >> camera, maybe, but as something worth displaying publicly? They know they'd be
    > >> laughed at for something like Annika just posted.

    >
    > >> I was just looking at some of my IR photography yesterday, some test shots I was
    > >> doing when comparing different filters to use with the Sony. You have to cut
    > >> down the IR levels in daylight otherwise there's too much and easily overexposes
    > >> the image. This is what makes doing hand-held IR photography so easy with the
    > >> Sony P&S. The photos are nothing special, just test shots of foliage and dark
    > >> skies against glaring white clouds. At least my test shots show some pleasing
    > >> composition compared to what he just posted.

    >
    > >> This photo of his was just a joke, right? It's got to be. I can't think of any
    > >> other reason someone would bother posting a photo like that than to waste
    > >> everyone's time.

    >
    > >> Fess-up Annika, this was a joke, right?

    >
    > >Let's see some of your work. You claim it is good. Let us be the
    > >judge of that.
    > >In the meantime, shut up!
    > >BTW: no profile........hummmmm another sockpuppet of you-know-who
    > >perhaps?
    > >Helen

    >
    > With a mouth like that I hope it has more uses than for communicating. Otherwise
    > someone should just duct-tape it shut and show you to the door. Why do I get the
    > feeling that they already have, many times.
    >
    > Here's one of the tests I was doing with some filters on my P&S Sony the other
    > day, taken hand-held.http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2314/1495921691_a582592cbe_o.jpgSomething like
    > this isn't even worth printing. A commonplace IR snapshot. The photographers
    > that I know would agree with me. How anyone could take pride in an even lesser
    > snapshot like Annika posted boggles the mind. If that's the best that he can do
    > with a DSLR I'm glad I didn't waste any money on one.
    >
    > Besides, the very least that your little internet buddy could have done was
    > level his photo. Not being able to see how crooked it is just shows how bad his
    > eyesight and composition skills are, not to mention your own for praising
    > something that mediocre and crooked.That must be the cause of why his
    > photography is so bad if he can't even see something that obvious. Either that
    > or your ass-kissing is distracting him. That lonely and desperate are you? It's
    > easy to see why. Try putting your mouth where it'll do some good next time. Get
    > some knee pads. That would help both of you. It would keep him away from his
    > camera and not wasting our time, while keep your mouth full and shut. Plusses
    > all around.




    It only figures you have to resort to such vile language and sexual
    inuendos.
    I'm sorry but your example lacks any substance. Where are those
    dramatic clouds? The shadows are too dark making your version too
    contrasty with very uneven composition.
    Bret is indeed a good friend of mine and a very talented
    photographer. Keep your sexual inuendos in your own warped mind. If
    you hate Bret's work so much than give good constructive critique,
    because when you resort to name calling and inuendos, it just shows
    the class of people you, Allen and a handful of others really are.
     
    , Oct 6, 2007
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography so
    >> now
    >> it's going totally off topic.
    >>
    >> The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.

    >
    > I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!
    >
    > Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't take:


    Uh, why couldn't a modified P&S take that pic the sme way as your modified
    D60?
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 6, 2007
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "nelson_franklin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:11:53 -0700, wrote:
    >
    >>On Oct 6, 12:26 am, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >>> On Oct 5, 11:47 pm, nelson_franklin <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> > Oh look, it's not getting enough attention for its crappy photography
    >>> > so now
    >>> > it's going totally off topic.
    >>>
    >>> > The typical behavior of an attention whore with no talent.
    >>>
    >>> I'll have you know I am a very talented attention whore!
    >>>
    >>> Here's one more shot your crappy P&S can't
    >>> take:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86743558/original

    >>
    >>
    >>I truly hope you don't listen to such rubbish that comes from people
    >>who are jealous "armchair quarterbacks". I urge these critics to
    >>compare your work with some of the top wildlife photographers on
    >>National Georgraphic. But then these naysayers wear blinders and
    >>refuse to see. Bret you have grown so much over the past years into a
    >>professional. It is astounding, and I am not alone with this fact.
    >>Helen

    >
    > Ah good, you found one. Just as I said:


    Or any sock puppet?

    >
    > "Con some other sucker who doesn't know anything about photography into
    > trying
    > to praise your crap."
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 6, 2007
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    Harvest Man Guest

    On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:13:42 -0700, wrote:

    >Where are those
    >dramatic clouds? The shadows are too dark making your version too
    >contrasty with very uneven composition.


    They clouds are in the other direction. I thought I'd post one from the
    direction with scenery similar to the scenery in Annika's that you erroneously
    think is so good.

    Your critique of this proves what I stated even more. You know nothing about
    composition let alone photography, either that or your eyesight and monitor are
    as bad as Annika's. Thanks for also pointing out that you don't even read what
    you reply to, you just spout garbage for attention. You sound just like all the
    other typical lonely and desperate women on the internet. I said these were
    _t_e_s_t_ photos to test some filters, not even worth printing.

    Now go troll someone else for attention. You and Annika make the perfect couple.
    A couple of internet trolls. The only thing that you managed to do was goad
    someone into proving Annika completely wrong, probably for the thousandth time.
    Some friend you are. A P&S camera can take IR shots better than a DSLR, the very
    thing that he said couldn't be done. It can be done better, faster, more
    inexpensively, and more easily with a common P&S camera. I just proved it.

    Now apologize to your sad excuse of a photographer, Annika, for revealing him to
    be the fool that he is, again.

    Don't bother explaining to me why I should help him with constructive criticism.
    He claims he's a pro, the best there is, someone like that shouldn't need any
    help. (excuse me while I laugh a bit) Or is that your way of finally admitting
    that his photography really is as poor as all others say it is, but you're too
    lonely and desperate to be honest with him. That would be my guess. It's the
    only explanation of why anyone would take pity on someone that bad at
    photography.

    Has the humane society stopped in to get rid of some of those cats that you keep
    collecting and are starting to smell up the neighborhood? Because no humans
    would ever want to be near you? Who and what you are is becoming all too clear.

    Go find your next unsuspecting internet victim you useless troll. I'm done with
    you.
     
    Harvest Man, Oct 6, 2007
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    nelson_franklin wrote:

    > I don't have the time to waste on some useless attention whore,


    You're the biggest attention whore I've seen of late.

    > .. why I should waste my time ..


    You certainly waste enough time on senseless posts and changing your
    online name in an attempt to escape filters.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 6, 2007
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    Guest

    On Oct 6, 9:47 am, Harvest Man <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:13:42 -0700, wrote:
    > >Where are those
    > >dramatic clouds? The shadows are too dark making your version too
    > >contrasty with very uneven composition.

    >
    > They clouds are in the other direction. I thought I'd post one from the
    > direction with scenery similar to the scenery in Annika's that you erroneously
    > think is so good.
    >
    > Your critique of this proves what I stated even more. You know nothing about
    > composition let alone photography, either that or your eyesight and monitor are
    > as bad as Annika's. Thanks for also pointing out that you don't even read what
    > you reply to, you just spout garbage for attention. You sound just like all the
    > other typical lonely and desperate women on the internet. I said these were
    > _t_e_s_t_ photos to test some filters, not even worth printing.
    >
    > Now go troll someone else for attention. You and Annika make the perfect couple.
    > A couple of internet trolls. The only thing that you managed to do was goad
    > someone into proving Annika completely wrong, probably for the thousandth time.
    > Some friend you are. A P&S camera can take IR shots better than a DSLR, the very
    > thing that he said couldn't be done. It can be done better, faster, more
    > inexpensively, and more easily with a common P&S camera. I just proved it.
    >
    > Now apologize to your sad excuse of a photographer, Annika, for revealing him to
    > be the fool that he is, again.
    >
    > Don't bother explaining to me why I should help him with constructive criticism.
    > He claims he's a pro, the best there is, someone like that shouldn't need any
    > help. (excuse me while I laugh a bit) Or is that your way of finally admitting
    > that his photography really is as poor as all others say it is, but you're too
    > lonely and desperate to be honest with him. That would be my guess. It's the
    > only explanation of why anyone would take pity on someone that bad at
    > photography.
    >
    > Has the humane society stopped in to get rid of some of those cats that you keep
    > collecting and are starting to smell up the neighborhood? Because no humans
    > would ever want to be near you? Who and what you are is becoming all too clear.
    >
    > Go find your next unsuspecting internet victim you useless troll. I'm done with
    > you.


    You are as ignorant as your posts. Lonely and pathetic? ROFL! I
    have more friends than you can count. I have no cats, as I'm hardly
    home. I LIVE my life. But why explain something to someone who will
    not only defame me but spread lies because I simply have a friend that
    he hates. You know nothing about how he has helped ME while I was on
    the edge.
    Sir, and I use that term very loosely, YOU ARE ANOTHER OGRE WHO IS
    DEAD TO ME.
     
    , Oct 6, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Harry Da Hat

    Uploading George Preddy's File

    Harry Da Hat, Nov 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    90
    Views:
    1,721
    George Preddy
    Nov 21, 2003
  2. Arvin Chang

    Most Sigma SD-9 Owners are not like George Preddy

    Arvin Chang, Nov 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    355
    Mike Latondresse
    Nov 15, 2003
  3. Nonnaho

    Where's Steve ( A.K.A. George Preddy )?

    Nonnaho, Dec 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    375
    Larry Lynch
    Dec 18, 2003
  4. Dan Sullivan

    Sigma/Foveon/ George Preddy newsgroup?

    Dan Sullivan, Dec 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    625
    David S Lund
    Dec 20, 2003
  5. R2D2

    George Preddy Exposed!

    R2D2, Dec 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    557
    Bill M
    Dec 24, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page