Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sailor lost on beach!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 12:54:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The suggestion I made a few weeks ago that a Panasonic P&S might capture
detail in shadows past when a (Canon) DSLR sensor stops recording
information would seem to hold up in view of some recent pics I took in
ultra strong sunlight.

I suppose almost everyong with a digital camera knows that the contrast
range from full black and full white is pretty well impossible to meter
for. Wedding Photographers use "fill flash" to avoid blowing highlights
in a wedding dress and blacking out the groom's dark suit.

Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those
conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I
just used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here.
http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm

Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.

More about : sailor lost beach

July 20, 2005 12:54:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"From Foto Ryadia's Studio" <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote in message
news:42dcdc06$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> The suggestion I made a few weeks ago that a Panasonic P&S might capture
> detail in shadows past when a (Canon) DSLR sensor stops recording
> information would seem to hold up in view of some recent pics I took in
> ultra strong sunlight.
>
> I suppose almost everyong with a digital camera knows that the contrast
> range from full black and full white is pretty well impossible to meter
> for. Wedding Photographers use "fill flash" to avoid blowing highlights in
> a wedding dress and blacking out the groom's dark suit.
>
> Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those
> conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I just
> used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here.
> http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm
>
You make a claim but don't show any proof other than your opinion that the
FZ20 is better than a dSLR. Well they both use a sensor so how can your
claim about blown highlights. I contend you just don't understand
photography. The fact you put a copyright notice on a "snapshot" that has no
commercial value will support this claim.

Bad photo busy background. Trying to show a historical event, bet those
tourists weren't there the first time.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 12:54:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"From Foto Ryadia's Studio" <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote in message
news:42dcdc06$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> The suggestion I made a few weeks ago that a Panasonic P&S might capture
> detail in shadows past when a (Canon) DSLR sensor stops recording
> information would seem to hold up in view of some recent pics I took in
> ultra strong sunlight.
>
> I suppose almost everyong with a digital camera knows that the contrast
> range from full black and full white is pretty well impossible to meter
> for. Wedding Photographers use "fill flash" to avoid blowing highlights in
> a wedding dress and blacking out the groom's dark suit.
>
> Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those
> conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I just
> used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here.
> http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm
>
> Douglas,
> Zero care factor for negative responses
> from anonymous posters.

This would only be valid if you had a shot from the 1D taken at the same
time, otherwise it's just a nice shot that proves nothing.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 2:05:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <42dcdc06$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
From Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:

>The suggestion I made a few weeks ago that a Panasonic P&S might capture
>detail in shadows past when a (Canon) DSLR sensor stops recording
>information would seem to hold up in view of some recent pics I took in
>ultra strong sunlight.
>
>I suppose almost everyong with a digital camera knows that the contrast
>range from full black and full white is pretty well impossible to meter
>for. Wedding Photographers use "fill flash" to avoid blowing highlights
>in a wedding dress and blacking out the groom's dark suit.
>
>Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those
>conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I
>just used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here.
>http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm

Both the shadows and highlights of this image are solid 8*8 jpeg blocks
of color, and the highlights are blown.

What exactly is your point?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 2:16:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

From Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:

> Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those
> conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I
> just used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here.
> http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm

A shot with blown highlights and no shadow detail. Great example! It
really illustrates the camera's ability to deal with wide dynamic range!

I bet the 1D could have done much better, if you knew how to use it.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 5:57:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy posted a very accurate review of your image, Douglas, with no
hint of a personal insult. His observation on the (lack of) skill of
the operator was spot on. I note that *any* questioning of your
'skills' results in a blast of profanity - some people just refuse to
learn.

What sort of 'technician' would shoot a mainly white-clad person on a
sunlit sandy beach in.. wait for it.. program mode, no exposure
compensation, and partial metering...? And then you post the horribly
(but *correctly*) underexposed result (that's what you *told* the
camera to do), along with a histogram that should have taught you a
valuable lesson. And then, of course, you blame the equipment.

When your wrong choice of exposure methodology was pointed out, you
respond with insults befitting the playground again.


Any questions, folks?

Take another look while it lasts - check out his comments, the EXIF
data, and histogram:

http://www.ryadia.com/flinders-20D.htm

I've grabbed a copy of the page for non-commercial use (O; - anyone
who wants to see it after Douglas inevitably pulls it, just ask here...
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 9:53:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Darrell wrote:
>
> You make a claim but don't show any proof other than your opinion that the
> FZ20 is better than a dSLR. Well they both use a sensor so how can your
> claim about blown highlights. I contend you just don't understand
> photography. The fact you put a copyright notice on a "snapshot" that has no
> commercial value will support this claim.
>
> Bad photo busy background. Trying to show a historical event, bet those
> tourists weren't there the first time.
>
>
Very well put Darrell.
And your contribution to photography is?



--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
July 20, 2005 9:53:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Foto Ryadia's Studio" <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote in message
news:42dd5a37$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Darrell wrote:
>>
>> You make a claim but don't show any proof other than your opinion that
>> the FZ20 is better than a dSLR. Well they both use a sensor so how can
>> your claim about blown highlights. I contend you just don't understand
>> photography. The fact you put a copyright notice on a "snapshot" that has
>> no commercial value will support this claim.
>>
>> Bad photo busy background. Trying to show a historical event, bet those
>> tourists weren't there the first time.
>>
>>
> Very well put Darrell.
> And your contribution to photography is?
>
Doesn't matter what my contribution is. You put an example up for public
discussion. You claim you 1D is bad compared to your FZ-20. My observation
is based on a "snapshot" that you claim proves a point that is not backed up
with a similar image. Your previous example had the Canon shot grossly
underexposed...
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 2:40:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
news:mK2dnXGvpp-vekHfRVn-qg@rogers.com...
>
> "From Foto Ryadia's Studio" <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote in message
> news:42dcdc06$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > The suggestion I made a few weeks ago that a Panasonic P&S might capture
> > detail in shadows past when a (Canon) DSLR sensor stops recording
> > information would seem to hold up in view of some recent pics I took in
> > ultra strong sunlight.
> >
> > I suppose almost everyong with a digital camera knows that the contrast
> > range from full black and full white is pretty well impossible to meter
> > for. Wedding Photographers use "fill flash" to avoid blowing highlights
in
> > a wedding dress and blacking out the groom's dark suit.
> >
> > Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those
> > conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I
just
> > used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here.
> > http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm
> >
> You make a claim but don't show any proof other than your opinion that the
> FZ20 is better than a dSLR. Well they both use a sensor so how can your
> claim about blown highlights. I contend you just don't understand
> photography. The fact you put a copyright notice on a "snapshot" that has
no
> commercial value will support this claim.

Commericial value is decided by the marketplace, not by one guy sitting at
his computer swilling one-too-many brewskis letting his
I-AM-THE-GOD-OF-PHOTOGRAPHY temporal-lobe-neuron impluses play out over his
keyboard. After all, there might be someone out there who's been waiting
his whole life for a picture of a man in a Colonial uniform operating a
sextant (or whatever). I wouldn't buy the shot, but, hey, it's a big world.
Indeed, I'm always surprised by the kinds of things bought and sold on Ebay.
Somewhere, someone is probably willing to part with good money for mouse
placenta.

> Bad photo busy background. Trying to show a historical event, bet those
> tourists weren't there the first time.

I guess that's rule #53 of the photographer's composition handbook: Thou
shalt not take a shot with a busy background, even if it's the only shot
thou hast? Maybe the guy was trying to capture the "event" of the
re-enactment, in which case the tourists in the background are essential.
Or maybe it was a contract job for which the client demanded, "..and I want
a dork in a ball cap decorating every picture, too!" Who knows? And what's
that got to with the dynamic range, anyway?

It is a bit cheeky to attempt a comparison between two differents types of
cameras using a single photo from the camera you liked the best, though I
also get tired of the "DSLR's are so great you can get great exposures right
through the lens cap as long as you shoot RAW!" type of post, too.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 4:19:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

>
>
> Both the shadows and highlights of this image are solid 8*8 jpeg blocks
> of color, and the highlights are blown.
>
> What exactly is your point?

Trolling again are we John?
I'm awfully curious how you came to the conclusion that an image I
posted for display - as opposed to one I post as a file for
downloading... Which has been captured in TIFF mode and had all the EXIF
data stripped from it during 30% compression and conversion to a JPG
....then saved at something like 20% of it's original size... Can yield
such a wealth of information for your critique... Care to enlighten us?


--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 5:23:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> From Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those
>>conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I
>>just used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here.
>>http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm
>
>
> A shot with blown highlights and no shadow detail. Great example! It
> really illustrates the camera's ability to deal with wide dynamic range!
>
> I bet the 1D could have done much better, if you knew how to use it.
>

Ahh yes. You just press the button, don't you Jeremy?
No 1D that day but a 20D. Sorry, the 1D was doing wedding.
http://www.ryadia.com/flinders-20D.htm

Now before you start... Apples with apples, someone said. OK so the
unfair advantage the 20D has is RAW mode capture. I minimized that
advantage when I converted it to a JPEG with "Irfanview" and added my
name then resized it and compressed it, exactly the same as I did with
the Panasonic image. For all intent and purpose these images were
brought to the Internet in exactly the same way. Program mode on both
cameras. You could print the FZ20 pic but not the 20D one without editing.

Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 5:24:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:

> No 1D that day but a 20D. Sorry, the 1D was doing wedding.
> http://www.ryadia.com/flinders-20D.htm

Looks underexposed. Not surprising, given the subject; bright white in
the center of the frame, and sand lit by the sun, with partial metering.
You've lost shadow detail because of that.

So, basically, what I said was correct. You underexposed the shot and
are blaming the loss of shadow detail on the camera.

I suppose if you want to complain about the ability of the automatic
exposure system to deal with a scene like this, versus your p+s camera,
then you'd have a point. Your p+s blew the highlights and lost shadow
detail, but produced (near as can be determined from what you've posted)
a better out-of-camera exposure than the SLR. The SLR underexposed the
shot by, what do you figure, a full stop?

In addition, your statement, "If this image were to be brightened to
bring up the shadows, the highlights would blow out" is not correct.
You should learn a little about post-processing. Of course, for this
particular image, you can't bring all of the shadows up because they
are clipped, according to the histogram, which is a different thing.

But what is particularly amusing is that you specifically said that
the p+s shot was an example of holding both highlight and shadow
detail, when in that shot the camera did neither. What it did was
produce a better (more pleasing) out-of-camera exposure at the
expense of both highlight and shadow detail.

So when you're wondering why people (even those not in the habit of
unthinkingly defending Canon, like me) are saying you're wrong, it's
because, from everything you're posting, the faults you are seeing
appear to be from operator error. Or, more fairly, operator
inexperience or lack of skill with the equipment in question.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 5:24:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

(insulting, blathering reply snipped)

Zero care factor, huh? All that for an allegedly anonymous poster..?

Zero skill, more like it. All of that verbiage was to justify Douglas'
*choice* of no exposure compensation, Program mode, and partial
metering on a semi-pro DSLR, shooting on a sunny, white-sandy beach
(although you would never guess). Gee, I bet his weddings are
interesting... Just as well there is one born every minute - that's
the only way he could possibly make a buck out of photography (his
business only operates out of a PO Box, I note - a suitable shopfront
for a pretender like Douglas).. And Douglas has a bit of a reputation
for bending the truth - how many frangipani prints have you sold again?
(giggle) And now that your gallery is password protected (smirk),
your sales may drop a little don't you think?


Read *all* the replies, Douglas. Anyone supporting you? Do you think
they are all me? They, and I, are all wrong, you're right as usual.
Don't know why we just don't hand the group over to your inimitable
expertise.. (Although perhaps it's best if we stay around - because
99% of the posts you make are of the 'look at me' type.)


Anyway, keep dreamin'. Because *none* of your work is going to the
Pool Room.


(Last sentence will only mean something to those who have seen the
classic Oz movie 'The Castle'.)

Remainder is offtopic, read at your peril..

PS - In regard to my 'defamation' (bwahahah! - see 'Enlarging Digital
Images' thread) - Douglas, unlike you, I don't bluff. I *have* sent a
letter to ASIC and cc'd to the Qld Office of Fair Trading. It quotes
your 'Graham Hunt' attempt to inflate the value of your alleged
'franchise', gives all the sordid details and IP traces, and I *fully*,
and happily, identify myself to them. Actually, I doubt if anything
much will come of it, as we all know your 'franchise', like your
business, and your photography skills, are just pipedreams. But you
keep smoking it.. and good luck. (O:
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 8:55:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

>
> So when you're wondering why people (even those not in the habit of
> unthinkingly defending Canon, like me) are saying you're wrong, it's
> because, from everything you're posting, the faults you are seeing
> appear to be from operator error. Or, more fairly, operator
> inexperience or lack of skill with the equipment in question.
>


Very well put Jeremy. Not many people (like you) are such total bigots
as to make a comment like: "1D could have done much better, if you knew
how to use it." when the EV range is outside what a 1D sensor can
capture by 4 stops. Absolutely brilliant stuff, Jeremy. Puts you right
up there with all the other Zealots who haven't got a clue.

What do you do? Not take the shot because the sun's out! Great stuff,
mate. Better stick to something you know about than post your load of
garbage. It only shows you for the idiot you are.

You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff and when I
did, get down to personal insults. What a piss poor example of human
trash you are. At least the other trolls spread their bullshit thinner
so it isn't as easily discovered.

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters and Jeremy Nixon's bullshit.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 8:55:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:

> Very well put Jeremy. Not many people (like you) are such total bigots
> as to make a comment like: "1D could have done much better, if you knew
> how to use it." when the EV range is outside what a 1D sensor can
> capture by 4 stops.

Actually, if you look back up the thread, what I said was, "I bet the 1D
could have done much better". That is, I've never used a 1D, so I can
only go on experience using other cameras, and cannot say definitively
that a 1D (or a 20D, for that matter) could do better. However, my bet
is that it could, and I would be very surprised if it could not.

> What do you do? Not take the shot because the sun's out!

No. What I would do is expose the shot properly, which anyone looking at
what you posted can tell that you didn't do. If I took the shot the way
you did, I would consider that I blew the shot. I wouldn't be trying to
blame it on the camera.

> You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff

What bluff? The shot was underexposed. That's not a bluff, that's what
you posted -- an underexposed shot accompanied by a histogram showing even
more clearly that it was underexposed. Have I misinterpreted the data
you presented? If so, someone else will surely point out where I went
wrong.

What you're saying here is that the amount of shadow detail you lost was
lost due to the inability of the camera to capture it. Yet the data you
posted says that you had quite a lot of headroom and that the picture was
underexposed -- that the picture *did not* capture the full range the
camera was capable of capturing in that scene. Operator error.

> and when I did, get down to personal insults.

I didn't do that, either. I said it was down to operator error, and that
you need to learn to use the equipment before you start blaming your faults
on it. That's not an insult; there's nothing wrong with not being an
expert. There's also nothing wrong, regardless of your level of experience,
with blowing a shot. It happens. Some of us try to learn from it. Others
blame the equipment.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 8:55:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11ds11bgcsth2a9@corp.supernews.com...
> Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:
>
>> Very well put Jeremy. Not many people (like you) are such total bigots
>> as to make a comment like: "1D could have done much better, if you knew
>> how to use it." when the EV range is outside what a 1D sensor can
>> capture by 4 stops.
>
> Actually, if you look back up the thread, what I said was, "I bet the 1D
> could have done much better". That is, I've never used a 1D, so I can
> only go on experience using other cameras, and cannot say definitively
> that a 1D (or a 20D, for that matter) could do better. However, my bet
> is that it could, and I would be very surprised if it could not.
>
>> What do you do? Not take the shot because the sun's out!
>
> No. What I would do is expose the shot properly, which anyone looking at
> what you posted can tell that you didn't do. If I took the shot the way
> you did, I would consider that I blew the shot. I wouldn't be trying to
> blame it on the camera.
>
>> You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff
>
> What bluff? The shot was underexposed. That's not a bluff, that's what
> you posted -- an underexposed shot accompanied by a histogram showing even
> more clearly that it was underexposed. Have I misinterpreted the data
> you presented? If so, someone else will surely point out where I went
> wrong.
>
> What you're saying here is that the amount of shadow detail you lost was
> lost due to the inability of the camera to capture it. Yet the data you
> posted says that you had quite a lot of headroom and that the picture was
> underexposed -- that the picture *did not* capture the full range the
> camera was capable of capturing in that scene. Operator error.
>
>> and when I did, get down to personal insults.
>
> I didn't do that, either. I said it was down to operator error, and that
> you need to learn to use the equipment before you start blaming your
> faults
> on it. That's not an insult; there's nothing wrong with not being an
> expert. There's also nothing wrong, regardless of your level of
> experience,
> with blowing a shot. It happens. Some of us try to learn from it.
> Others
> blame the equipment.

I suspect that Douglas will be the only person on the planet that is selling
his 1D to get a fleet of FZ20's to use in auto mode.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 12:11:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chrlz wrote:
> Jeremy posted a very accurate review of your image, Douglas, with no
> hint of a personal insult. His observation on the (lack of) skill of
> the operator was spot on. I note that *any* questioning of your
> 'skills' results in a blast of profanity - some people just refuse to
> learn.
>
> What sort of 'technician' would shoot a mainly white-clad person on a
> sunlit sandy beach in.. wait for it.. program mode, no exposure
> compensation, and partial metering...? And then you post the horribly
> (but *correctly*) underexposed result (that's what you *told* the
> camera to do), along with a histogram that should have taught you a
> valuable lesson. And then, of course, you blame the equipment.
>
> When your wrong choice of exposure methodology was pointed out, you
> respond with insults befitting the playground again.
>
>
> Any questions, folks?
>
> Take another look while it lasts - check out his comments, the EXIF
> data, and histogram:
>
> http://www.ryadia.com/flinders-20D.htm
>
> I've grabbed a copy of the page for non-commercial use (O; - anyone
> who wants to see it after Douglas inevitably pulls it, just ask here...
>

Troll is too kind a word for you Stevens. Vandal is more appropriate.
How lucky are you your net worth is not enough to recover the costs of
suing you for the defamation you posted about me? I might yet do it.

Examples of differences are the things neither you or any of your kind
ever post. No need to wonder why either with the responses you and Nixon
make. Too scared someone will give you a basting for your effort.

Not happy that I posted an unusual picture demonstrating the broad
contrast range a FZ20 can capture. No. He speculated then that If I
"knew how to use" my 1D I might get better results without him having a
clue what the EV range of the camera actually is. Bait and more bait.

As if that's not a troll. When I post a picture from a 20D, taken the
same way as the FZ's was, demonstrating you can't have highlight and
shadow detail when the (read Canon) sensor can't capture it ...and the
shot is metered for the highlights. You and he go on an attack about my
metering technique as if you actually have a clue yourself - which you
don't.

Not bad for couple of wannabes who've never owned the gear, used the
gear or even seen it close up except to maybe drool over it in a
magazine. Despite that, you're a couple of "experts" right enough. Just
see Jeremy now with his Fisheye lens getting a portrait into
perspective. LOL.

Anyone interested in discovering if the $800 FZ20 will do what they want
instead of a DSLR with many (often expensive)lenses will benefit from
seeing what they can expect to get from either one if used the way most
people would use their consumer cameras. In fact I'd say from the people
I see with DSLR s that they rely on 'full auto' (green box mode) more
often than any other mode.

Like your little DSLR Sony is a really hot toy with manual exposure too,
eh? Somewhere along the way you have to meter the light. I have a camera
that is promoted by it's manufacturer as being "state of the art" at
doing this... And just like your little plastic digicam, It's not.

Take a vote and see how many people use program mode on their cameras.
As if it's somehow a sin to buy a $2500 camera with an advanced exposure
program and actually use it to let the camera calculate an exposure of
an ever changing subject.

Do you think for one minute, Canon could justify the cost of one of
these things if you had to manually meter every scene? Wake up fool. If
it's there, it's there to be used and if it doesn't work and another
camera 1/3rd the price has the same function that does work, you'd have
people believe I'm grossly incompetent for showing that to them...
You're really are one sorry dude, Stevens.

Not every subject is tied to a mooring pole at Port Lincoln, you know.
You actually know what a histogram is?... That's a revelation. Now try
and use it while an event is in progress and cloud moving around from
overcast to bright sun. While you're at it, keep the white balance in
check too.

Watch your gear as you fight a bunch of other photographers for a shot
at the action. Go on, you can do it. Just take a shot. Check the
Histogram. Take another shot. fix the white balance. Take the final
one... Oh sorry the subject got up and went home! That's why I sell my
photos and you only dream about it, wanker.

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 12:11:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Foto Ryadia's Studio" <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote in message
news:42de2353$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> Not happy that I posted an unusual picture demonstrating the broad
> contrast range a FZ20 can capture.

You didn't demonstrate anything as pointed out by several people.

>
> Watch your gear as you fight a bunch of other photographers for a shot
> at the action. Go on, you can do it. Just take a shot. Check the
> Histogram. Take another shot. fix the white balance. Take the final
> one... Oh sorry the subject got up and went home! That's why I sell my
> photos and you only dream about it, wanker.
>

If you sell your photos I'm moving to Australia because I could become a
billionaire selling my photos down there.

Greg
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 12:11:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 7/20/05 8:39 AM, in article 11dss14mq0rppeb@corp.supernews.com, "G.T."
wrote:

>
> "Foto Ryadia's Studio" <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote in message
> news:42de2353$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> Not happy that I posted an unusual picture demonstrating the broad
>> contrast range a FZ20 can capture.
>
> You didn't demonstrate anything as pointed out by several people.
>
>>
>> Watch your gear as you fight a bunch of other photographers for a shot
>> at the action. Go on, you can do it. Just take a shot. Check the
>> Histogram. Take another shot. fix the white balance. Take the final
>> one... Oh sorry the subject got up and went home! That's why I sell my
>> photos and you only dream about it, wanker.
>>
>
> If you sell your photos I'm moving to Australia because I could become a
> billionaire selling my photos down there.
>
> Greg

When will all you stop this incredibly silly thread and focus on photography
and digital cameras? This childish "pushing and shoving" has grown
tedious....looks like five year olds fighting over the Oreos at recess.....

PC
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 1:50:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <42ddf57b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:

>You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff and when I
>did, get down to personal insults. What a piss poor example of human
>trash you are. At least the other trolls spread their bullshit thinner
>so it isn't as easily discovered.

Being insulted by you is like being insulted by a clown with Turret's
syndrome.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 1:50:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:ghhtd11stefhcl7mr2vq782pkeso1odkib@4ax.com...
> In message <42ddf57b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:
>
> >You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff and when I
> >did, get down to personal insults. What a piss poor example of human
> >trash you are. At least the other trolls spread their bullshit thinner
> >so it isn't as easily discovered.
>
> Being insulted by you is like being insulted by a clown with Turret's
> syndrome.

You mean Tourette's?

Greg
July 21, 2005 1:50:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:11dtpmr9u2pfj9d@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
> news:ghhtd11stefhcl7mr2vq782pkeso1odkib@4ax.com...
>> In message <42ddf57b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
>> Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:
>>
>> >You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff and when I
>> >did, get down to personal insults. What a piss poor example of human
>> >trash you are. At least the other trolls spread their bullshit thinner
>> >so it isn't as easily discovered.
>>
>> Being insulted by you is like being insulted by a clown with Turret's
>> syndrome.
>
Nah he means insulted by a clown in a gun turret ;) 
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 1:56:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <11ds11bgcsth2a9@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

>What bluff? The shot was underexposed.

We really can't tell from this image what the exposure was, but I
guarantee, I could have taken the RAW data from this shot and mad a much
better image out of it; even with the original JPEG.

I don't have the 1D, but I have the 20D and 10D, and for bright sun with
white, glossy fabrics, sunny f/14 is a safe-but-well-saturated exposure,
if you're shooting RAW (sunny f/11 if the brightest highlights are
matte).

Shooting in the sun like that, there is really very little reason to use
automatic exposure. Manual works much better, unless you're going to be
zooming into shadow areas, etc.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 2:06:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <bqhtd15mi8jk503l5es5lgd6l99jass1f8@4ax.com>,
JPS@no.komm wrote:

>We really can't tell from this image what the exposure was,

Oh, sorry; I didn't notice the EXIF data the first time I looked.

This shot is under-exposed for most of the range by about 2 stops (it's
sunny-f/22), which should still be quite useable, but he chose to leave
it dark. I'd only under-expose this about a half stop (I consider
sunny-f/11 normal matte exposure on the 20D) for the glossy white shirt,
so it is about 1.5 stops darker than I would have exposed it. Should be
somewhat salvageable, but with about 1.5 stops of missing latitude.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 2:34:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:
>
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> > From Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those
> >>conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I
> >>just used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here.
> >>http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm
> >
> >
> > A shot with blown highlights and no shadow detail. Great example! It
> > really illustrates the camera's ability to deal with wide dynamic range!
> >
> > I bet the 1D could have done much better, if you knew how to use it.
> >
>
> Ahh yes. You just press the button, don't you Jeremy?
> No 1D that day but a 20D. Sorry, the 1D was doing wedding.
> http://www.ryadia.com/flinders-20D.htm
>
> Now before you start... Apples with apples, someone said. OK so the
> unfair advantage the 20D has is RAW mode capture. I minimized that
> advantage when I converted it to a JPEG with "Irfanview" and added my
> name then resized it and compressed it, exactly the same as I did with
> the Panasonic image. For all intent and purpose these images were
> brought to the Internet in exactly the same way. Program mode on both
> cameras. You could print the FZ20 pic but not the 20D one without editing.
>
Doug, there seems no doubt that the 20D underexposed that shot. The
exif shows 1/640 second at f/9, 100 ISO, on a winter's day, with the sun
a bit lower than noontime, judging by the shadows. 'Sunny f/16' at 100
ISO would have given about 1/400 sec at f/8, and adjusting for the light
you had would make it about 1/200 or 1/250 sec at f/9, so 1/640 at f/9
is about two stops or so underexposed.

Since the sailor's white leg and thigh is about where the partial meter
would have read the light, I would say the meter was fooled into giving
underexposure, and this is borne out by the histogram, where the
brightest highlights are less than three-quarters of the histo scale. I
tried lightening the shadows in PS, but no luck. I would think though,
that since the camera image is a RAW file, the ISO speed could be
adjusted in the RAW converter to lift the shadows without losing the
highlights before conversion to jpg.

Forgive me, but I have to ask: could you not have moved left or right a
little to lose the microphone?

Colin
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 2:34:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
>
> Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:
>

>
> Since the sailor's white leg and thigh is about where the partial meter
> would have read the light, I would say the meter was fooled into giving
> underexposure, and this is borne out by the histogram, where the
> brightest highlights are less than three-quarters of the histo scale. I
> tried lightening the shadows in PS, but no luck. I would think though,
> that since the camera image is a RAW file, the ISO speed could be
> adjusted in the RAW converter to lift the shadows without losing the
> highlights before conversion to jpg.
>
> Forgive me, but I have to ask: could you not have moved left or right a
> little to lose the microphone?
>
> Colin

A pack of Photographers from the Queensland Photographic Society
descended on the scene which was cordoned off with people standing 4
deep, all trying to take a picture, makes for an exciting time. About
1:15 PM if my memory serves me right.

Sunny 16 doesn't work when you try to capture a scene 4 stops outside
the EV of the sensor. Something has to be lost. This picture is not one
I edited or even considered keeping. I posted it because Jeremy seemed
to think a DSLR would meter - collect data or somehow make a picture out
of a scene outside it's contrast range somehow better than a digicam can.

I think he doesn't realize a 20D or 1D's value is not in what the camera
produces but with fodder for Photoshop which can later be manipulated.
The dark area of that scene is 5 stops away from the exposure metered on
the white, which is correctly metered to produce detail. If you moved
the histogram to get shadow detail, you won't get any highlight detail.
The only fix is to fill flash the scene. Some people would just accept
blocked shadows to see detail in the clothing, incidently.

The other 30 or so shots of the display (some with fill flash) are all
quite acceptable. The old adage: "meter for the highlights" doesn't
always work. This is why I have an FX580 Speedlight on the 1D which was
off on another job. It has proven itself at several weddings now, even
in bright sunlight.

I am still very impressed with how the FZ20 was able to produce as good
an exposure as could be expected, without later processing in Photoshop
on the same setting as the 20D.

The Dye-Sub printers I have rely on camera files to print on the spot.
The FZ files all look very nice but the 20D files can't be printed
straight from the camera. They need post processing. This is simply not
possible when you have to ship all your gear in via a small runabout.
--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 4:48:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chrlz <chrlz@go.com> wrote:

> I've grabbed a copy of the page for non-commercial use (O; - anyone
> who wants to see it after Douglas inevitably pulls it, just ask here...

Well, it was bound to happen -- he's pulled all the pages. Good call!

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 3:56:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> In message <42ddf57b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:
>
> >You made a call thinking I wouldn't/couldn't call your bluff and when I
> >did, get down to personal insults. What a piss poor example of human
> >trash you are. At least the other trolls spread their bullshit thinner
> >so it isn't as easily discovered.
>
> Being insulted by you is like being insulted by a clown with Turret's
> syndrome.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Doesn't it piss you off when your smart reply is stuffed by a spelling
mistake? You mean Tourette, of course {:-)

Colin
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 3:56:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <42DEE49A.8CA274A9@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>Doesn't it piss you off when your smart reply is stuffed by a spelling
>mistake? You mean Tourette, of course {:-)

Not especially. I considered both possibilities, and did a quick
"google" with the spelling I used, and saw a lot of references, and
figured it was fairly safe. I was too lazy to google "tourette", too,
and figured there was a chance it was wrong.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 8:46:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

OT - Please pass this message by unless interested in soap operas that
go nowhere...

(Perhaps, Douglas, you might want to do the courteous thing and also
mark *your* rants..)

>When my factory manager posted about my process..

It's fascinating how the story changes as the months go by. First you
wouldn't acknowledge it. Then you say it was your factory manager, ie
an EMPLOYEE who fraudulently tried to boost the value of your
(non-existent) franchise. Even though, in an earlier post from the
EXACT SAME million pictures email address, you signed it off as
DOUGLAS. Give me a break. And then you say:

>.. even though the IP address put him in another state to me at the time

NO, That is demonstrably FALSE. Here's the posting info:

First, the one from GRAHAM HUNT (May 3, 2005)
...From: Graham Hunt <million_p...@yahoo.com>
...NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45
...X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45
...Message-ID: <4276eb7a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
...X-Trace: dnews.tpgi.com.au!tpg.com.au 1115089786 60.240.147.45 (3 May
2005 13:09:46 +1000)

Then, the indignant retort from.. RYADIA (May 3, 2005)
...From: Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com>
...NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45
...X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45
...Message-ID: <42772777@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
...X-Trace: dnews.tpgi.com.au!tpg.com.au 1115105143 60.240.147.45 (3 May
2005 ..17:25:43 +1000)

SNAP!!

Stop LYING, Douglas. Anyone here can check this. You were BUSTED.
Wear it like a man, not a mouse.

>Arguing further with an idiot like you will only result in raising my
>BP. Not going to happen.

Umm, but it already did (after 5 days?).. Why aren't you applying that
zero care factor? And how *deep* can you dig?

(O;
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 7:43:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
>
> Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:
>
>>Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>>
>>>From Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Interestingly enough, I shot some scenes on Sunday in just those
>>>>conditions. I used a speedlight on my 1D but the FZ20 I took along, I
>>>>just used it "point and shoot", held in one hand. One of the shots here.
>>>>http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>A shot with blown highlights and no shadow detail. Great example! It
>>>really illustrates the camera's ability to deal with wide dynamic range!
>>>
>>>I bet the 1D could have done much better, if you knew how to use it.
>>>
>>
>>Ahh yes. You just press the button, don't you Jeremy?
>>No 1D that day but a 20D. Sorry, the 1D was doing wedding.
>>http://www.ryadia.com/flinders-20D.htm
>>
>>Now before you start... Apples with apples, someone said. OK so the
>>unfair advantage the 20D has is RAW mode capture. I minimized that
>>advantage when I converted it to a JPEG with "Irfanview" and added my
>>name then resized it and compressed it, exactly the same as I did with
>>the Panasonic image. For all intent and purpose these images were
>>brought to the Internet in exactly the same way. Program mode on both
>>cameras. You could print the FZ20 pic but not the 20D one without editing.
>>
>
> Doug, there seems no doubt that the 20D underexposed that shot. The
> exif shows 1/640 second at f/9, 100 ISO, on a winter's day, with the sun
> a bit lower than noontime, judging by the shadows. 'Sunny f/16' at 100
> ISO would have given about 1/400 sec at f/8, and adjusting for the light
> you had would make it about 1/200 or 1/250 sec at f/9, so 1/640 at f/9
> is about two stops or so underexposed.
>
> Since the sailor's white leg and thigh is about where the partial meter
> would have read the light, I would say the meter was fooled into giving
> underexposure, and this is borne out by the histogram, where the
> brightest highlights are less than three-quarters of the histo scale. I
> tried lightening the shadows in PS, but no luck. I would think though,
> that since the camera image is a RAW file, the ISO speed could be
> adjusted in the RAW converter to lift the shadows without losing the
> highlights before conversion to jpg.
>
> Forgive me, but I have to ask: could you not have moved left or right a
> little to lose the microphone?
>
> Colin

20D's with FX 580 Speedlight's attached.
The Custom functions of a 20D allow you to set the speedlight to fire at
1/250th fixed speed when you choose aperture priority mode. You have to
deliberately choose this in the functions.

It has one really nice advantage over other flashlights in that you can
capture movement (like someone dancing around a fire before dawn) but it
also locks the exposure when lighting gets too bright for the
aperture/speed you have selected.

The simple way to overcome moving inside to outside and back again while
keeping the flash primed for action capture in low light is to switch
between program mode and Av mode when you move from one set of
conditions to another.

The flash was switched off on that shot because a minute or so before, I
took a picture of a rubber boat at high speed. I forgot to switch it
back on for that shot. When Jeremy said "a 1D would do better", I
couldn't help but show him it could not. That's how that picture came to
be posted. No way to move in a crowd of 20 Photographers who descended
on the re-enactment like a plague of locusts.

I realize now it is impossible to post an image on the Internet which
looks like a true photograph. You either sacrifice image quality so dial
up users can see the picture or you consume all your bandwidth with
people downloading high resolution image just "to see if they are focused".

Here's one you might be interested in. Shot with 20D and FX 580 Speedlight.

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 7:43:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pixby <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:

> When Jeremy said "a 1D would do better", I couldn't help but show him it
> could not.

All you really showed was that *you* could not. Since even a lowly Nikon
D70 could do better, I remain unconvinced that a higher-spec Canon cannot.
I mean, if they were really that bad, so many people wouldn't be using them.

> I realize now it is impossible to post an image on the Internet which
> looks like a true photograph. You either sacrifice image quality so dial
> up users can see the picture or you consume all your bandwidth with
> people downloading high resolution image just "to see if they are focused".

Perhaps people wouldn't try to hard to find technical faults in your work
if you didn't try so hard to come across as the master technician who knows
more about photography than anyone else. No one tried to find faults in
the batch of shots I recently posted, even though I used a Nikon.

> Here's one you might be interested in. Shot with 20D and FX 580 Speedlight.

Where?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 1:39:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <42e47c1d$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pixby <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I realize now it is impossible to post an image on the Internet which
>looks like a true photograph. You either sacrifice image quality so dial
>up users can see the picture or you consume all your bandwidth with
>people downloading high resolution image just "to see if they are focused".

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/26046785

Anything else I can help you with?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 1:55:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

OT. Move on, nothing photographic to see here.

>... it was a Linux SME gateway
>server. This machine holds all our web sites, mail servers
>groupware and calendaring applications. It stands guard
>over my network and post's it own IP address when queried
>or when posting to the Internet. Pretty nifty, huh?

So, let's juts clarify that. You have now admitted BOTH posts,
including the one about Asian interests and the high value of your
'franchise', came from YOUR network. The posts are yours, and your
responsibility. You *claim* that Graham Hunt is your employee (even
though you have signed off as 'Douglas' on Graham Hunt posts in the
past -oops). 'Graham' (whether he is you or not) posted fraudulently.

So you have now fully admitted guilt. Thanks. Game over.

By the way, how exactly does the fact that you have that 'nifty'
gateway server, show that *you* were in a different state? Do educate
me, Douglas.


Or I might get it 'wrong' again. (O;
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:28:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chrlz wrote:
> OT - Please pass this message by unless interested in soap operas that
> go nowhere...
>
> (Perhaps, Douglas, you might want to do the courteous thing and also
> mark *your* rants..)
>
>
>>When my factory manager posted about my process..
>
>
> It's fascinating how the story changes as the months go by. First you
> wouldn't acknowledge it. Then you say it was your factory manager, ie
> an EMPLOYEE who fraudulently tried to boost the value of your
> (non-existent) franchise. Even though, in an earlier post from the
> EXACT SAME million pictures email address, you signed it off as
> DOUGLAS. Give me a break. And then you say:
>
>
>>.. even though the IP address put him in another state to me at the time
>
>
> NO, That is demonstrably FALSE. Here's the posting info:
>
> First, the one from GRAHAM HUNT (May 3, 2005)
> ..From: Graham Hunt <million_p...@yahoo.com>
> ..NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45
> ..X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45
> ..Message-ID: <4276eb7a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
> ..X-Trace: dnews.tpgi.com.au!tpg.com.au 1115089786 60.240.147.45 (3 May
> 2005 13:09:46 +1000)
>
> Then, the indignant retort from.. RYADIA (May 3, 2005)
> ..From: Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com>
> ..NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45
> ..X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.240.147.45
> ..Message-ID: <42772777@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
> ..X-Trace: dnews.tpgi.com.au!tpg.com.au 1115105143 60.240.147.45 (3 May
> 2005 ..17:25:43 +1000)
>
> SNAP!!
>
> Stop LYING, Douglas. Anyone here can check this. You were BUSTED.
> Wear it like a man, not a mouse.
>
>
>>Arguing further with an idiot like you will only result in raising my
>>BP. Not going to happen.
>
>
> Umm, but it already did (after 5 days?).. Why aren't you applying that
> zero care factor? And how *deep* can you dig?
>
> (O;
>
So now we can read a header, can we. Good Troll, Sit boy.
All you need to do now is discover the geographic location of the IP
address and you'll really make some progress. Uh, uh... No looking in
the phone book now. Play fair and do it right this time or you'll get it
wrong again. Didn't your last master tell you what could happen if you
keep getting it wrong?

I suppose the fact your mind is quite tiny from all that masturbation
you been doing, you can't grasp the concept of a network or how a
private network's gateway works. Don't worry, some of us know and that's
all that matters.

One day you'll learn to query an IP for information. If you had the
skill to do that and actually taken the time to do it, you'd have gotten
a reply that it was a Linux SME gateway server. This machine holds all
our web sites, mail servers groupware and calendaring applications. It
stands guard over my network and post's it own IP address when queried
or when posting to the Internet. Pretty nifty, huh?

Not good enough Troll, keep practicing, you need lots of that to get
your next feed. Sure as hell won't get it from me with that sort of
dismal effort.

Douglas...
"You finally make it on the Internet
when you get your own personal Troll".
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!


--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:28:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42e6ff5b@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> One day you'll learn to query an IP for information. If you had the
> skill to do that and actually taken the time to do it, you'd have gotten
> a reply that it was a Linux SME gateway server. This machine holds all
> our web sites, mail servers groupware and calendaring applications. It
> stands guard over my network and post's it own IP address when queried
> or when posting to the Internet. Pretty nifty, huh?
>

There are so many holes in your story I don't even know where to begin
shooting them down.

Greg
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:30:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

>
>
>>Here's one you might be interested in. Shot with 20D and FX 580 Speedlight.
>
>
> Where?
>
You got it Jeremy. 255 255 255 LOL!


--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
!