Palace of Fine Arts Morning

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John Navas, Dec 15, 2007.

  1. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. The golden dome and tea-colored water in the first photo is great. I
    haven't seen a Palace of Fine arts photo like that before.


    I also got 4 new regular expressions for my ad filter. That's a nasty
    hosting site - NSFW because of porn and malware banners.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Dec 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    Thanks. I was just out for an early morning hike, and the magical
    lighting sent me sprinting back to my car for my camera.
    What "porn and malware"? Seriously. I'm just seeing a single banner
    with a series of ads, including Circuit City and Disney.
     
    John Navas, Dec 16, 2007
    #3
  4. John Navas

    Paul Allen Guest

    Seriously. I've looked at your stuff twice, and both times was
    presented with an ad for "hot dates" in my home town. Sleazy.
    I wouldn't use that hosting company if I cared about my reputation.

    Paul Allen
     
    Paul Allen, Dec 16, 2007
    #4
  5. John Navas

    Charles Guest


    With Firefox I don't get those. It may be the pop-up blocker built
    in. Might be a reason for the difference.

    When I go to the posted link I get something about facebook, and if I
    click on the larger size for the picture I get some spam add.
    Nothing NSFW though.
     
    Charles, Dec 16, 2007
    #5
  6. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    I'm only using it for free hosting of full res sample images that can be
    accessed from Usenet and web forums. My serious hosting is elsewhere.
    And I fail to see how it could possibly have any impact on my reputation
    -- the Internet is chock full of ads, many far worse than these. In any
    event the original claim wasn't sleaze -- it was "porn and malware", and
    I've see none of either -- have you?
     
    John Navas, Dec 16, 2007
    #6
  7. I turned off the regex filters that I added and viewed the page a few
    times. It looks like Mediafire is using a large pool of banner
    advertisers. It's a risky practice because you never know what will be
    served.

    I didn't get what looked like a virus fake virus warning again but I got
    some other winners:
    http://passion.com/go/page/banner_js_728x90&pid=g893865-pmo&no_click=1
    http://cdn.euroclick.com/contents/39600/WaxOffLaptops_728x90.gif
    http://cdn.euroclick.com/contents/34677/EarthquakeWarning_728x90.gif

    I would never visit www.mediafire.com at work. The "hot girls" banner
    could be overlooked but the fake virus warning banner is for malware.
    Despite many protections I don't dare visit sites with embedded malware
    or anything looking like it at work. It would be risking my career and
    financial future.

    A personal photography site can be served from a home connection. I
    serve a few personal web sites off DSL and it has only been saturated in
    a few cases. The worst bandwidth eater is
    http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/Nerd/Propane/ because people search for
    "Mushroom Cloud" every time Bush makes a big decision. I move popular
    photos to my ISP's hosting space when needed. Traffic is low now
    because I haven't had time to catch up on my photo processing. It looks
    like 7500 RAW files are waiting to be looked it. About 400 of them are
    Halong Bay day and night photos taken with a loose eyelash under the
    shutter :p
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Dec 16, 2007
    #7
  8. Congratulations, John. I didn't think you could do much worse than
    this thread:

    http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread/de26718714365448

    ... but you have. Your avoidance of issues and disappearance when
    things get tough is duly noted.
    Ahem??? The 'large' image is a whopping 768 x 614 pixels. And is
    quite unsharp, whether from a poor original or bad resampling. So the
    'effort' appears to be somewhat wasted. You can't download any larger
    version without accepting what that site wants to throw at you. I,
    and - it would seem to any rational person by reading these responses
    - *everyone else* would rather not do that, given they are on just
    about every popup blocking list. But you know best!
    Frankly, as soon as someone makes a comment about popups, you can
    halve the number of visits you'll get. When you then make an
    amateurish, ill-informed retort that you don't see the problem, then
    even less folk are going to visit, because it is clear you haven't a
    clue. But having seen your reputation, perhaps you are more correct
    than you think.
    So you are going to argue about the semantics of porn/malware versus
    'sleaze', rather than admit you have a problem?

    Actually, having made the mistake of looking at a little of your
    posting history on modem newsgroups, I am not in the least surprised.

    Carry on, John.

    (O:
     
    mark.thomas.7, Dec 16, 2007
    #8
  9. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

     
    John Navas, Dec 16, 2007
    #9
  10. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    How childish. I got busy in the real world and just didn't have time to
    keep on with the increasingly pointless and repetitive back and forth.
    You're as far off the mark on this as on your other comments. There's a
    large Download Image button. It's hard to miss but apparently you did.
    The rest of your post is just childish insults, which I'm not going to
    dignify with a response.
     
    John Navas, Dec 16, 2007
    #10
  11. John Navas

    TH O Guest

    If your job can't secure their PCs against "embedded malware" in banner
    ads, then the IT staff is incompetent and responsible, not unsuspecting
    users that surf to an otherwise harmless web page.
     
    TH O, Dec 16, 2007
    #11
  12. John Navas

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Pity it's not sharper, even with the sharpening artifacts.
    Still, it should be good for a nice 5x7.

    I'd go back another day and have another go at it.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 16, 2007
    #12
  13. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    It actually made an excellent 8x10. :)
    Be my guest. Post it here. Talk is cheap.
     
    John Navas, Dec 16, 2007
    #13
  14. John Navas

    Phil Guest

    Seems like a lot of uneccessary chatter over a mediocre image.

    BTW the "Panasonic DMC-FZB(and several others)" is highly impressive.
    I'm inviting all the neigbors over this evening to share with the how
    hip you are.
     
    Phil, Dec 16, 2007
    #14
  15. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    Now that the dust has settled I can't resist noting how little relevant
    signal about the image was posted as compared to all the irrelevant
    noise, and how everyone missed that (a) the image was shot wide open at
    1/10 second with ISO pushed up to 200 (hand-held), and (b) the image was
    corrected for perspective distortion (and rotation). It's a testament
    to the effectiveness of the image stabilization, and that it turned out
    so well given all the challenges is remarkable.
     
    John Navas, Dec 18, 2007
    #15
  16. John Navas

    Ray Fischer Guest

    If you've got ... "flexible" standards.
    Yours especially so.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 18, 2007
    #16
  17. So here's a quick summary of the criticisms:

    Kevin McMurtrie:
    I also got 4 new regular expressions for my ad filter. That's a nasty
    hosting site - NSFW because of porn and malware banners.

    Paul Allen:
    Seriously. I've looked at your stuff twice, and both times was
    presented with an ad for "hot dates" in my home town. Sleazy.
    I wouldn't use that hosting company if I cared about my reputation.

    Charles:
    ...if I click on the larger size for the picture I get some spam add.

    Ray Fischer:
    Pity it's not sharper, even with the sharpening artifacts.
    Still, it should be good for a nice 5x7.
    I'd go back another day and have another go at it.

    Phil:
    Seems like a lot of unnecessary chatter over a mediocre image.
    BTW the "Panasonic DMC-FZB(and several others)" is highly impressive.
    I'm inviting all the neigbors over this evening to share with them how
    hip you are.

    If it wuz me, I'd be gettin' the hint.

    (Careful, John - don't dignify this with a response...)
     
    mark.thomas.7, Dec 18, 2007
    #17
  18. John Navas

    Guest Guest

    one reason there was so little 'relevant noise' was that there wasn't
    all that much to say. it wasn't very sharp and riddled with artifacts.
    either that or the viewers were busy dating hot girls in their
    neighborhood and didn't have time to respond. :)
     
    Guest, Dec 18, 2007
    #18
  19. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    Thanks for proving my point. :)
     
    John Navas, Dec 18, 2007
    #19
  20. The point being that it wasn't very sharp, riddled with artifacts, and
    hosted on a site that offered sleaze?

    If so, we are all now in agreement.

    Next.
     
    mark.thomas.7, Dec 19, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.