Group: rec.photo.digital
Digital cameras, scanners, printers, software, PhotoCD.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
* w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576825
* w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576826
* w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576827
* w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576825
* w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576826
* w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576827
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
Annika1980 wrote:
> * w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576825
>
> * w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576826
>
> * w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576827
Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and
plasticizing? And what the fuck is all that photoshopped shit in the
background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy with
your composites.
Rita
--
Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
Stimulus Project page.
* ritaberk.myhosting247 . com
Annika1980 wrote:
> * w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576825
>
> * w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576826
>
> * w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/96576827
Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and
plasticizing? And what the fuck is all that photoshopped shit in the
background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy with
your composites.
Rita
--
Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
Stimulus Project page.
* ritaberk.myhosting247 . com
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and
> plasticizing? And what the fuck is all that photoshopped shit in the
> background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy
> with your composites.
The weight of being a thief weighs heavily on 'his' shoulders.
mike
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and
> plasticizing? And what the fuck is all that photoshopped shit in the
> background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy
> with your composites.
The weight of being a thief weighs heavily on 'his' shoulders.
mike
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
On Mon, 05 May 2008 01:18:08 GMT, m II <c@in.the.hat> wrote:
>Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and
>> plasticizing? And what the fuck is all that photoshopped shit in the
>> background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy
>> with your composites.
>
>
>The weight of being a thief weighs heavily on 'his' shoulders.
>
>
>
>
>
>mike
I've looked at Annika's work on pbase, and I think he is an incredibly
TALENTED artist and photographer. He has earned his bragging rights.
The proof is there for all to see.
He has an impressive amount of portfolios, and his work has been
viewed by one million, 8 hundred thousand viewers, unless, he ran
those numbers up himself ( I doubt it ).
Nick
On Mon, 05 May 2008 01:18:08 GMT, m II <c@in.the.hat> wrote:
>Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and
>> plasticizing? And what the fuck is all that photoshopped shit in the
>> background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy
>> with your composites.
>
>
>The weight of being a thief weighs heavily on 'his' shoulders.
>
>
>
>
>
>mike
I've looked at Annika's work on pbase, and I think he is an incredibly
TALENTED artist and photographer. He has earned his bragging rights.
The proof is there for all to see.
He has an impressive amount of portfolios, and his work has been
viewed by one million, 8 hundred thousand viewers, unless, he ran
those numbers up himself ( I doubt it ).
Nick
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
Nicholas wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 01:18:08 GMT, m II <c@in.the.hat> wrote:
>
>> Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and
>>> plasticizing? And what the fuck is all that photoshopped shit in the
>>> background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy
>>> with your composites.
>>
>> The weight of being a thief weighs heavily on 'his' shoulders.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> mike
>
> I've looked at Annika's work on pbase, and I think he is an incredibly
> TALENTED artist and photographer. He has earned his bragging rights.
> The proof is there for all to see.
>
> He has an impressive amount of portfolios, and his work has been
> viewed by one million, 8 hundred thousand viewers, unless, he ran
> those numbers up himself ( I doubt it ).
The point is somewhat moot.
If Mother Theresa were a plagiarist would we think differently about her
work with the poor? Then again, would that work make her any less of a
plagiarist?
Apples and oranges or, in this case, photographer and thief.
mike
Nicholas wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 01:18:08 GMT, m II <c@in.the.hat> wrote:
>
>> Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping and
>>> plasticizing? And what the fuck is all that photoshopped shit in the
>>> background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy
>>> with your composites.
>>
>> The weight of being a thief weighs heavily on 'his' shoulders.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> mike
>
> I've looked at Annika's work on pbase, and I think he is an incredibly
> TALENTED artist and photographer. He has earned his bragging rights.
> The proof is there for all to see.
>
> He has an impressive amount of portfolios, and his work has been
> viewed by one million, 8 hundred thousand viewers, unless, he ran
> those numbers up himself ( I doubt it ).
The point is somewhat moot.
If Mother Theresa were a plagiarist would we think differently about her
work with the poor? Then again, would that work make her any less of a
plagiarist?
Apples and oranges or, in this case, photographer and thief.
mike
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
"m II" <c@in.the.hat> wrote in message news:7duTj.604$KB3.532@edtnps91...
> Nicholas wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 01:18:08 GMT, m II <c@in.the.hat> wrote:
>>
>>> Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping
>>>> and
>>>> plasticizing? And what the fuck is all that photoshopped shit in the
>>>> background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy
>>>> with your composites.
>>>
>>> The weight of being a thief weighs heavily on 'his' shoulders.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> I've looked at Annika's work on pbase, and I think he is an incredibly
>> TALENTED artist and photographer. He has earned his bragging rights.
>> The proof is there for all to see.
>>
>> He has an impressive amount of portfolios, and his work has been
>> viewed by one million, 8 hundred thousand viewers, unless, he ran
>> those numbers up himself ( I doubt it ).
>
> The point is somewhat moot.
>
> If Mother Theresa were a plagiarist would we think differently about her
> work with the poor? Then again, would that work make her any less of a
> plagiarist?
>
> Apples and oranges or, in this case, photographer and thief.
>
>
>
>
>
> mike
so please point out the stolen pictures.
and Mother Teresa was nothing more than a whore for the Catholic church, and
is quoted as saying that living in poverty was a blessing from God, guess
where the tens of millions of dollars she raised went, yes that's right, the
money was all sent back to the Catholic Church coffers in Rome, after all
you cannot expect the Pope to travel "Business"
--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg
"m II" <c@in.the.hat> wrote in message news:7duTj.604$KB3.532@edtnps91...
> Nicholas wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 01:18:08 GMT, m II <c@in.the.hat> wrote:
>>
>>> Rita Berkowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still can't get one to fill the frame without all that severe cropping
>>>> and
>>>> plasticizing? And what the fuck is all that photoshopped shit in the
>>>> background of the second one? That's so unlike you to be that sloppy
>>>> with your composites.
>>>
>>> The weight of being a thief weighs heavily on 'his' shoulders.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> I've looked at Annika's work on pbase, and I think he is an incredibly
>> TALENTED artist and photographer. He has earned his bragging rights.
>> The proof is there for all to see.
>>
>> He has an impressive amount of portfolios, and his work has been
>> viewed by one million, 8 hundred thousand viewers, unless, he ran
>> those numbers up himself ( I doubt it ).
>
> The point is somewhat moot.
>
> If Mother Theresa were a plagiarist would we think differently about her
> work with the poor? Then again, would that work make her any less of a
> plagiarist?
>
> Apples and oranges or, in this case, photographer and thief.
>
>
>
>
>
> mike
so please point out the stolen pictures.
and Mother Teresa was nothing more than a whore for the Catholic church, and
is quoted as saying that living in poverty was a blessing from God, guess
where the tens of millions of dollars she raised went, yes that's right, the
money was all sent back to the Catholic Church coffers in Rome, after all
you cannot expect the Pope to travel "Business"
--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
Atheist Chaplain wrote:
> so please point out the stolen pictures.
* w w w .dropshots . com /echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28
This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger
scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work.
When I called him on it, he got abusive. A few days later he must have
gotten sick of the bad publicity and he took it down.
If I hadn't said anything in these groups, he'd still be claiming it as
his own.
I hate thieves.
mike
Atheist Chaplain wrote:
> so please point out the stolen pictures.
* w w w .dropshots . com /echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28
This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger
scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work.
When I called him on it, he got abusive. A few days later he must have
gotten sick of the bad publicity and he took it down.
If I hadn't said anything in these groups, he'd still be claiming it as
his own.
I hate thieves.
mike
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
On May 5, 10:33 am, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
> > so please point out the stolen pictures.
>
> * w w w .dropshots . com /echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28
>
> This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger
> scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work.
>
Bullshit. I posted it in my "Testing" gallery and posted a link to it
here.
I even offered to fix your original for you. Fuck me for being so
nice.
Here is the entire thread.
* tinyurl . com /5mjc7f
Note your original post attacking me. "Don't start none, won't be
none."
It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no
desciption or attribution.
I thought none was needed since the only people seeing the pic would
have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and
you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it.
On May 5, 10:33 am, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
> > so please point out the stolen pictures.
>
> * w w w .dropshots . com /echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28
>
> This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger
> scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work.
>
Bullshit. I posted it in my "Testing" gallery and posted a link to it
here.
I even offered to fix your original for you. Fuck me for being so
nice.
Here is the entire thread.
* tinyurl . com /5mjc7f
Note your original post attacking me. "Don't start none, won't be
none."
It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no
desciption or attribution.
I thought none was needed since the only people seeing the pic would
have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and
you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it.
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
On May 5, 1:16 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol . com > wrote:
> On May 5, 10:33 am, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
>
> > Atheist Chaplain wrote:
> > > so please point out the stolen pictures.
>
> > * w w w .dropshots . com /echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28
>
> > This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger
> > scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work.
>
> Bullshit. I posted it in my "Testing" gallery and posted a link to it
> here.
> I even offered to fix your original for you. Fuck me for being so
> nice.
>
> Here is the entire thread. * tinyurl . com /5mjc7f
>
> Note your original post attacking me. "Don't start none, won't be
> none."
>
> It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no
> desciption or attribution.
> I thought none was needed since the only people seeing the pic would
> have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and
> you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it.
When I first saw that image I thought, what a nice sunset. Then Bret
cleaned it up a bit and showed the manger scene in the lower left hand
side. Made a big difference in the feel of the image.
Then he even offered to do the same on the original image for the
original photographer and return the new image along with the
original. As far as I can see, Bret offered help to another
photographer to improve the image and got his head handed to him.
The attacks on Bret seemed to me a bit over the top and with just
to much whining. The image had been removed from the listing that Bret
had done and that should have been the end of it. Maybe Bret did step
over bounds a bit. But this continuing attacks on him and his personal
images seems to be just freaking juvenile.
Draco
On May 5, 1:16 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol . com > wrote:
> On May 5, 10:33 am, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
>
> > Atheist Chaplain wrote:
> > > so please point out the stolen pictures.
>
> > * w w w .dropshots . com /echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28
>
> > This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger
> > scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work.
>
> Bullshit. I posted it in my "Testing" gallery and posted a link to it
> here.
> I even offered to fix your original for you. Fuck me for being so
> nice.
>
> Here is the entire thread. * tinyurl . com /5mjc7f
>
> Note your original post attacking me. "Don't start none, won't be
> none."
>
> It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no
> desciption or attribution.
> I thought none was needed since the only people seeing the pic would
> have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and
> you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it.
When I first saw that image I thought, what a nice sunset. Then Bret
cleaned it up a bit and showed the manger scene in the lower left hand
side. Made a big difference in the feel of the image.
Then he even offered to do the same on the original image for the
original photographer and return the new image along with the
original. As far as I can see, Bret offered help to another
photographer to improve the image and got his head handed to him.
The attacks on Bret seemed to me a bit over the top and with just
to much whining. The image had been removed from the listing that Bret
had done and that should have been the end of it. Maybe Bret did step
over bounds a bit. But this continuing attacks on him and his personal
images seems to be just freaking juvenile.
Draco
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
Annika1980 wrote:
> On May 5, 10:33 am, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
>> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
>>> so please point out the stolen pictures.
>> * w w w .dropshots . com /echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28
>>
>> This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger
>> scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work.
>>
>
> Bullshit. I posted it in my "Testing" gallery and posted a link to it
> here.
> I even offered to fix your original for you. Fuck me for being so
> nice.
>
> Here is the entire thread.
> * tinyurl . com /5mjc7f
>
> Note your original post attacking me. "Don't start none, won't be
> none."
Look dimwit, the following is NOT an attack. I was being civilized.
I said:
"As an aside, wouldn't some sort of attribution be in order?"
> It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no
> desciption or attribution.
> I thought none was needed since the only people seeing the pic would
> have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and
> you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it.
You obviously missed the part where I asked why my name wasn't on it.
AND the following emails where you started swearing at me.
Not only are you a thief, but apparently also a liar.
My first mention of your posting:
===================================================
As an aside, wouldn't some sort of attribution be in order?
* w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/72067191
May lead people to believe the photographer isn't who it actually is.
mike II
====================================================
This thing can end in a number of ways.
1) You sincerely apologize publicly for your screw up and not do it
again and I shut up about it from now on,
or
2) I follow you around for the rest of your days, reminding people what
a thief and liar you are.
Your call. Think about it carefully before beaking off, Foghorn.
mike
Annika1980 wrote:
> On May 5, 10:33 am, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
>> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
>>> so please point out the stolen pictures.
>> * w w w .dropshots . com /echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28
>>
>> This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger
>> scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work.
>>
>
> Bullshit. I posted it in my "Testing" gallery and posted a link to it
> here.
> I even offered to fix your original for you. Fuck me for being so
> nice.
>
> Here is the entire thread.
> * tinyurl . com /5mjc7f
>
> Note your original post attacking me. "Don't start none, won't be
> none."
Look dimwit, the following is NOT an attack. I was being civilized.
I said:
"As an aside, wouldn't some sort of attribution be in order?"
> It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no
> desciption or attribution.
> I thought none was needed since the only people seeing the pic would
> have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and
> you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it.
You obviously missed the part where I asked why my name wasn't on it.
AND the following emails where you started swearing at me.
Not only are you a thief, but apparently also a liar.
My first mention of your posting:
===================================================
As an aside, wouldn't some sort of attribution be in order?
* w w w .pbase . com /bret/image/72067191
May lead people to believe the photographer isn't who it actually is.
mike II
====================================================
This thing can end in a number of ways.
1) You sincerely apologize publicly for your screw up and not do it
again and I shut up about it from now on,
or
2) I follow you around for the rest of your days, reminding people what
a thief and liar you are.
Your call. Think about it carefully before beaking off, Foghorn.
mike
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
On May 5, 8:39 pm, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
>
> Look dimwit, the following is NOT an attack. I was being civilized.
>
> I said:
> "As an aside, wouldn't some sort of attribution be in order?"
>
You said this in your orignal post when you posted the pic:
"As will be quickly noticed, much like Annika's shots, no attempt at
composition or artistic merit was attempted."
I consider that an attack. Once you lob the first volley, it's on.
So you shouldn't be bitching about whatever happens next.
As for me apologizing ..... yeah, hold your breath.
So I guess you'll have to stalk me from now on. You can get in line
behind the others.
On May 5, 8:39 pm, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
>
> Look dimwit, the following is NOT an attack. I was being civilized.
>
> I said:
> "As an aside, wouldn't some sort of attribution be in order?"
>
You said this in your orignal post when you posted the pic:
"As will be quickly noticed, much like Annika's shots, no attempt at
composition or artistic merit was attempted."
I consider that an attack. Once you lob the first volley, it's on.
So you shouldn't be bitching about whatever happens next.
As for me apologizing ..... yeah, hold your breath.
So I guess you'll have to stalk me from now on. You can get in line
behind the others.
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
Annika1980 wrote:
> As for me apologizing ..... yeah, hold your breath.
> So I guess you'll have to stalk me from now on. You can get in line
> behind the others.
Quite condescending for a lying thief.
mike
Annika1980 wrote:
> As for me apologizing ..... yeah, hold your breath.
> So I guess you'll have to stalk me from now on. You can get in line
> behind the others.
Quite condescending for a lying thief.
mike
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol . com > wrote in message
news:9b1e72e4-7175-4eeb-95e9-ad8cf8c1dbb6@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups . com ...
On May 5, 10:33 am, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
> > so please point out the stolen pictures.
>
> * w w w .dropshots . com /echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28
>
> This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger
> scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work.
>
Bullshit. I posted it in my "Testing" gallery and posted a link to it
here.
I even offered to fix your original for you. Fuck me for being so
nice.
Here is the entire thread.
* tinyurl . com /5mjc7f
Note your original post attacking me. "Don't start none, won't be
none."
It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no
desciption or attribution.
I thought none was needed since the only people seeing the pic would
have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and
you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it.
and then your jibe back with this little gem
"If I posted crap like that
I wouldn't want anyone to see it either. However, even your weak
effort can be rescued with a bit of Photoshop magic:"
I too would be pissed with you Brett, you may be a good photographer but
your certainly no angel.
--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg
"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol . com > wrote in message
news:9b1e72e4-7175-4eeb-95e9-ad8cf8c1dbb6@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups . com ...
On May 5, 10:33 am, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
> > so please point out the stolen pictures.
>
> * w w w .dropshots . com /echo4#date/2006-12-23/16:36:28
>
> This is my picture. The slime ball downloaded it, lightened the manger
> scene area, then he put it on *his* web page as his own work.
>
Bullshit. I posted it in my "Testing" gallery and posted a link to it
here.
I even offered to fix your original for you. Fuck me for being so
nice.
Here is the entire thread.
* tinyurl . com /5mjc7f
Note your original post attacking me. "Don't start none, won't be
none."
It is true that my original re-posting of that pic carried no
desciption or attribution.
I thought none was needed since the only people seeing the pic would
have come from my link here. Then you mouthed off about it ... and
you've been mouthin off about it since XMAS of 2006. Get over it.
and then your jibe back with this little gem
"If I posted crap like that
I wouldn't want anyone to see it either. However, even your weak
effort can be rescued with a bit of Photoshop magic:"
I too would be pissed with you Brett, you may be a good photographer but
your certainly no angel.
--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
On May 5, 8:55 pm, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote:
> I too would be pissed with you Brett, you may be a good photographer but
> your certainly no angel.
Never claimed to be. I do have one, however.
On May 5, 8:55 pm, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote:
> I too would be pissed with you Brett, you may be a good photographer but
> your certainly no angel.
Never claimed to be. I do have one, however.
Re: BLUEBIRDS LOVE THE 40D!
"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol . com > wrote in message
news:dd7e6f00-e3a8-4b88-8257-e7a05f600270@56g2000hsm.googlegroups . com ...
On May 5, 8:55 pm, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote:
> I too would be pissed with you Brett, you may be a good photographer but
> your certainly no angel.
>Never claimed to be. I do have one, however.
:-)
--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg
"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol . com > wrote in message
news:dd7e6f00-e3a8-4b88-8257-e7a05f600270@56g2000hsm.googlegroups . com ...
On May 5, 8:55 pm, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote:
> I too would be pissed with you Brett, you may be a good photographer but
> your certainly no angel.
>Never claimed to be. I do have one, however.
:-)
--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg
Next: CHINA WHOLESALE CHEAP PRADA SUNGLASSES
Previous: Never Lay Out In The Sun With Your Mouth Open!!
