Big cat really quite small

Big cat really quite small

It's odd how you can stand beside the hull of a big cat in dry dock and it
towers over you ...yet when it's in the water surrounded by the really 'big
boys' toys... It can look so small...
* w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the_cat.htm

Interesting exercise in digital imagery. Shot with a 40D Canon and 17 - 85
kit lens. DxO optix pro software removed the generous CA this lens produces
and corrected the other image anomolies you'd expect for a cheap lens (cheap
as in $600???). What it couldn't do is take away the distint blue colour
cast in the shadows when the shot is otherwise correctly white balanced.
Nikon's don't do that incidentally. I had to use Photoshop to do it and even
then, it's not a quick exercise.

As far back as the 10D I can remember this happening. Canon might have
changed their models but they havent altered their stripes !

Re: Big cat really quite small

On May 12, 1:30 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
> It's odd how you can stand beside the hull of a big cat in dry dock and it=

> towers over you ...yet when it's in the water surrounded by the really 'bi=
g
> boys' toys... It can look so small... * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previe=
ws/the cat.htm
>
> Interesting exercise in digital imagery. Shot with a 40D Canon and 17 - 85=

> kit lens. DxO optix pro software removed the generous CA this lens produce=
s
> and corrected the other image anomolies you'd expect for a cheap lens (che=
ap
> as in $600???). What it couldn't do is take away the distint blue colour
> cast in the shadows when the shot is otherwise correctly white balanced.
> Nikon's don't do that incidentally. I had to use Photoshop to do it and ev=
en
> then, it's not a quick exercise.
>
> As far back as the 10D I can remember this happening. Canon might have
> changed their models but they havent altered their stripes !


Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:

* w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm

Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
Douglas' images.

Oh well, I tried to be nice.

Draco

Re: Big cat really quite small


"Draco" <JPDFDA@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:b7582738-15b2-49f5-8068-c003e7578d24@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
On May 12, 1:30 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
> It's odd how you can stand beside the hull of a big cat in dry dock and it
> towers over you ...yet when it's in the water surrounded by the really
> 'big
> boys' toys... It can look so
> small... * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the_cat.htm
-----------------------


Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:

* w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the_cat.htm

Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
Douglas' images.

Oh well, I tried to be nice.

Draco
---------------
This is where one bad apple ruins the whole box Draco.

Your thieving mate: anniika1980 and Paul Furman are the ones to blame for
it. Bret repeatedly took my copyright images and pasted his revolting
pornography into them and thought it a great joke... I've had enough and I'm
doing something about it.

Paul Furman is probably the luckiest fellow in the USA today. He escaped a
significant legal suit by just minutes when his bigoted attitude kept him
from recognizing his theft of my images was serious. His host was a lot more
proactive (and apologetic) when they got the court papers.

The fact you support Bret Douglas' other photographic endeavours does not
alter the fact you associate with and provide support for a self confessed
paedophile and porn peddler. Are you really that broad minded?

After Bell South got my court papers and gave him the flick ...he moved to
EPB Telecom, Verizon's IP range in Arlington seemed to be too close to
Chattanooga's Range to filter accurately on. I did ask for information here
about local call rates to Virginia and such, mindful if I did block the
hillbilly state, I'd probably block you and a few others too.

I'd suggest Draco, you look closely at your associations and to whom you
offer public support for. You are seen not only by what you say and do but
by the company you keep. If you keep company with criminals, you'll be
considered one yourself.

This group is total disarray. The resuscitated "shootin" is hardly a glowing
example of rebuilding public confidence in the group. People like Bret
Douglas are destroying Usenet and people like you sit idly by, watching them
destroy what you really came to enjoy.

Think about it mate... Sooner or later you'll be faced with making a
decision. Stand up for decency or let the whole thing slide into the control
of depraved lunatic.

Re: Big cat really quite small

Alienjones wrote:

Bleh!

The way it works: if someone files a complaint, your hosting service
won't look at the legal details, the new US legislation says you are
guilty until you prove yourself innocent... and a 2 year old usenet spat
over silliness certainly isn't worth my time to fight.

Re: Big cat really quite small


"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill . net > wrote in message
news:JT3Wj.3587$nl7.1343@flpi146.ffdc.sbc . com ...
> Alienjones wrote:
>
> Bleh!
>
> The way it works: if someone files a complaint, your hosting service won't
> look at the legal details, the new US legislation says you are guilty
> until you prove yourself innocent... and a 2 year old usenet spat over
> silliness certainly isn't worth my time to fight.


And who dragged it out for 2 years?

You stole my work and plagiarised it then tried to contradict me with the
doctored images. Not just a 2 year old spat but fraud and copyright theft by
you.

All you had to do was apologize but no... You wanted to make as ass out of
yourself and discover along the way that you simply can't go around behaving
as if nothing you do is illegal until you get caught. You got caught. Live
with it or not but you still owe me an apology... And $687 for lawyers fees.

Re: Big cat really quite small


"Alienjones" <alienjones@y7mail . com > wrote in message
news:g0b7b8$iau$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill . net > wrote in message
> news:JT3Wj.3587$nl7.1343@flpi146.ffdc.sbc . com ...
>> Alienjones wrote:
>>
>> Bleh!
>>
>> The way it works: if someone files a complaint, your hosting service won't
>> look at the legal details, the new US legislation says you are guilty until
>> you prove yourself innocent... and a 2 year old usenet spat over silliness
>> certainly isn't worth my time to fight.
>
>
> And who dragged it out for 2 years?

That would be you Douglas, same as usual.


>
> You stole my work and plagiarised it

Who in their right mind would steal your work and claim it as their own ?


then tried to contradict me with the
> doctored images.

You mean he used your photos to prove you wrong ! Get over it cry baby.


Not just a 2 year old spat but fraud and copyright theft by
> you.
>
> All you had to do was apologize but no...

Apologize for what ?


>You wanted to make as ass out of yourself

No, he made an ass out of you !

>and discover along the way that you simply can't go around behaving as if
>nothing you do is illegal until you get caught. You got caught.

Got any proof that this isn't just another one of your insane rants ????


> Live with it or not but you still owe me an apology... And $687 for lawyers
> fees.

Bet you had to take out a loan for that large a sum. That really proves
what an idiot you are.

Re: Big cat really quite small

On May 12, 6:27 pm, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
> "Draco" <JPD...@hotmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:b7582738-15b2-49f5-8068-c003e7578d24@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 12, 1:30 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:> It's odd =
how you can stand beside the hull of a big cat in dry dock and it
> > towers over you ...yet when it's in the water surrounded by the really
> > 'big
> > boys' toys... It can look so
> > small... * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>
> -----------------------
>
> Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
>
> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>
> Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
> Douglas' images.
>
> Oh well, I tried to be nice.
>
> Draco
> ---------------
> This is where one bad apple ruins the whole box Draco.
>
> Your thieving mate: anniika1980 and Paul Furman are the ones to blame for
> it. Bret repeatedly took my copyright images and pasted his revolting
> pornography into them and thought it a great joke... I've had enough and I=
'm
> doing something about it.
>
> Paul Furman is probably the luckiest fellow in the USA today. He escaped a=

> significant legal suit by just minutes when his bigoted attitude kept him
> from recognizing his theft of my images was serious. His host was a lot mo=
re
> proactive (and apologetic) when they got the court papers.
>
> The fact you support Bret Douglas' other photographic endeavours does not
> alter the fact you associate with and provide support for a self confessed=

> paedophile and porn peddler. Are you really that broad minded?
>
> After Bell South got my court papers and gave him the flick ...he moved to=

> EPB Telecom, Verizon's IP range in Arlington seemed to be too close to
> Chattanooga's Range to filter accurately on. I did ask for information her=
e
> about local call rates to Virginia and such, mindful if I did block the
> hillbilly state, I'd probably block you and a few others too.
>
> I'd suggest Draco, you look closely at your associations and to whom you
> offer public support for. You are seen not only by what you say and do but=

> by the company you keep. If you keep company with criminals, you'll be
> considered one yourself.
>
> This group is total disarray. The resuscitated "shootin" is hardly a glowi=
ng
> example of rebuilding public confidence in the group. People like Bret
> Douglas are destroying Usenet and people like you sit idly by, watching th=
em
> destroy what you really came to enjoy.
>
> Think about it mate... Sooner or later you'll be faced with making a
> decision. Stand up for decency or let the whole thing slide into the contr=
ol
> of depraved lunatic.

Douglas, From my point of view ( which has been from the side lines)
it has appeared to me that Bret has appolgized and you slapped him in
the face. He had responded to your attempts at bullying and name
calling by jumping into that mud filled pit.
You had made claims of being a surpurb photographer and no one could
better you in image making. Well everyone can be beat in what ever
they do. No one remains the very best. You also claimed that you
created a program that allowed you to create huge prints (30 by 36
inch) from one or two megabyte files that were sharp and clean of
artifacts. Then when you were called to the floor on it, you claimed
that everyone was out to get you and no one had any right to see how
you created the images. You didn't have to provide the entire working
program, just enough information to show that it works. Then folks
would have been beating a path to your doorway to buy it.
Yes this group is in "...disarray..." and not because of just Bret.
You have to accept blame as well as others. Your long posts and
attacks on people who disagree with you has sent many folks screaming
from the news group. Not only did Your attacks sour people on making
comments on images but, these spammers who have flooded the groups
with sales and nasty posts have done more harm than you or Bret could
ever do. Having the shoot-in again is not a contest to see who is a
better photographer. It is a way for photographers to extend and
improve their skills of the craft they( we all) love. It is a way for
photographers around the world to see how the other folks do their
work. See other images of far away places and how the photographers
see their home.
I have thought about it "mate". The amount of "decency" that has
been shown by you pales in comparision to that of a pack of dingos to
a cat. I stand by these folks who give helpful comments to others and
shows them a different way of seeing the image. If that make me a
criminal in your eyes, then you need a new pair of glasses, old son.
You say, "...Stand up for decency or let the whole thing slide into
the control of depraved lunatic..." From where I am the
"...lunatic..." I see is the one I am responding to and you have tried
to control this group. I guess that is why no one in AUS.PHOTO will
talk with you any more.

All of the above is my own opinion and I just don't give a rats
backside any longer.


Draco

Re: Big cat really quite small


"Draco" <JPDFDA@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:fc5206d1-8a86-41ed-abf4-f4ec91d4725d@2g2000hsn.googlegroups . com ...

You also claimed that you
created a program that allowed you to create huge prints (30 by 36
inch) from one or two megabyte files that were sharp and clean of
artifacts. Then when you were called to the floor on it, you claimed
that everyone was out to get you and no one had any right to see how
you created the images.

You didn't have to provide the entire working
program, just enough information to show that it works. Then folks
would have been beating a path to your doorway to buy it.
Yes this group is in "...disarray..." and not because of just Bret.
-----------------------
Well now Draco... It looks like you've been fed another load of stale
bullshit...

I actually provided Alan Browne with a 24" x 36" print of an enlargement I
made from a 10D file AND the 10D raw file for forensic verification. He
challenged me when I claimed I could make an enlargement that size from the
10D image and it would rival a Medium format print.

To keep him honest in his appraisal of the enlargement, I insisted a
recognized working professional also get an identical package. Alan
nominated Gordon Moat from San Diego, a world recognized professional
photographer specializing in medium format photography.

Part of what Gordon wrote:
"The initial test prints, and information, came from a company called Techno
Aussie. Two example prints were sent to me from Australia by Douglas
MacDonald. Included was a short explanation of camera gear used, and the
printer used. Techno Aussie use a proprietary upsizing algorithm to take
small image files, and match them closer to larger printed output sizes. The
printer used for the images is an AGFA Sherpa, which is quite a good system,
though not the latest in technology. The cameras used to originate the files
for the test images were the Canon 10D and Canon 20D. The algorithm he
developed and used pushed the files from 8 MP to around 50 MP (approx.
printed output), and due to commercial reasons the specific aspects of the
algorithm are not available."

So quite apart from you being treated as a mushroom (kept in the dark and
fed bullshit) by your thieving mate, The truth is:

I did in fact respond to the challenge and as Gordon confirmed... Could do
exactly what I claimed to be able to do. Idiots like Charlie Stevens and
Bret Douglas are so jealous of anyone who can do something they can't, they
set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a
package of truth.

You know Drago... People who never amount to anything and live their lives
out in a fantasy, are the ones you really need to be wary of. Pricks like
you associate yourself with have a habit of turning like rabid dogs and
attacking you if you happen to point out their pictures are so heavily
cropped and over worked, they have no commercial value... Bret Douglas can't
handle that truth so he shows his true colours and attacks anyone who tells
him.

When you want the truth, Bret Douglas is absolutely to wrong person to ask
for it. Alan Browne and me are like fire and water. I still think he'd have
no reason to lie if you asked his opinion about the enlargement package I
sent him.

And yes... I get mighty pissed off at a couple of red necked idiots who
refuse to accept any proof, (I offered to send the Chattanooga swine a
poster) and then set about making mischief and engaging in criminal
behaviour because they fear I might just be right. You have some nice mates
Draco... Watch you back mate.

Re: Big cat really quite small

On May 13, 6:49 pm, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
>The truth is:
>
> I did in fact respond to the challenge and as Gordon confirmed... Could do=

> exactly what I claimed to be able to do. Idiots like Charlie Stevens and
> Bret Douglas are so jealous of anyone who can do something they can't, the=
y
> set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a
> package of truth.
>

Bullshit. You later admitted that the image you sent them was made
from a stitched image and not the original shot. Guess you forgot
about that, eh Gramps? I'm sure Mark has the appropriate cites for
you in his files.

>People who never amount to anything and live their lives
>out in a fantasy, are the ones you really need to be wary of.
>Pricks like you associate yourself with have a habit of
>turning like rabid dogs and attacking you if you happen
>to point out their pictures are so heavily cropped and over
>worked, they have no commercial value... Bret Douglas can't
>handle that truth so he shows his true colours and attacks anyone
>who tells him.

D-Mac, at the risk of throwing you into another jealous rage I should
tell you that this month's issue of Diversity, Inc. magazine features
a photo of mine. It is the Kelly Tilghman photo that leads off the
article.
* w w w .diversityinc . com /public/department86.cfm

And yes, I was paid for the use of the photo so please don't lecture
me about commercial value. I've had my pics published in 3 magazines
so far. I'm guessing that's 3 more than you have, unless you count
CRAP ILLUSTRATED.

So fuck off, loser. I'll keep selling my pics to magazines and you
keep printing yours on your imaginary printers to sell to imaginary
clients from your imaginary companies. Then you can go sailing on
your imaginary boat.

Re: Big cat really quite small


"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol . com > wrote in message
news:3e6ae794-007d-49bb-81d0-ab1b89e79e3d@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
On May 13, 6:49 pm, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
>The truth is:
>
> I did in fact respond to the challenge and as Gordon confirmed... Could do
> exactly what I claimed to be able to do. Idiots like Charlie Stevens and
> Bret Douglas are so jealous of anyone who can do something they can't, they
> set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a
> package of truth.
>

Bullshit. You later admitted that the image you sent them was made
from a stitched image and not the original shot. Guess you forgot
about that, eh Gramps? I'm sure Mark has the appropriate cites for
you in his files.

--------------------------------------------------
OOOOH ! Caught in another lie Douglas. Can't you ever be trusted to just
tell the truth ? I guess that would be wishing for too much. And you wonder
why nobody believes you !



>People who never amount to anything and live their lives
>out in a fantasy, are the ones you really need to be wary of.
>Pricks like you associate yourself with have a habit of
>turning like rabid dogs and attacking you if you happen
>to point out their pictures are so heavily cropped and over
>worked, they have no commercial value... Bret Douglas can't
>handle that truth so he shows his true colours and attacks anyone
>who tells him.

D-Mac, at the risk of throwing you into another jealous rage I should
tell you that this month's issue of Diversity, Inc. magazine features
a photo of mine. It is the Kelly Tilghman photo that leads off the
article.
* w w w .diversityinc . com /public/department86.cfm

And yes, I was paid for the use of the photo so please don't lecture
me about commercial value. I've had my pics published in 3 magazines
so far. I'm guessing that's 3 more than you have, unless you count
CRAP ILLUSTRATED.

-----------------------------------------------

Congrats Bret. Keep up the good work.



So fuck off, loser. I'll keep selling my pics to magazines and you
keep printing yours on your imaginary printers to sell to imaginary
clients from your imaginary companies. Then you can go sailing on
your imaginary boat.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Douglas can only dream that someday he may have one of his crap photos
published.

Re: Big cat really quite small


"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol . com > wrote in message
news:3e6ae794-007d-49bb-81d0-ab1b89e79e3d@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
On May 13, 6:49 pm, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
>The truth is:
>
> I did in fact respond to the challenge and as Gordon confirmed... Could do
> exactly what I claimed to be able to do. Idiots like Charlie Stevens and
> Bret Douglas are so jealous of anyone who can do something they can't,
> they
> set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a
> package of truth.
>

Bullshit. You later admitted that the image you sent them was made
from a stitched image and not the original shot. Guess you forgot
about that, eh Gramps? I'm sure Mark has the appropriate cites for
you in his files.
------------------------------------
If you are going to be a liar, learn how to remember things fool. Mark is
actually Charles and from his history of moving around changing his
identity, I'd say he has more to worry about right now than finding a vague
reference on Google.

I told ColinD the image I sent him was from a composite... Some 2 years
after you started your pedantic bullshit and the Alan Browne saga. What's
up? You have a problem with honesty? I also told him the size of the
composite ... Fuching WALL FILLING. His print equaled one frame of a 20D.
More truth so put your hands over your ears to stop them burning.

Since then you've tried to impersonate me (Criminal Fraud) Hack my sellers
account on Ebay (identy theft) pasted porn into my images and gotten your
fake slut to post the link to it and after all these were taken down by the
hosts you scammed, you put em back on AOL. What disgusting perverted fool
you are.

The nice little record on * w w w .annika1980 . com is about to be updated
too. Don't forget that old codger you shot some pics of... Get him on the
job mate. In fact I think I'll send him some information and see if he'll do
the court work in Chatanooga for me. That other idiot across the road from
him is more interested in divorces and taking my money for nothing I
couldn't have gotten from the 'net.

Keep off the porn for a while and your memory might return. Hasn't your
mother told you about blindness and what you're doing? Believe this fool.
You have more than just my attention in what you do now. Behave yourself for
a change.

Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh?
Excellent stuff.

Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like
I do but a lot better than posting all those worthless stamp size images
you've been wasting your time with. Still, I suppose a dodo like you has to
learn somehow. You certainly aren't going to make any friends amongst those
who offered to help you with that bloody great chip on your sholder. Learn
by mistakes is a slow process as you are discovering.

Maybe I could interest you in one of my 2009 calendars? I just ordered
10,000 of them for the coming season. Let's see now, that makes the score a
little unbalanced for you doesn't it? 13 photos per calendar X 8 regions.
Hmmm. Forgetting all the images in my wedding magazines, that makes over a
100 published photos for me so far this year. Add the magazine shots and
seriously Bret... You are a babe in the woods.

Don't worry matey... You won't ever catch up to me but if you keep at it,
I'm sure you'll soon enough get to number 4 and then 5 and so it will go
until you start to get paid for your effort in excess of the cost of your
gear and can then claim to be a professional. Maybe then you'll know why it
just isn't profitable to mess around with a single pic the way you do.

Until then, stick to minding your own business because when you interfer
with mine, you are going to get more unwanted attention than a bloke in your
line of business really wants to have. The eyes of the world are on you now
son, let's see you apply yourself to getting out of the shit hole you live
in and make something of yourself for a change.

Douglas MacDonald CAUGHT LYING AGAIN, was Re: Big cat really quite boring

Firstly, may I observe that the image Douglas posted is up to his usual
standards - boring, pointless and uninteresting, insipid colours,
uninspiring composition (although the chopped off mast head is probably
a master stroke I am incapable of understanding) and inexplicably poor
choice of time of day - why on earth shoot in such flat, horrid light?

And one would have to question a 'pro's' use of a lens that is allegedly
so bad the CA had to be processed out of what is a greatly reduced
image, shot in circumstances that shouldn't elicit much CA at all. This
is not exactly a challenging scene, altho for Doug perhaps it would be...

Now, going a little off-topic and to pick up on Douglas and his usual
pack of LIES.

Alienjones wrote:
>> The truth is:
>>
>> I did in fact respond to the challenge and as Gordon confirmed... Could do
>> exactly what I claimed to be able to do. Idiots like Charlie Stevens and
>> Bret Douglas are so jealous of anyone who can do something they can't,
>> they
>> set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a
>> package of truth.

An oft-repeated falsehood from Douglas. Here is the link where Gordon
Moat, very tactfully, corrects Douglas' assertions:

* groups.google . com /group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse frm/thread/f0bc2af22e84217b/

Douglas has NEVER proven what he claims (namely that he can "add real
detail" and that he can enlarge a 6x4 print up to 36x24 and actually
INCREASE the detail level to 720 ppi (yes, his words!) in the process..
He has been caught out lying on numerous occasions, using falsified
images. Here's just one example:

* w w w .photokb . com /Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples

Note how Doug is IMMEDIATELY busted for posting a reduction, not an
enlargement, and the page is then pulled after he tries to bluster his
way out of his own quagmire of lies.. The web is littered with similar
examples of Doug's lies and bullshit enlarging claims. He rapidly pulls
any pages as soon as he is busted, but I have several saved pages
showing his falsehoods - if anyone wants a copy, just let me know...

No one is suggesting he can't make big prints (frankly, anyone can!).
I've seen them - they are positively mediocre, and barely scrape
together 70-120 ppi detail level. Which is ok from a distance. So
goodonya dougie.

But what we ARE pointing out is that his claims of a super-duper
enlarging algorithm are bullshit, he constantly lies and cheats to
promote his (very hard to find!) 'businesses'.. and his quality
standards are obviously crap.

That's the same enlarging algorithm he sold to Samsung, by the way. Are
you still claiming that, Dougie? Or was 'Graham Hunt' lying?

> I told ColinD the image I sent him was from a composite...

That is easily proven as an absolute BLATANT LIE. Here's what Colin
actually said when he found out he had been duped:

> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo
> From: Colin D <nos...@nowhere . com >
> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300
> Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use)
>
> Declaration to all readers of this thread:
>
> At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the
> print he sent me.
>
> By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty
> stitched images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he
> sent me, the
> right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames
> used in the other half?
>
> Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to
> be trusted.
>
> Colin D.

And here's the link for incontrovertible proof of Douglas MacDonald's LIES:
* groups.google . com .au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse frm/thread/782ea8368e5fd9be

To clarify Colin's words, he had earlier been sent a 24x36 print after a
conversation in a different thread. The print was *supposed* to prove
that Doug could make enlargements as he claimed (ie from a small file
and with "real added detail"). Colin remained somewhat unimpressed.
Then, many months later - in the thread above - Douglas accidentally let
it slip that the image was in fact a COMPOSITE of 20 images!! Douglas
started madly backpedalling - read the thread if interested...

So, Douglas MacDonald, you are a, yet again, proven as a FILTHY LIAR.
Your reputation here is thoroughly deserved.

Note, as usual, Doug, that I post links and proof that you are a liar.
You should try it - posting your own demented website doesn't count -
especially now that you have been proven as a hopeless, incorrigible
liar *many* times over and not just by me..

Keep at it, Doug. You amuse me. And we are still waiting, with baited
breath, for you to return, victorious (grin), to the famous 'stepped out
panorama' thread/debacle, here:

* phorums . com .au/archive/index.php/t-263937.html

This topic will be revisited by me shortly. (I'd get in first if I was
you, Doug - what's stopping you? Too much wedding/portrait work?)

(O:

If anyone still wants to utilise Douglas MacDonald's services after
checking out the links above, here is that link again:

* w w w .douglasjames . com .au/

I won't point you to weddingsnportraits - he seems to be winding that
one down - another in a long list of casualties. Whatever happened to
clocksnprints (due in March 08)? Technoaussie? His other unnamed
'photo lab franchises'? The list of failures continues (Doug can easily
correct me if I'm wrong, simply by posting a shopfront address..)

(O:)

D-MAC: BUSTED, AGAIN

On May 14, 7:27 am, Mark Thomas <markt@ don't spam marktphoto . com >
wrote:
> Firstly, may I observe that the image Douglas posted is up to his usual
> standards - boring, pointless and uninteresting, insipid colours,
> uninspiring composition (although the chopped off mast head is probably
> a master stroke I am incapable of understanding) and inexplicably poor
> choice of time of day - why on earth shoot in such flat, horrid light?
>
> And one would have to question a 'pro's' use of a lens that is allegedly
> so bad the CA had to be processed out of what is a greatly reduced
> image, shot in circumstances that shouldn't elicit much CA at all.  This=

> is not exactly a challenging scene, altho for Doug perhaps it would be...
>
> Now, going a little off-topic and to pick up on Douglas and his usual
> pack of LIES.
>
> Alienjones wrote:
> >> The truth is:
>
> >> I did in fact respond to the challenge and as Gordon confirmed... Could=
do
> >> exactly what I claimed to be able to do. Idiots like Charlie Stevens an=
d
> >> Bret Douglas are so jealous of anyone who can do something they can't,
> >> they
> >> set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a
> >> package of truth.
>
> An oft-repeated falsehood from Douglas.  Here is the link where Gordon
> Moat, very tactfully, corrects Douglas' assertions:
>
> * groups.google . com /group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse frm/th...
>
> Douglas has NEVER proven what he claims (namely that he can "add real
> detail" and that he can enlarge a 6x4 print up to 36x24 and actually
> INCREASE the detail level to 720 ppi (yes, his words!) in the process..
>   He has been caught out lying on numerous occasions, using falsified
> images.  Here's just one example:
>
> * w w w .photokb . com /Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital...
>
> Note how Doug is IMMEDIATELY busted for posting a reduction, not an
> enlargement, and the page is then pulled after he tries to bluster his
> way out of his own quagmire of lies..  The web is littered with similar
> examples of Doug's lies and bullshit enlarging claims. He rapidly pulls
> any pages as soon as he is busted, but I have several saved pages
> showing his falsehoods - if anyone wants a copy, just let me know...
>
> No one is suggesting he can't make big prints (frankly, anyone can!).
> I've seen them - they are positively mediocre, and barely scrape
> together 70-120 ppi detail level.  Which is ok from a distance.  So
> goodonya dougie.
>
> But what we ARE pointing out is that his claims of a super-duper
> enlarging algorithm are bullshit, he constantly lies and cheats to
> promote his (very hard to find!) 'businesses'.. and his quality
> standards are obviously crap.
>
> That's the same enlarging algorithm he sold to Samsung, by the way.  Are=

> you still claiming that, Dougie?  Or was 'Graham Hunt' lying?
>
> > I told ColinD the image I sent him was from a composite...
>
> That is easily proven as an absolute BLATANT LIE.  Here's what Colin
> actually said when he found out he had been duped:
>
>  > Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo
>  > From: Colin D <nos...@nowhere . com >
>  > Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300
>  > Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use)
>  >
>  > Declaration to all readers of this thread:
>  >
>  > At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the
>  > print he sent me.
>  >
>  > By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty
>  > stitched images.  He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print h=
e
>  > sent me, the
>  > right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame?  Like, 19 fra=
mes
>  > used in the other half?
>  >
>  > Douglas appears to have serious reality problems.  His word is not =
to
>  > be trusted.
>  >
>  > Colin D.
>
> And here's the link for incontrovertible proof of Douglas MacDonald's LIES=
: * groups.google . com .au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse frm...
>
> To clarify Colin's words, he had earlier been sent a 24x36 print after a
> conversation in a different thread.  The print was *supposed* to prove
> that Doug could make enlargements as he claimed (ie from a small file
> and with "real added detail").  Colin remained somewhat unimpressed.
> Then, many months later - in the thread above - Douglas accidentally let
> it slip that the image was in fact a COMPOSITE of 20 images!! Douglas
> started madly backpedalling - read the thread if interested...
>
> So, Douglas MacDonald, you are a, yet again, proven as a FILTHY LIAR.
> Your reputation here is thoroughly deserved.
>
> Note, as usual, Doug, that I post links and proof that you are a liar.
> You should try it - posting your own demented website doesn't count -
> especially now that you have been proven as a hopeless, incorrigible
> liar *many* times over and not just by me..
>
> Keep at it, Doug.  You amuse me.  And we are still waiting, with baite=
d
> breath, for you to return, victorious (grin), to the famous 'stepped out
> panorama' thread/debacle, here:
>
> * phorums . com .au/archive/index.php/t-263937.html
>
> This topic will be revisited by me shortly. (I'd get in first if I was
> you, Doug - what's stopping you?  Too much wedding/portrait work?)
>
> (O:
>
> If anyone still wants to utilise Douglas MacDonald's services after
> checking out the links above, here is that link again:
>
> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/
>
> I won't point you to weddingsnportraits - he seems to be winding that
> one down - another in a long list of casualties.  Whatever happened to
> clocksnprints (due in March 08)?  Technoaussie?  His other unnamed
> 'photo lab franchises'?  The list of failures continues (Doug can easily=

> correct me if I'm wrong, simply by posting a shopfront address..)
>
> (O:)

Just proves that you are not what you say you are or ever were. Also
proves that you are no gentleman. I know my friends and accept them as
they are. To bad you don't to seem to have any.


Draco

Re: Big cat really quite small

On May 14, 12:36 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
>
> I told ColinD the image I sent him was from a composite... Some 2 years
> after you started your pedantic bullshit and the Alan Browne saga. What's
> up? You have a problem with honesty? I also told him the size of the
> composite ... Fuching WALL FILLING. His print equaled one frame of a 20D.
> More truth so put your hands over your ears to stop them burning.

The REAL truth:
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo
> From: Colin D <nos...@nowhere . com >
> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300
> Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use)
>
> Declaration to all readers of this thread:
>
> At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the
> print he sent me.
>
> By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty
> stitched images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print
he
> sent me, the
> right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19
frames
> used in the other half?
>
> Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not
to
> be trusted.
>
> Colin D.

ROFL!

Come on, Douggie, time to fess up. You've been lying again.
Hey, while you're coming clean I just gotta ask you about the main pic
on this site (that you supposedly have me blocked from viewing ....
LOL!):

* w w w .douglasjames . com .au/

That's really a guy in drag isn't it? Is that the lovely Julian?

Re: Big cat really quite small


"Alienjones" <alienjones@y7mail . com > wrote in message
news:g0dq2n$o2e$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol . com > wrote in message
> news:3e6ae794-007d-49bb-81d0-ab1b89e79e3d@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 13, 6:49 pm, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
>>The truth is:
>>
>> I did in fact respond to the challenge and as Gordon confirmed... Could do
>> exactly what I claimed to be able to do. Idiots like Charlie Stevens and
>> Bret Douglas are so jealous of anyone who can do something they can't, they
>> set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a
>> package of truth.
>>
>
> Bullshit. You later admitted that the image you sent them was made
> from a stitched image and not the original shot. Guess you forgot
> about that, eh Gramps? I'm sure Mark has the appropriate cites for
> you in his files.
> ------------------------------------
> If you are going to be a liar, learn how to remember things fool. Mark is
> actually Charles and from his history of moving around changing his
> identity, I'd say he has more to worry about right now than finding a vague
> reference on Google.
>
> I told ColinD the image I sent him was from a composite... Some 2 years
> after you started your pedantic bullshit and the Alan Browne saga. What's
> up? You have a problem with honesty?


No, but it seems you do. That must go along with your failing memory. A
quote from and old post:


"Colin D:
I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the
smoothness and foreground definition with my setup here, and
attributed that to your magic algorithm. Little did I realize
that it was stitched, and I guess you could say that you stitched
me up as well.

To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I
am sorely pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm'
with a misrepresented print.

If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.

In utter disgust,

Colin D."




I also told him the size of the
> composite ... Fuching WALL FILLING. His print equaled one frame of a 20D.
> More truth so put your hands over your ears to stop them burning.

More lies from a professional liar. Another quote to refresh your failing
(selective) memory:


" Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo
From: Colin D <nos...@nowhere . com >
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300
Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use)

Declaration to all readers of this thread:

At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the
print he sent me.

By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty
stitched images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he
sent me, the
right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames
used in the other half?

Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to
be trusted.

Colin D. "


>
> Since then you've tried to impersonate me (Criminal Fraud) Hack my sellers
> account on Ebay (identy theft) pasted porn into my images and gotten your
> fake slut to post the link to it and after all these were taken down by the
> hosts you scammed, you put em back on AOL. What disgusting perverted fool
> you are.

Only in your mind, Douglas.

>
> The nice little record on * w w w .annika1980 . com is about to be updated
> too. Don't forget that old codger you shot some pics of... Get him on the
> job mate. In fact I think I'll send him some information and see if he'll do
> the court work in Chatanooga for me. That other idiot across the road from
> him is more interested in divorces and taking my money for nothing I
> couldn't have gotten from the 'net.


More lies, more idle threats.

>
> Keep off the porn for a while and your memory might return. Hasn't your
> mother told you about blindness and what you're doing? Believe this fool.

That might be the only thing you don't lie about as your own memory seems
to be very poor. I also noticed that you wear glasses.


> You have more than just my attention in what you do now. Behave yourself for
> a change.

More idle threats. And you wonder why you have such a large base of fans ?

>
> Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh?
> Excellent stuff.
>
> Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like
> I do

Got any proof of that, blowhard, or are we just expected to take the word of
a liar as the truth ?



but a lot better than posting all those worthless stamp size images
> you've been wasting your time with. Still, I suppose a dodo like you has to
> learn somehow. You certainly aren't going to make any friends amongst those
> who offered to help you with that bloody great chip on your sholder. Learn
> by mistakes is a slow process as you are discovering.


That's why it helps so much when you post examples of your work, it shows
everyone what NOT to do.


>
> Maybe I could interest you in one of my 2009 calendars?

Still can't manage to sell any, eh ? Must suck to have to give them away.


>I just ordered 10,000 of them for the coming season.

Must really suck having to buy your own photos !


> Let's see now, that makes the score a little unbalanced for you doesn't it?

I'll bet it does. How do you make money if you have to buy your own photos ?


> 13 photos per calendar X 8 regions.

WOW, thirteen photos, I'm impressed !!! Are those all recycled wedding
photos or did you have to take another 13 for the calenders ?


> Hmmm. Forgetting all the images in my wedding magazines,


Why "forgetting" them all, because they don't exist ?



that makes over a
> 100 published photos for me so far this year. Add the magazine shots and
> seriously Bret... You are a babe in the woods.


Either that or you're just a dulusional psycopathic liar.


>
> Don't worry matey... You won't ever catch up to me but if you keep at it,

You're right, I don't think anyone will ever catch up to you in lying !


> I'm sure you'll soon enough get to number 4 and then 5 and so it will go
> until you start to get paid for your effort in excess of the cost of your
> gear and can then claim to be a professional.

I thought being a "pro" meant being able to take a decent photo ? This is
something you haven't been able to show anyone, yet !


> Maybe then you'll know why it just isn't profitable to mess around with a
> single pic the way you do.


Then why do you cry so loudly when you accuse someone of stealing one of
your shitty snapshots ????


>
> Until then, stick to minding your own business because when you interfer
> with mine, you are going to get more unwanted attention than a bloke in your
> line of business really wants to have. The eyes of the world are on you now
> son, let's see you apply yourself to getting out of the shit hole you live
> in and make something of yourself for a change.

Oooooooooooh, more idle threats from the austrailian blowhard ! Time to
give it a rest, wanker.