"Alienjones" <Alienjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g0gvqj$65i$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Annika1980 wrote:
>> On May 14, 12:36 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh?
>> Excellent stuff.
>>
>>> Not quite up there with publi****ng your own wedding industry magazines
>>> like
>> I do
>>
>>
>> You mean the flyers you give away for free on your site featuring your
>> crappy Bridezilla pics? yeah, that compares favorably with selling
>> photos to magazines.
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> For a backwood jackass, you sure are an insult to the (in) breed.
>
> When someone distributes a 48 page magazine City wide, it actually
qualify
> the owner of the magazine to be called a MAGAZINE PUBLISHER.
When someone "distributes" a magazine they are usually called a delivery
boy.
>
> maybe 2 years ago it was a flyer. A year ago it was still a multi page
> brochure. Today it's a full fledged magazine with a client base that
reads
> like a who's who of the restaurant and wedding industry.
>
> While you were busy making an idiot out of yourself, I was quietly
chiseling
> away at a publi****ng business than now produces 3 magazines and 10
regional
> calendars with some serious plans and prospects for when my grand
children
> eventually take it over.
But that doesn't mean much when you are unable to sell any of it. If you
were able to make any money from it you could move out of your daughters
basement.
>
> Sort of makes your miserable life and disgusting efforts to gain a few
> scored points look like the childish stupidity you've never grown out
of.
>
> In the words of Gordon Moat:
>
> "I originally did not want to believe that Douglas MacDonald could get
> anything other than a mess with his large prints. While I agree with him
> that his lenses were a limit, his samples show the potential of digital
> prints, though only in controlled post processing and printing
conditions.
> His results are not easy for just anyone to repeat. Skill, experience,
and
> very good equipment allow higher limits."
>
> This from a world recognized printing and photography specialist. Who do
we
> believe?
I would believe Gordon as well. Let's see what he has to say here:
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.
I would also believe this guy. 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 sup****t your 'algorithm'
with a misrepresented print.
If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.
In utter disgust,
Colin D."
Or here:
" 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. "
>Him or the bunch of idiot rabble you managed to fool with the suggestion
>bull**** beats brains - well it does in your neck of the woods, that's
for
>sure.
The only idiot here is you, Douglas. You are notthing but a liar,a fraud
and
a cheat. All your lies can be proved by archived posts. Seems like someone
who
invented the internet should know this.
>
> You bunch of losers couldn't organize a chook raffle in a hen house,
much
> less a coherent argument.
Ironic, coming from you,, the king of the losers.
>
> http://www.annika1980.com
describes the criminal acts of Bret Douglas.
>
No proof that I can find. I just see the delusional rants of a
psychotic
wanker.
|
