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 cir***stances 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:
http://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:
http://www.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 bull**** 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 bull****, 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...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 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:
http://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:
http://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/****trait work?)
(O:
If anyone still wants to utilise Douglas MacDonald's services after
checking out the links above, here is that link again:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/
I won't point you to weddingsn****traits - 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:)
|
