On May 14, 7:27=A0am, Mark Thomas <markt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
'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 cir***stances that shouldn't elicit much CA at all.
=A0This=
> 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. =A0Here is the link where Gordon
> Moat, very tactfully, corrects Douglas' assertions:
>
> http://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..
> =A0 He has been caught out lying on numerous occasions, using falsified
> images. =A0Here's just one example:
>
> http://www.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.. =A0The 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. =A0Which is ok from a distance. =A0So
> 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.
=A0Are=
> you still claiming that, Dougie? =A0Or 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. =A0Here's what Colin
> actually said when he found out he had been duped:
>
> =A0> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo
> =A0> From: Colin_D <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> =A0> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300
> =A0> Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use)
> =A0>
> =A0> Declaration to all readers of this thread:
> =A0>
> =A0> At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the
> =A0> print he sent me.
> =A0>
> =A0> By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty
> =A0> stitched images. =A0He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print
h=
e
> =A0> sent me, the
> =A0> right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? =A0Like, 19
fra=
mes
> =A0> used in the other half?
> =A0>
> =A0> Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. =A0His word is
not =
to
> =A0> be trusted.
> =A0>
> =A0> 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...
>
> To clarify Colin's words, he had earlier been sent a 24x36 print after a
> conversation in a different thread. =A0The print was *supposed* to prove
> that Doug could make enlargements as he claimed (ie from a small file
> and with "real added detail"). =A0Colin 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. =A0You amuse me. =A0And we are still waiting, with
baite=
d
> 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? =A0Too 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. =A0Whatever happened to
> clocksnprints (due in March 08)? =A0Technoaussie? =A0His other unnamed
> 'photo lab franchises'? =A0The 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
|
