20D with 24~70 f2.8 tells a story in a face

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

Last Sunday on a small island in Moreton Bay, History was re-enacted as
it is every year to celebrate the landing by Mathew Finders on the "6th
Island". One man has taken part in the celebration every year. Almost as
old as the event, his face tells it all.
http://www.ryadia.com/Storyinaface.htm
--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.

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

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

> Apart from the poor choice of background, which might be excused
> because you may not have had any choice, can you explain why the
> subject's eyes are not in sharp focus but the tips of his ears are?

I'm sure it was the camera's fault.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

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

Jeremy said:
>> Apart from the poor choice of background, which might be excused
>> because you may not have had any choice, can you explain why the
>> subject's eyes are not in sharp focus but the tips of his ears are?
>
>I'm sure it was the camera's fault.


Yes. 'Back focus', it's called. Douglas has a *lot* of trouble with
that..

If you want a laugh, try a g-groups search on "ryadia back focus
canon".

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

I keep getting a "404 - Page not found error". Is the photo still up?




"Foto Ryadia's Studio" <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote in message
news:42de15a1$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Last Sunday on a small island in Moreton Bay, History was re-enacted as
> it is every year to celebrate the landing by Mathew Finders on the "6th
> Island". One man has taken part in the celebration every year. Almost as
> old as the event, his face tells it all.
> http://www.ryadia.com/Storyinaface.htm
> --
> Douglas,
> Zero care factor for negative responses
> from anonymous posters.

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

Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:
> Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Last Sunday on a small island in Moreton Bay, History was re-enacted
>>> as it is every year to celebrate the landing by Mathew Finders on the
>>> "6th Island". One man has taken part in the celebration every year.
>>> Almost as old as the event, his face tells it all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Apart from the poor choice of background, which might be excused
>> because you may not have had any choice, can you explain why the
>> subject's eyes are not in sharp focus but the tips of his ears are?
>>
>>
> My policy Tony, is to never post an image to the Internet that I would
> not be prepared to donate to the public domain... Eventually it will be
> downloaded by someone and all the copyright information in the world
> will have no effect at preventing it's use without your knowledge or
> permission. Wasted effort, trying to swim against the tide.
>
> Some stock libraries address this problem by posting minuscule pictures
> they just expect you to believe are perfect. Others try protective
> measures which only work for casual users.
>
> Me? I just accept now, that you can't stop it and never post salable
> images on the Internet. This one was shot at an Island fair - like a
> country market. In context with the article, the picture with a busy
> background is quite appropriate. I've posted it here in the expectation
> someone might like to see the old man. If you want to see the final
> shot, you'll have to buy the magazine, I'm afraid.
>


I am sorry to disappoint you doug, I have not yet seen any single
picture from you that is worth the trouble to "steal." Not impressed!

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

Err - "thanks" for "all that" - although really, a simple "no" would have
sufficed!


"pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42df1c6f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ZTADe.2074$PL5.232422@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > I keep getting a "404 - Page not found error". Is the photo still up?
> >
> >
> The Ryadia Server is off-line and the local network is being dismantled.
> Probably will down be for several days while the network is relocated to
> it's new premises. There is a response to Polson's stupid remark and the
> masterbating clown's of the group who chimed in on queue without knowing
> why, with an enlargement of the image here:
> http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceoftime.htm
>
> The original photo is here now:
> http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceofpast.jpg How anyone can pass
judgement
> on an image posted to the Internet without it's EXIF data is beyond my
> comprehension. The pundits who do this can't explain either how they
derive
> their "Information" when the images don't contain any in the first place.
> They must surely be the advance vanguard of a race of people from another
> planet who speak our language but don't say anything anyone can
understand.
>
> Ryadia's new premises is due to be open by 26th of the month. Probably it
> will be then before the server is back on-line... If I decide to bother
with
> a web presence again.
>
> The absolute jerk offs who get their rocks off by attacking anyone and
> everyone with anything to contribute about Photography when they haven't
got
> a clue themselves is likely the best reason to abandon the site
altogether.
> I might have given them some consideration if they showed any real
evidence
> any of them had a clue. Sadly they all melt back into cyberspace when
called
> on to do so or worse... Come up with some argument on a tangent.
>
> We're yet to see a photo posted by Polson - don't hold your breath now -
> and Nixon who argued so strongly about the perspective of a photograph not
> being related to focal length a few month's ago, now can't recall his own
> posts. Lets hope he still strives to take a traditional portrait with his
> fisheye lens and one day posts the results. Don't hold your breath for
this
> one either.
>
> The ferrel wanker from South Australia's rural coast "Chrlz Stevens" who
> uses Australian Government computers to defame and deride people,
> mysteriously can't explain how he deciphers information either. He posts
> lies and innuendos based on his warped sense "a fair go" yet when called
on
> to substantiate them disappears off the groups for a while only to come
back
> with more bullshit and defamation when he thinks no one remembers. Nice
line
> up of human trash in these three.
>
> You could be excused for racial prejudice if they all came from the same
> country but they don't. Sometimes I'm ashamed to say I'm Australian.
> Certainly my father who all those years ago risked so much and fought
under
> such terrible conditions to defend the freedom of this country would turn
in
> his grave if he though the behaviour of Chrlz and his ilk was what so many
> of his fellow countrymen died to protect. Sub human behaviour from a total
> loser.
>
> I'm starting to think Alan Browne might not be so far off the mark when he
> branded Polson as someone unable to provide any evidence he even owns a
> camera, much less has ever taken a photograph. Where I sit I'd say he
needs
> to see an eye specialist or get decent monitor. Anyone who could claim a
600
> pixel high image has an area about 15% of it's total with part of it out
of
> focus is clearly too good to be wasting their time on my images. Maybe the
> enlargement I provided might give him more to go on.
>
> Douglas
>
>

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

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> I've just joined fototime.com - how do you generate the URLs in the
> format that you posted - I end up with a much longer URL that also
> includes user info etc.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> CC

Are you talking to me? You must be talking to me. Although I'm not the
only one here.

When you are looking at a picture, check the left column. There is a
choice "Create Link". Click it, choose the size you want your viewer
to see, copy the link and paste it.
http://www.fototime.com/24E192519588076/standard.jpg

--
Frank ess

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

Many thanks.

Yes, I was talking to you - that's why I replied to your post, and not to
someone elses.

Thanks again.


"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:euednQPNh_PXV0LfRVn-3A@giganews.com...
> Cockpit Colin wrote:
> > I've just joined fototime.com - how do you generate the URLs in the
> > format that you posted - I end up with a much longer URL that also
> > includes user info etc.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > CC
>
> Are you talking to me? You must be talking to me. Although I'm not the
> only one here.
>
> When you are looking at a picture, check the left column. There is a
> choice "Create Link". Click it, choose the size you want your viewer
> to see, copy the link and paste it.
> http://www.fototime.com/24E192519588076/standard.jpg
>
> --
> Frank ess
>

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

l e o wrote:
> Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:

>
> I am sorry to disappoint you doug, I have not yet seen any single
> picture from you that is worth the trouble to "steal." Not impressed!

Well of course, Leo. That's the whole idea.
Thanks for your contribution
--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.

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

Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:
> l e o wrote:
>
>> Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I am sorry to disappoint you doug, I have not yet seen any single
>> picture from you that is worth the trouble to "steal." Not impressed!
>
>
> Well of course, Leo. That's the whole idea.
> Thanks for your contribution


the flip side is you haven't establish you're a pro but just a grumpy
old man.

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

Chrlz wrote:

>
>>>And *we* all saw what looked
>>>like out-of-focus eyes. Gee, wonder how we were sooooo misled...?
>>>Whose fault would that be exactly?
>>
>
>>Who would be silly enough to attempt to enlarge such a
>>web-compressed image (?)
>
>
> Me. *Where it serves a purpose*... If you still can't tell the
> difference, if you still think Douglas' image was appropriately
> compressed, and if you still can't follow this line of logic, I simply
> can't help you further.
>

Somewhere along the way you have lost the plot Stevens. There is
absolutely no purpose which can excuse the theft and reposting of
copyright material without so much as a please.. You stole my images to
repost for your own purpose without even asking. That's Illegal.

This whole thread is nothing more or less then your failed attempt to do
some head kicking on me after Tony Polson's trolling hooked me. It
didn't work. Stop now or you'll get in further than you really want to.
Take the images down from webshots and do it now or discover how the
legal system favors copyright owners, not those who misappropriate it.

All you're doing now by illegally posting my images on webshots is
floundering around trying to justify your own really, really bad
behavior. Give it up, you are starting to look like a kindergarten
child throwing a tantrum. Keep it up and there won't be a mountain high
enough for you to hide behind.
--
Douglas

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

"Chrlz" <chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1121986232.455892.326480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It's good to see Douglas has at least some support..
>
> Jeff R. said:
> >>And *we* all saw what looked
> >> like out-of-focus eyes. Gee, wonder how we were sooooo misled...?
> >> Whose fault would that be exactly?
> >
> >No, "*we*" saw nothing like that.
>
> Douglas made specific reference to Tony Polson, Jeremy Nixon and me.
> That's 3 people - hence my reference to 'we'. Did I say 'everyone
> here'? Did I name you? So, shouldn't your correct response be '*I*
> saw nothing like that'? Otherwise you are doing exactly what you seem
> to be criticising me for.

Sighhh.
"We" seemed so inclusive at the time.
In context it sounded like "all of us".

> >It was a small image - a couple of hundred pix wide. The "ears
> >and eyes" section was tiny.
>
> Yes, indeed it was. And as shown by my enlargement, it was
> ridiculously OVER-compressed, and there is significant
> blurring/artefacting *everywhere*.

Phooey.
Its entirely appropriately-processed for a web image.
Repeat: For a *web* image.


>... because the ears are against an
> almost black background, they appear relatively sharp compared to the
> mess around the eyes - that was what my enlargement was meant to show.

Well it didn't.


> If you look at it again, you will note that there is only one 8x8 jpeg
> block in the eye area that looks vaguely sharp. So my point was, it
> was OVER-compressed.

Disagree.
(see above)

>
> >On my monitor - a humble Samsung 17" - the portrait looked perfectly
> >clear and sharp, within the confines of its size.
>
> OK, how about you take a look at THIS version, and look carefully at
> the left eye versus the right. *You* do the magnification if you
> want..
>
> http://community.webshots.com/phot [...] 4104qzJZKF
>

No-o-o-o

Magnification don't count for nuffink, since that's not how the image is/was
presented.


> (Before Douglas whinges, the image is posted for educational purposes
> only, his copyright message remains, and it will be removed after 2
> days. I think the financial losses he will sustain will be minimal.)
>
> Do you notice *anything*? Is the right eye sharp? The left?

Yes.
and Yes.
....and?

>.. All I
> did was use Douglas' own large version of the area around his right
> eye, roughly resize it and *properly* sharpen that small area before
> pasting it back roughly in position. I then resaved the jpeg at a low
> compression level to try to keep the original quality as close as
> possible (but it is still only about 60Kb). Feel free to compare it
> with Douglas' original image to ensure I haven't fudged it too much.

No can do.
ryadia.com appears to be... ummm... "missing" and I didn't archive the
shot - but - I don't recall being upset by the allegedly out-of-focus ears
of the original.

> Now, if you can't see the difference around the right eye, well....
> what can I say?
>
> >Of course it wouldn't stand enlargement as posted - who would
> >reasonably suggest it could?
>
> Nobody did. I posted that first enlargement to show why 'we' (that's
> Tony, Jeremy, me, ok?)

Yes yes yes

>...thought the eyes looked unsharp - they *are*
> unsharp, compared to a *properly* resized, sharpened and compressed
> image..

Fussy tart.

:-)

Sorry if I post my fullstops upside down.


> >Who would be silly enough to attempt to enlarge such a
> >web-compressed image (?)
>
> Me. *Where it serves a purpose*... If you still can't tell the
> difference, if you still think Douglas' image was appropriately
> compressed, and if you still can't follow this line of logic, I simply
> can't help you further.

OK.

>
> If there is still some problem with my methodology, please state it. I
> realise that the double compression has slightly lessened the quality
> of the original, but as I stated, you are welcome to check the original
> to determine for yourself if that is in any way significant. I can't
> be much fairer than that, but if you have further requests for proof,
> fire away...

Well, I can't check the original (now) but...
I still reckon the original (from memory) was adequately sharp and
reasonably compressed for_use_on_the_web.
Obviously no good for print.

If the problem was so obviously over-compression (!) then why was Douglas
accused of posting an incompetently *focussed* image.

Oh never mind.
This is a silly feud and I really shouldn't push "Send'

(But I bet I will)

--
Jeff R.

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:sq6dnUJC856S8X3fRVn-vw@giganews.com...

> No; thank _you_.
>
> And the horse you rode in on.

I have not succeeded in correcting all of my grammar - the corrections given
serve only to raise a whole set of new possibilities. In some ways I feel I
am as confused as ever, but I believe I am now confused on a higher level
and about more important things. Thank you again for contributing to that

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

> I still reckon the original (from memory) was adequately sharp
>and reasonably compressed for_use_on_the_web.

Actually, I (sort of) agree. It was fairly typical of what is posted
on the web nowadays. The original is still there, by the way, at:

http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceofpast.jpg

But my shot shows the difference (admittedly subtle) that an (humility
off) expertly- (humility on) sharpened image should look like, or at
least around the right eye, anyway.

And just so i don't get accused of not 'walking the walk', if you want
an example of (IMO) good sharpening and appropriate compression levels,
here's an old one of mine that is by no means a perfect image, but
sharpness-wise it is pretty close to the optimum - compare her eyes to
Douglas' image...

http://community.webshots.com/phot [...] 3799qiQirO

Before making a judgement, make sure you do NOT have 'automatic
resizing' turned on (it's an option on the right hand side of that
webpage), and of course that you are viewing it on a high-resolution,
well adjusted monitor - *then* feel free to flame away!

(There's not even a copyright message on that one, Douglas - feel free
to steal it, or any of mine, as retribution. I'm here to educate, not
threaten.)

>If the problem was so obviously over-compression (!) then why was
>Douglas accused of posting an incompetently *focussed* image.

At that size, and *without* the enlargement I did later, it is very
difficult to tell - the difference between a 'nailed' image, and a
misfire, can be just a pixel, or even a half, and low quality jpegging
can look o-o-f unless you zoom right in.. My initial comment was a
short, flippant one - to which I received Douglas' lengthy, ballistic,
insulting reply and to which I then replied in kind (minus any childish
insults).

Douglas is claiming high ground everywhere he goes, as *the* expert on
exposure, enlargement, sharpness, detail...... And examples like this
prove he's not. In fact, not even close.. I don't claim to be the
expert, but I do have a fair bit of knowledge in this area - I happily
let others judge me on my information and examples, and unlike Douglas,
I do not pull my images offline when/if they get a bad reception. It
seems the only way to keep him honest is to grab the image while you
can, and wait for the inevitable withdrawal.

>This is a silly feud and I really shouldn't push "Send'.

Yep, very true - but I think it's pretty funny, actually. And I *do*
think it is important that people (not you, Jeff) who post pretentious
rubbish and misinformation be brought to task. If you haven't seen
some of the other stuff that Douglas has posted recently, I suggest you
take a look around... FZ20's that beat Canon DSLR's, magical enlarging
algorithms that defy physics, perspective that doesn't depend on
distance.. you name it, Douglas knows about it..

>(But I bet I will)

Me too! No hard feelings! And if you *like* feuds, and you have a
half hour to waste, check out some of the full story on Douglas over in
the 'Enlarging Digital Images' thread, at:

http://tinyurl.com/9wuwl

And then look up 'One Million Pics', 'technoaussie', 'Joe Bailey',
'Alvie', 'The Yowie', 'Alien Jones', 'Graham Hunt', even 'healthypcs'
(and the saga of the illegal warranty..). Our Douglas is quite a
character! (er.. characterS)

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

"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

>
>"Foto Ryadia's Studio" <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote in message
>news:42e0bca2$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Jeff R wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Oh, pull your head in, Douglas.
>> > If there was *ever* a case of fair dealing - justified use - not for
>> > profit - (etc etc) this would have to be it.
>> >
>> > Argue the logic instead - not the twisted legality.
>> > You'd be on a winner with the logic.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeff R.
>> > (shutting up and bowing out)
>> >
>> >
>> Happy to oblige Jeff...
>> Er, What is the logic, by the way?
>>
>> There is a response to Polson's stupid remark and the
>> masterbating clown's of the group who chimed in on queue without knowing
>> why, with an enlargement of the image here:
>> http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceoftime.htm
>>
>> The original photo is here now:
>> http://users.tpg.com.au/tecaus/faceofpast.jpg
>> They must surely be the advance vanguard of a race of people from
>> another planet who speak our language but don't say anything anyone can
>> understand.
>>
>
>You're getting more bizarre by the day.


Yep, madness is just a short step away for Ryadia.

The detail at full size doesn't prove anything; in fact it just
muddies the waters still further. A major problem with evaluating
digital shots is that you can never really know how much unsharp mask
has been applied, and where, unless you are told.

This was never a problem with 35mm/120 slides, a loupe and a lightbox.

;-)

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

"pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why is it "Tony Polson" that when you get caught out with a totally wrong
>call - right along with the other masterbaters in this thread - who chimed
>in on your queue - Just postulate and stamp around like a spoilt brat who
>didn't get his way when it becomes obvious you are clueless?


I stand by my comments on the original (small) shot you posted. The
eyes look out of focus, the ears look sharp.

Several people here agreed with me. Not surprising, because the
effect seems clear. I asked the opinion of several photographer
friends, including two with ARPS qualifications. They all agreed, and
we enjoyed a laugh at your expense.

Now you post an enlarged version which is inconclusive. You haven't
told us how much unsharp mask was applied, and to which areas of the
shot. It is impossible to draw any conclusion, one way or the other,
from this enlarged portion.

Typically, however, you feel that this enlarged portion entitles you
to rant and rave about ... well about nothing of any importance.

Well go ahead, and enjoy. <g>

Perhaps, when you have both hands on the camera, or the keyboard,
instead of one permanently working away inside your trousers, you
might take better photos *and* make more sense. Until then, please
feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself on here.

Some more comparisons of your point and shoot and DSLR would be nice.

;-)

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

"Chrlz" <chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1122030623.317699.43580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> And just so i don't get accused of not 'walking the walk', if you want
> an example of (IMO) good sharpening and appropriate compression levels,
> here's an old one of mine that is by no means a perfect image, but
> sharpness-wise it is pretty close to the optimum - compare her eyes to
> Douglas' image...
>
> http://community.webshots.com/phot [...] 3799qiQirO

She has *eyes*?
Where?

<...>


>... No hard feelings! And if you *like* feuds, and you have a
> half hour to waste, check out some of the full story on Douglas over in
> the 'Enlarging Digital Images' thread, at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9wuwl

Uh huh.
Actually, I've been lurking long enough to catch at least the tail-end of
much of the stuff you quote.

Fun, actually.
Feuds are much more fun than completely rational discussions. Sometimes the
truth will out only when passions are inflamed.

The focal length vs perspective debate actually taught me (*me*! a cranky
old goat!) something.

I'm trying very hard not to come across as a cranky, supercilious,
know-it-all bastard, as I usually do in other NGs. So far....

--
Jeff R.
(batting .500 ?)

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

>http://community.webshots.com/ photo/... (rest of link snipped)
>
>(Before Douglas whinges, the image is posted for educational
>purposes only, his copyright message remains, and it will be
>removed after 2 days.

Sorry if anyone is now chasing my versions of Douglas' images - as I
promised I would, I have taken them down. It seems this thread has run
it's course.

I don't make a habit of pulling any of my *own* images down if they
ever get a bad review, and all of my stuff is still there.