Latest marketing trick of lesser camera companies

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 17, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Feb 17, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Phil B. Guest

    On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:03:52 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 10-02-17 18:26 , Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2010-02-17 13:38:31 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >>
    >>> It does work. But if it's just to open another lame website, who
    >>> cares?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.evolve.com.my/

    >>
    >> So Olympus is going to have a Darwinian moment.
    >>
    >> Does this meant extinction is ahead?

    >
    >Evolution is not "survival of the fittest" (as is commonly assumed) but
    >best adaptation to local conditions. By setting a 4/3 course, they
    >limited the world in which they can survive.
    >
    >If Oly identify a niche within that world where they can prosper, then
    >they likely will - most especially if the niche is unoccupied and viable.
    >
    >Certainly there is a place for high quality, EVF, mirror-less cameras
    >and that is a niche that Oly can dominate (or at least live well) given
    >their lenses and the 4/3 format.
    >
    >That will shut them out of running with the 35mm pack, however.


    When that pack runs with limps and mange, it's sometimes best to leave the
    old and ancient pack behind to leave them to their final and determined
    destination in peace. Like the old polar-bear that insists on drowning from
    fatigue trying to reach a now non-existent iceberg while the young ones
    have started to adapt to a productive life on salmon-rich streams and
    hundreds of miles of seal-rookeries now on arctic shores.

    In the case of photography, the rest of the world is finding better ways
    that fully exploit the new digital technologies without all of last
    century's failing and opportunity-limiting mechanical dependencies that
    embrace the DSLR method of photography.



    Photographer Guide: Quick! That rare crane in flight is too far for your
    18-70mm lens. Change to the 200-400mm one! Now! Do it!

    <photographer-guide raises his super-zoom camera, click ... click ... click
    .... click ... click ...

    <fumbling-DSLR-photographer time passes, tic...tock...>

    Photographer Guide: Look! Now it's lit with the setting sunlight alongside
    the painted rocks! What a fantastic shot! A real award winner! HURRY!

    <photographer-guide, click, click, click, click, click, ...>

    <fumbling-DSLR-photographer time passes, tic...tock...tic...tock...>

    Photographer Guide: Hey man, the bird's long gone, you can stop trying to
    swap lenses now. Sorry that you're too slow with that DSLR and ancient
    interchangeable lens system. My last customer was using super-zoom cameras
    like I use and never missed one shot that I found for them. Even when the
    DSLR users did finally get a shot in time, those few shots were ruined by
    front and back-focusing problems. Better luck next time. I'll just let you
    buy some downsized prints of the dozen shots I managed to get while you
    were busy trying to change lenses. It's part of my courtesy package for
    beginner snapshooters that hire me. Don't feel too bad, you'll figure it
    all out one day. I know how much that expensive "Pro" gear means to <cough>
    "people" like you.

    <photographer-guide's private snicker and smile as he walks in front of the
    lost follower>
    Phil B., Feb 18, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 17, 8:03 pm, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > On 10-02-17 18:26 , Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > > On 2010-02-17 13:38:31 -0800, RichA <> said:

    >
    > >> It does work. But if it's just to open another lame website, who
    > >> cares?

    >
    > >>http://www.evolve.com.my/

    >
    > > So Olympus is going to have a Darwinian moment.

    >
    > > Does this meant extinction is ahead?

    >
    > Evolution is not "survival of the fittest" (as is commonly assumed) but
    > best adaptation to local conditions.  By setting a 4/3 course, they
    > limited the world in which they can survive.
    >


    Limited yes, but a niche they control. Better than a company like
    Pentax trying to compete in the APS world.
    RichA, Feb 18, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 17, 8:56 pm, Phil B. <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:03:52 -0500, Alan Browne
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On 10-02-17 18:26 , Savageduck wrote:
    > >> On 2010-02-17 13:38:31 -0800, RichA <> said:

    >
    > >>> It does work. But if it's just to open another lame website, who
    > >>> cares?

    >
    > >>>http://www.evolve.com.my/

    >
    > >> So Olympus is going to have a Darwinian moment.

    >
    > >> Does this meant extinction is ahead?

    >
    > >Evolution is not "survival of the fittest" (as is commonly assumed) but
    > >best adaptation to local conditions.  By setting a 4/3 course, they
    > >limited the world in which they can survive.

    >
    > >If Oly identify a niche within that world where they can prosper, then
    > >they likely will - most especially if the niche is unoccupied and viable..

    >
    > >Certainly there is a place for high quality, EVF, mirror-less cameras
    > >and that is a niche that Oly can dominate (or at least live well) given
    > >their lenses and the 4/3 format.

    >
    > >That will shut them out of running with the 35mm pack, however.

    >
    > When that pack runs with limps and mange, it's sometimes best to leave the
    > old and ancient pack behind to leave them to their final and determined
    > destination in peace. Like the old polar-bear that insists on drowning from
    > fatigue trying to reach a now non-existent iceberg while the young ones
    > have started to adapt to a productive life on salmon-rich streams and
    > hundreds of miles of seal-rookeries now on arctic shores.
    >
    > In the case of photography, the rest of the world is finding better ways
    > that fully exploit the new digital technologies without all of last
    > century's failing and opportunity-limiting mechanical dependencies that
    > embrace the DSLR method of photography.
    >
    > Photographer Guide: Quick! That rare crane in flight is too far for your
    > 18-70mm lens. Change to the 200-400mm one! Now! Do it!


    A real nature photographer wouldn't be sitting in a duck blind with an
    18-70mm attached to their camera.
    RichA, Feb 18, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Phil B. Guest

    On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:04:21 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Feb 17, 8:56 pm, Phil B. <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:03:52 -0500, Alan Browne
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >> >On 10-02-17 18:26 , Savageduck wrote:
    >> >> On 2010-02-17 13:38:31 -0800, RichA <> said:

    >>
    >> >>> It does work. But if it's just to open another lame website, who
    >> >>> cares?

    >>
    >> >>>http://www.evolve.com.my/

    >>
    >> >> So Olympus is going to have a Darwinian moment.

    >>
    >> >> Does this meant extinction is ahead?

    >>
    >> >Evolution is not "survival of the fittest" (as is commonly assumed) but
    >> >best adaptation to local conditions.  By setting a 4/3 course, they
    >> >limited the world in which they can survive.

    >>
    >> >If Oly identify a niche within that world where they can prosper, then
    >> >they likely will - most especially if the niche is unoccupied and viable.

    >>
    >> >Certainly there is a place for high quality, EVF, mirror-less cameras
    >> >and that is a niche that Oly can dominate (or at least live well) given
    >> >their lenses and the 4/3 format.

    >>
    >> >That will shut them out of running with the 35mm pack, however.

    >>
    >> When that pack runs with limps and mange, it's sometimes best to leave the
    >> old and ancient pack behind to leave them to their final and determined
    >> destination in peace. Like the old polar-bear that insists on drowning from
    >> fatigue trying to reach a now non-existent iceberg while the young ones
    >> have started to adapt to a productive life on salmon-rich streams and
    >> hundreds of miles of seal-rookeries now on arctic shores.
    >>
    >> In the case of photography, the rest of the world is finding better ways
    >> that fully exploit the new digital technologies without all of last
    >> century's failing and opportunity-limiting mechanical dependencies that
    >> embrace the DSLR method of photography.
    >>
    >> Photographer Guide: Quick! That rare crane in flight is too far for your
    >> 18-70mm lens. Change to the 200-400mm one! Now! Do it!

    >
    >A real nature photographer wouldn't be sitting in a duck blind with an
    >18-70mm attached to their camera.


    Who said anything about sitting and being stationary? Did you not read the
    part about walking in that little story? And when was it that you ever did
    any wildlife photography? Post just one of your examples to prove it. I
    don't care how bad it is, just prove that you even own a camera. Not all
    wildlife is 200 meters away. Nor is all wildlife the size of a crane or
    larger. Some wildlife is the size of a colorful spider on a wildflower
    blossom and even much smaller. You know absolutely nothing about wildlife
    photography. Correction, you know absolutely nothing about
    photography--period. In fact, you know absolutely nothing about the real
    world.
    Phil B., Feb 18, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:18:41 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2010-02-17 18:04:21 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> On Feb 17, 8:56 pm, Phil B. <> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:03:52 -0500, Alan Browne
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>> On 10-02-17 18:26 , Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>> On 2010-02-17 13:38:31 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >>>
    >>>>>> It does work. But if it's just to open another lame website, who
    >>>>>> cares?
    >>>
    >>>>>> http://www.evolve.com.my/
    >>>
    >>>>> So Olympus is going to have a Darwinian moment.
    >>>
    >>>>> Does this meant extinction is ahead?
    >>>
    >>>> Evolution is not "survival of the fittest" (as is commonly assumed) but
    >>>> best adaptation to local conditions.  By setting a 4/3 course, they
    >>>> limited the world in which they can survive.
    >>>
    >>>> If Oly identify a niche within that world where they can prosper, then
    >>>> they likely will - most especially if the niche is unoccupied and viable

    >> .
    >>>
    >>>> Certainly there is a place for high quality, EVF, mirror-less cameras
    >>>> and that is a niche that Oly can dominate (or at least live well) given
    >>>> their lenses and the 4/3 format.
    >>>
    >>>> That will shut them out of running with the 35mm pack, however.
    >>>
    >>> When that pack runs with limps and mange, it's sometimes best to leave th

    >> e
    >>> old and ancient pack behind to leave them to their final and determined
    >>> destination in peace. Like the old polar-bear that insists on drowning fr

    >> om
    >>> fatigue trying to reach a now non-existent iceberg while the young ones
    >>> have started to adapt to a productive life on salmon-rich streams and
    >>> hundreds of miles of seal-rookeries now on arctic shores.
    >>>
    >>> In the case of photography, the rest of the world is finding better ways
    >>> that fully exploit the new digital technologies without all of last
    >>> century's failing and opportunity-limiting mechanical dependencies that
    >>> embrace the DSLR method of photography.
    >>>
    >>> Photographer Guide: Quick! That rare crane in flight is too far for your
    >>> 18-70mm lens. Change to the 200-400mm one! Now! Do it!

    >>
    >> A real nature photographer wouldn't be sitting in a duck blind with an
    >> 18-70mm attached to their camera.

    >
    >...but the one you are responding to, would be sitting in that blind
    >with his much vaunted P&S.


    You have room to talk don't you. Post your wildlife photography again so we
    can all have another hearty laugh about what a beginner snapshooter you
    are. Proving that you don't even know how to expose for the light during
    daylight properly, let alone framing for composition or anything else. All
    that money you wasted on gear and traveling expenses too. To only return
    with that total crap you shot from a tour-bus and posted for our free
    amusement. Even getting your beloved camera stolen from you. One that you
    think automatically makes you some kind of a "pro". LOL! ****, was that
    ever was funny!

    DO IT AGAIN!

    LOL!
    LOL!, Feb 18, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Guest

    On Feb 17, 6:26 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > So Olympus is going to have a Darwinian moment.
    > Does this meant extinction is ahead?


    Olympus DID develop some recent good concepts - such as the "bridge"
    cameras in the film era. Too bad for Olympus that they just served as
    R&D for competitors on that when the digicam era came. Sony's DSC-
    D770 "bridge" digicam cost $1,800 retail when it came out - and was a
    damn capable digicam solution back when dSLRs still were hopelessly
    high priced.

    http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
    , Feb 18, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:28:42 -0600, LOL! <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:18:41 -0800, Savageduck
    ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2010-02-17 18:04:21 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Feb 17, 8:56 pm, Phil B. <> wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:03:52 -0500, Alan Browne
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>> On 10-02-17 18:26 , Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>> On 2010-02-17 13:38:31 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> It does work. But if it's just to open another lame website, who
    >>>>>>> cares?
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.evolve.com.my/
    >>>>
    >>>>>> So Olympus is going to have a Darwinian moment.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Does this meant extinction is ahead?
    >>>>
    >>>>> Evolution is not "survival of the fittest" (as is commonly assumed) but
    >>>>> best adaptation to local conditions.  By setting a 4/3 course, they
    >>>>> limited the world in which they can survive.
    >>>>
    >>>>> If Oly identify a niche within that world where they can prosper, then
    >>>>> they likely will - most especially if the niche is unoccupied and viable
    >>> .
    >>>>
    >>>>> Certainly there is a place for high quality, EVF, mirror-less cameras
    >>>>> and that is a niche that Oly can dominate (or at least live well) given
    >>>>> their lenses and the 4/3 format.
    >>>>
    >>>>> That will shut them out of running with the 35mm pack, however.
    >>>>
    >>>> When that pack runs with limps and mange, it's sometimes best to leave th
    >>> e
    >>>> old and ancient pack behind to leave them to their final and determined
    >>>> destination in peace. Like the old polar-bear that insists on drowning fr
    >>> om
    >>>> fatigue trying to reach a now non-existent iceberg while the young ones
    >>>> have started to adapt to a productive life on salmon-rich streams and
    >>>> hundreds of miles of seal-rookeries now on arctic shores.
    >>>>
    >>>> In the case of photography, the rest of the world is finding better ways
    >>>> that fully exploit the new digital technologies without all of last
    >>>> century's failing and opportunity-limiting mechanical dependencies that
    >>>> embrace the DSLR method of photography.
    >>>>
    >>>> Photographer Guide: Quick! That rare crane in flight is too far for your
    >>>> 18-70mm lens. Change to the 200-400mm one! Now! Do it!
    >>>
    >>> A real nature photographer wouldn't be sitting in a duck blind with an
    >>> 18-70mm attached to their camera.

    >>
    >>...but the one you are responding to, would be sitting in that blind
    >>with his much vaunted P&S.

    >
    >You have room to talk don't you. Post your wildlife photography again so we
    >can all have another hearty laugh[...]


    I wouldn't blame him at all if he didn't post his pics after that. As
    far as laughs are concerned, how could anyone possibly follow you?
    John A., Feb 18, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:46:37 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2010-02-17 18:28:42 -0800, LOL! <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:18:41 -0800, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> ---------------------------------------------------------------

    >
    >> You have room to talk don't you. Post your wildlife photography again so we
    >> can all have another hearty laugh about what a beginner snapshooter you
    >> are.

    >
    >Naah! as you say you are not worthy.
    >
    >...but then again I would be just lowering myself to your level, and
    >who am I to deny you, and everybody else here a laugh. So go ahead and
    >LOL!
    >http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_3634Aw.jpg


    When are you going to learn how to use that meter of yours? What's the
    matter? No live-view preview so you'd know that you are underexposing by a
    whole EV? Oversaturate your greens much? How come they are so blue? Don't
    know how to use a polarizing filter to prevent that? Of course not. Simple
    beginner snapshooter's mistakes.

    LOL!

    >http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_3707Aw.jpg


    Sheesh, that bokeh looks like paint-by-numbers. Where'd you get that piece
    of shit camera and lens? Wow, a 4-legger tamed on a tour-route slowly
    ambling past your tour bus. You probably had time to swap lenses for that
    one. Again you can't even level your images. The vanishing-point of the
    ground and the off-center mass of the body show clearly that it's off by a
    good 5 degrees or more. Ever notice that you don't know shit about
    photography nor the natural world? Post some more badly tilted pink granite
    mountains and pink clouds lit by the light of noon. Was that ever funny
    too.

    LOL!

    >
    >
    >> Proving that you don't even know how to expose for the light during
    >> daylight properly, let alone framing for composition or anything else.

    >
    >Probably, I am such a beginner snap shooter after all. (I have been
    >...er, snap shooting for about 56 years now.)


    Some people never get beyond being a perpetual snapshooting beginner.
    Especially those that always think it's the camera's fault.

    LOL!

    >
    >> All
    >> that money you wasted on gear and traveling expenses too. To only return
    >> with that total crap you shot from a tour-bus and posted for our free
    >> amusement.

    >
    >Money I wasted, nope, I have truly wasted money on some things, but
    >that gear and my travel expenses were not on that list. The trip to
    >Africa was not specifically for photography.


    Shouldn't have taken your camera then. You only embarrassed yourself with
    it by posting the results online. I bet you think these are your best ones
    too.

    LOL!

    >
    >"Total crap" maybe, maybe not, that is subjective. From a tour bus, no.
    >I have travelled to Africa and other parts of the World many times,
    >and I have good friends there.
    >I have kayaked in the Okowango, down the Limpopo,hiked in many
    >different African wilderness areas such as the Tzitzikama Forest and
    >Etosha, and yes I have driven through some National parks such as
    >Kruger. I have also been the guest of farmers in areas with large
    >numbers of varied wildlife in Namibia, South Africa, Zambia & Zimbabwe
    >(though I wouldn't recommend a trip to Zimbabwe today.)


    What a wasted life, nothing to show for it.

    LOL!

    >
    >"for your free amusement" why wouldn't I?
    >You sure don't have the gonads to post anything to entertain or amuse anybody.
    >


    You've seen over 20 of my photos in the last year. Each and every time I
    post, what I consider my discards for example proofs only, the only ones
    worth posting to the net for fools like you, it shuts you up for at least a
    good week when you realize that my throw-aways and test shots are far
    better than your keepers.

    LOL!

    >> Even getting your beloved camera stolen from you.

    >
    >Stolen, yes. Replaced, yes. Beloved, that is stretching it. I own 3 P&S
    >digital cameras, 2 DSLR's, & 3 35mm cameras, they are all just cameras.
    >


    What a waste of camera gear. When are you going to learn how to use them?

    We're waiting.

    If you were smart, you'd donate them to someone younger who shows any signs
    of talent. You know, someone not like you. Someone who can actually put
    them to good use.

    LOL!

    >> One that you
    >> think automatically makes you some kind of a "pro".

    >
    >Unlike you, I have never claimed to be any sort of "Pro" photographer,
    >show me where I have.


    Oh really? Then quit handing out your lame-assed advice and contradicting
    those that know more than you ever will in 5 of your lifetimes. You clearly
    know nothing about how to use a camera properly, you posted even more
    proofs just now. It's time for you to shut the **** up, permanently.

    LOL!
    LOL!, Feb 18, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:59:43 -0600, Rich <> wrote:

    >Phil B. <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:04:21 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Feb 17, 8:56 pm, Phil B. <> wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:03:52 -0500, Alan Browne
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>> >On 10-02-17 18:26 , Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> >> On 2010-02-17 13:38:31 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>> >>> It does work. But if it's just to open another lame website, who
    >>>> >>> cares?
    >>>>
    >>>> >>>http://www.evolve.com.my/
    >>>>
    >>>> >> So Olympus is going to have a Darwinian moment.
    >>>>
    >>>> >> Does this meant extinction is ahead?
    >>>>
    >>>> >Evolution is not "survival of the fittest" (as is commonly assumed)
    >>>> >but best adaptation to local conditions.  By setting a 4/3 course,
    >>>> >they limited the world in which they can survive.
    >>>>
    >>>> >If Oly identify a niche within that world where they can prosper,
    >>>> >then they likely will - most especially if the niche is unoccupied
    >>>> >and viable.
    >>>>
    >>>> >Certainly there is a place for high quality, EVF, mirror-less
    >>>> >cameras and that is a niche that Oly can dominate (or at least live
    >>>> >well) given their lenses and the 4/3 format.
    >>>>
    >>>> >That will shut them out of running with the 35mm pack, however.
    >>>>
    >>>> When that pack runs with limps and mange, it's sometimes best to
    >>>> leave the old and ancient pack behind to leave them to their final
    >>>> and determined destination in peace. Like the old polar-bear that
    >>>> insists on drowning from fatigue trying to reach a now non-existent
    >>>> iceberg while the young ones have started to adapt to a productive
    >>>> life on salmon-rich streams and hundreds of miles of seal-rookeries
    >>>> now on arctic shores.
    >>>>
    >>>> In the case of photography, the rest of the world is finding better
    >>>> ways that fully exploit the new digital technologies without all of
    >>>> last century's failing and opportunity-limiting mechanical
    >>>> dependencies that embrace the DSLR method of photography.
    >>>>
    >>>> Photographer Guide: Quick! That rare crane in flight is too far for
    >>>> your 18-70mm lens. Change to the 200-400mm one! Now! Do it!
    >>>
    >>>A real nature photographer wouldn't be sitting in a duck blind with an
    >>>18-70mm attached to their camera.

    >>
    >> Who said anything about sitting and being stationary? Did you not read
    >> the part about walking in that little story? And when was it that you
    >> ever did any wildlife photography? Post just one of your examples to
    >> prove it.

    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/96007794
    >


    Look at that! A dime-a-dozen raccoon playing in the garbage on your
    back-porch, totally ruined with flash, underexposed, and lousy composition
    to boot! A photo that any child with an Instamatic could have shot. You
    must have worked so hard to get that snapshot. You must also be so proud to
    have shared that to try to impress anyone.

    I'm SO impressed, but not how you might have hoped.

    Keep trying! You so-very-experienced and advanced "domesticated 'wildlife'
    photographer", you. Maybe you should post your kitty photos next time.

    LOL!

    BTW: The only one that's afraid in your "no fear.jpg" photo is little ol'
    insecure YOU. Otherwise you wouldn't have even thought of titling it that.
    I hand-feed wild ones, they even let me play with their cubs when they
    return every spring. They trust me that much. You'd be surprised when
    you've learned to project a level of trust to all wildlife, how many
    photo-ops that can provide during your lifetime with all manner of wildlife
    species. Hunter friends have even stopped by to marvel at the returning
    throng of raccoons every spring after I've told them about it. They'll sit
    on my steps with the youngsters crawling all over them (after I've gotten
    the mothers to understand and trust the strange new human), playing
    tug-o-war with their shoe-laces, etc. Six DVDs full of raccoon photos and
    occasional video-clips of adults and cubs' antics so far, no need to ever
    take more. Not even one ruined with flash. And you're proud of just ONE
    Instamatic-level flash-ruined snapshot?

    LOL!

    Heheh.. reminds me of one video-clip I got last summer in the middle of the
    night using IR video, two cubs play-fighting for about 8 minutes, and the
    one under attack finally got fed-up and dunked the attacker upside-down in
    a vat of water. I still LOL every time I play that video-clip. Was thinking
    of sending it into FHV for the $100,000 prize but then I realized, just
    what kind of people would end up benefiting from it. Even $100,000 isn't
    worth that.

    LOL!

    ****, but is that video-clip ever funny. Showed it to a few friends and
    they're the ones that encouraged me to send it in, after they stopped
    laughing. Too bad humanity is like it is--worthless. Their loss.

    LOL!
    LOL!, Feb 18, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Feb 17, 8:33 pm, LOL! <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:46:37 -0800, Savageduck
    >


    {Snipped]

    > You've seen over 20 of my photos in the last year. Each and every time I
    > post, what I consider my discards for example proofs only, the only ones
    > worth posting to the net for fools like you, it shuts you up for at least a
    > good week when you realize that my throw-aways and test shots are far
    > better than your keepers.
    >


    Read as 'I post discards because they are the best I can do.'

    Once again, I will post the lighting setup and suggested subject
    matter and an exmplar image and I am pretty sure you won't be able to
    shoot it. On the other hand, any number of people on this forum with
    an entry level DSLR, a kit lens and no special equipment will be able
    to.

    It should be easy wth your equipment and expertise and since things
    will be specified for you, you won't have to worry about anyone
    stealing your awesome creative ideas. There is one caveat only - the
    RAW file must be posted also. We're talking straight capture - no PS
    involved.

    Of course, if you're really, really good, I could just post an image
    and you can, from the fullness of your understanding, undertand what's
    going on and shoot it.

    Which would you prefer?

    Vance
    Vance, Feb 18, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:14:32 -0800 (PST), Vance <>
    wrote:

    >On Feb 17, 8:33 pm, LOL! <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:46:37 -0800, Savageduck
    >>

    >
    >{Snipped]
    >
    >> You've seen over 20 of my photos in the last year. Each and every time I
    >> post, what I consider my discards for example proofs only, the only ones
    >> worth posting to the net for fools like you, it shuts you up for at least a
    >> good week when you realize that my throw-aways and test shots are far
    >> better than your keepers.
    >>

    >
    >Read as 'I post discards because they are the best I can do.'
    >
    >Once again, I will post the lighting setup and suggested subject
    >matter and an exmplar image and I am pretty sure you won't be able to
    >shoot it. On the other hand, any number of people on this forum with
    >an entry level DSLR, a kit lens and no special equipment will be able
    >to.
    >
    >It should be easy wth your equipment and expertise and since things
    >will be specified for you, you won't have to worry about anyone
    >stealing your awesome creative ideas. There is one caveat only - the
    >RAW file must be posted also. We're talking straight capture - no PS
    >involved.
    >
    >Of course, if you're really, really good, I could just post an image
    >and you can, from the fullness of your understanding, undertand what's
    >going on and shoot it.
    >
    >Which would you prefer?
    >
    >Vance


    Prefer? LOL! I prefer that I always do what *I* want. At all times.

    Do you honestly think that I would ever kowtow to your fool troll's bait?

    NOBODY ever controls me, you fucked up fool.

    Feel lucky that you even got this much response to your puerile
    manipulation attempt.

    LOL!
    LOL!, Feb 18, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Feb 18, 2:29 am, LOL! <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:14:32 -0800 (PST), Vance <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Feb 17, 8:33 pm, LOL! <> wrote:
    > >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:46:37 -0800, Savageduck

    >
    > >{Snipped]

    >
    > >> You've seen over 20 of my photos in the last year. Each and every time I
    > >> post, what I consider my discards for example proofs only, the only ones
    > >> worth posting to the net for fools like you, it shuts you up for at least a
    > >> good week when you realize that my throw-aways and test shots are far
    > >> better than your keepers.

    >
    > >Read as 'I post discards because they are the best I can do.'

    >
    > >Once again, I will post the lighting setup and suggested subject
    > >matter and an exmplar image and I am pretty sure you won't be able to
    > >shoot it.  On the other hand, any number of people on this forum with
    > >an entry level DSLR, a kit lens and no special equipment will be able
    > >to.

    >
    > >It should be easy wth your equipment and expertise and since things
    > >will be specified for you, you won't have to worry about anyone
    > >stealing your awesome creative ideas.  There is one caveat only - the
    > >RAW file must be posted also.  We're talking straight capture - no PS
    > >involved.

    >
    > >Of course, if you're really, really good, I could just post an image
    > >and you can, from the fullness of your understanding, undertand what's
    > >going on and shoot it.

    >
    > >Which would you prefer?

    >
    > >Vance

    >
    > Prefer? LOL! I prefer that I always do what *I* want. At all times.
    >
    > Do you honestly think that I would ever kowtow to your fool troll's bait?
    >
    > NOBODY ever controls me, you fucked up fool.
    >
    > Feel lucky that you even got this much response to your puerile
    > manipulation attempt.
    >
    > LOL!- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    'NOBODY ever controls me ...'

    Let's see ...

    Hypothesis under test:

    If I post something lke this, he will have to respond in this way.

    Hypothesis empirically tested and proved.

    That is being controlled. I will leave you with your personal conceit
    as an act of kindness, but I got exactly what I wanted out of you and
    on demand. I was so easy that just doing it once was boring.

    Puerile? Nice word. You don't see it used that often, except by the
    very literate and those that think sprinkling their basically coarse
    and mostly innarticulate discourse with a few words of less common
    usage will impress or intimidate when they can't make their argument.
    Puerile? Not really. Blatant and successful.

    For it to have been an attempt, however characterized, you would have
    had to keep your mouth shut.

    You've been so had.

    Vance
    Vance, Feb 18, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:21:01 -0800 (PST), Vance <>
    wrote:

    >On Feb 18, 2:29 am, LOL! <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:14:32 -0800 (PST), Vance <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >On Feb 17, 8:33 pm, LOL! <> wrote:
    >> >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:46:37 -0800, Savageduck

    >>
    >> >{Snipped]

    >>
    >> >> You've seen over 20 of my photos in the last year. Each and every time I
    >> >> post, what I consider my discards for example proofs only, the only ones
    >> >> worth posting to the net for fools like you, it shuts you up for at least a
    >> >> good week when you realize that my throw-aways and test shots are far
    >> >> better than your keepers.

    >>
    >> >Read as 'I post discards because they are the best I can do.'

    >>
    >> >Once again, I will post the lighting setup and suggested subject
    >> >matter and an exmplar image and I am pretty sure you won't be able to
    >> >shoot it.  On the other hand, any number of people on this forum with
    >> >an entry level DSLR, a kit lens and no special equipment will be able
    >> >to.

    >>
    >> >It should be easy wth your equipment and expertise and since things
    >> >will be specified for you, you won't have to worry about anyone
    >> >stealing your awesome creative ideas.  There is one caveat only - the
    >> >RAW file must be posted also.  We're talking straight capture - no PS
    >> >involved.

    >>
    >> >Of course, if you're really, really good, I could just post an image
    >> >and you can, from the fullness of your understanding, undertand what's
    >> >going on and shoot it.

    >>
    >> >Which would you prefer?

    >>
    >> >Vance

    >>
    >> Prefer? LOL! I prefer that I always do what *I* want. At all times.
    >>
    >> Do you honestly think that I would ever kowtow to your fool troll's bait?
    >>
    >> NOBODY ever controls me, you fucked up fool.
    >>
    >> Feel lucky that you even got this much response to your puerile
    >> manipulation attempt.
    >>
    >> LOL!- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    >'NOBODY ever controls me ...'
    >
    >Let's see ...
    >
    >Hypothesis under test:
    >
    >If I post something lke this, he will have to respond in this way.
    >
    >Hypothesis empirically tested and proved.
    >
    >That is being controlled. I will leave you with your personal conceit
    >as an act of kindness, but I got exactly what I wanted out of you and
    >on demand. I was so easy that just doing it once was boring.
    >
    >Puerile? Nice word. You don't see it used that often, except by the
    >very literate and those that think sprinkling their basically coarse
    >and mostly innarticulate discourse with a few words of less common
    >usage will impress or intimidate when they can't make their argument.
    >Puerile? Not really. Blatant and successful.
    >
    >For it to have been an attempt, however characterized, you would have
    >had to keep your mouth shut.
    >
    >You've been so had.
    >
    >Vance


    Yes, you just keep on believing that.

    LOL!
    LOL!, Feb 18, 2010
    #14
    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. Proctor
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    489
    Paolo Pizzi
    Jan 30, 2004
  2. Norris Watkins

    MegaPixel specification, a marketing trick ?

    Norris Watkins, Feb 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    100
    Views:
    1,705
  3. Doonie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    384
    Doonie
    Aug 31, 2003
  4. Wedge
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    470
    Wedge
    Mar 31, 2007
  5. RichA

    Cost-cutting in lesser brands rampant

    RichA, Jun 29, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    427
    Robert Coe
    Jul 3, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page