John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:37:36 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie > <mcmur...@dslextreme.com> wrote in > <mcmurtri-D145E8.12373615122...@news.dslextreme.com>:
> >In article <ina8m31aesatboscbj9aobhetoljo5l...@4ax.com>, > > John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >The golden dome and tea-colored water in the first photo is great. > >I haven't seen a Palace of Fine arts photo like that before.
> Thanks. I was just out for an early morning hike, and the magical > lighting sent me sprinting back to my car for my camera.
> >I also got 4 new regular expressions for my ad filter. That's a > >nasty hosting site - NSFW because of porn and malware banners.
> What "porn and malware"? Seriously. I'm just seeing a single banner > with a series of ads, including Circuit City and Disney.
Seriously. I've looked at your stuff twice, and both times was presented with an ad for "hot dates" in my home town. Sleazy. I wouldn't use that hosting company if I cared about my reputation.
>> >The golden dome and tea-colored water in the first photo is great. >> >I haven't seen a Palace of Fine arts photo like that before.
>> Thanks. I was just out for an early morning hike, and the magical >> lighting sent me sprinting back to my car for my camera.
>> >I also got 4 new regular expressions for my ad filter. That's a >> >nasty hosting site - NSFW because of porn and malware banners.
>> What "porn and malware"? Seriously. I'm just seeing a single banner >> with a series of ads, including Circuit City and Disney.
>Seriously. I've looked at your stuff twice, and both times was >presented with an ad for "hot dates" in my home town. Sleazy. >I wouldn't use that hosting company if I cared about my reputation.
>Paul Allen
With Firefox I don't get those. It may be the pop-up blocker built in. Might be a reason for the difference.
When I go to the posted link I get something about facebook, and if I click on the larger size for the picture I get some spam add. Nothing NSFW though.
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:53:23 -0800, Paul Allen <paul.l.al...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in <20071215185323.2443e...@granite.localdomain>:
>On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:58:26 GMT >John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >> http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=129qdelddtc&thumb=4 >> What "porn and malware"? Seriously. I'm just seeing a single banner >> with a series of ads, including Circuit City and Disney.
>Seriously. I've looked at your stuff twice, and both times was >presented with an ad for "hot dates" in my home town. Sleazy. >I wouldn't use that hosting company if I cared about my reputation.
I'm only using it for free hosting of full res sample images that can be accessed from Usenet and web forums. My serious hosting is elsewhere. And I fail to see how it could possibly have any impact on my reputation -- the Internet is chock full of ads, many far worse than these. In any event the original claim wasn't sleaze -- it was "porn and malware", and I've see none of either -- have you?
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
> >The golden dome and tea-colored water in the first photo is great. I > >haven't seen a Palace of Fine arts photo like that before.
> Thanks. I was just out for an early morning hike, and the magical > lighting sent me sprinting back to my car for my camera.
> >I also got 4 new regular expressions for my ad filter. That's a nasty > >hosting site - NSFW because of porn and malware banners.
> What "porn and malware"? Seriously. I'm just seeing a single banner > with a series of ads, including Circuit City and Disney.
I turned off the regex filters that I added and viewed the page a few times. It looks like Mediafire is using a large pool of banner advertisers. It's a risky practice because you never know what will be served.
I would never visit www.mediafire.com at work. The "hot girls" banner could be overlooked but the fake virus warning banner is for malware. Despite many protections I don't dare visit sites with embedded malware or anything looking like it at work. It would be risking my career and financial future.
A personal photography site can be served from a home connection. I serve a few personal web sites off DSL and it has only been saturated in a few cases. The worst bandwidth eater is http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/Nerd/Propane/ because people search for "Mushroom Cloud" every time Bush makes a big decision. I move popular photos to my ISP's hosting space when needed. Traffic is low now because I haven't had time to catch up on my photo processing. It looks like 7500 RAW files are waiting to be looked it. About 400 of them are Halong Bay day and night photos taken with a loose eyelash under the shutter :P
.. but you have. Your avoidance of issues and disappearance when things get tough is duly noted.
> I'm only using it for free hosting of full res sample images
Ahem??? The 'large' image is a whopping 768 x 614 pixels. And is quite unsharp, whether from a poor original or bad resampling. So the 'effort' appears to be somewhat wasted. You can't download any larger version without accepting what that site wants to throw at you. I, and - it would seem to any rational person by reading these responses - *everyone else* would rather not do that, given they are on just about every popup blocking list. But you know best!
>My serious hosting is elsewhere.
(grin)
>And I fail to see how it could possibly have any impact on my reputation
Frankly, as soon as someone makes a comment about popups, you can halve the number of visits you'll get. When you then make an amateurish, ill-informed retort that you don't see the problem, then even less folk are going to visit, because it is clear you haven't a clue. But having seen your reputation, perhaps you are more correct than you think.
>-- the Internet is chock full of ads, many far worse than these. In any >event the original claim wasn't sleaze -- it was "porn and malware", and >I've see none of either -- have you?
So you are going to argue about the semantics of porn/malware versus 'sleaze', rather than admit you have a problem?
Actually, having made the mistake of looking at a little of your posting history on modem newsgroups, I am not in the least surprised.
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:01:18 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmur...@dslextreme.com> wrote in <mcmurtri-501854.02011816122...@news.dslextreme.com>:
>In article <8jt8m3hta0561ru4uft6n8cf5hhoj20...@4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >> What "porn and malware"? Seriously. I'm just seeing a single banner >> with a series of ads, including Circuit City and Disney.
>I turned off the regex filters that I added and viewed the page a few >times. It looks like Mediafire is using a large pool of banner >advertisers. It's a risky practice because you never know what will be >served.
Most employers take a dim view of any personal surfing on company time.
>The "hot girls" banner >could be overlooked but the fake virus warning banner is for malware.
Did you check it out or are you just guessing?
>Despite many protections I don't dare visit sites with embedded malware >or anything looking like it at work. It would be risking my career and >financial future.
I'd say you probably shouldn't be doing personal surfing at work at all, but I don't see how there would be any real career risk just from this site.
>A personal photography site can be served from a home connection.
In some cases, yes, but not in all cases, and it's not something I would choose to do in any event because of the risks.
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
How childish. I got busy in the real world and just didn't have time to keep on with the increasingly pointless and repetitive back and forth.
>> I'm only using it for free hosting of full res sample images >Ahem??? The 'large' image is a whopping 768 x 614 pixels.
You're as far off the mark on this as on your other comments. There's a large Download Image button. It's hard to miss but apparently you did.
>>And I fail to see how it could possibly have any impact on my reputation >Frankly, as soon as someone makes a comment about popups, you can >halve the number of visits you'll get.
Nonsense.
>[SNIP]
The rest of your post is just childish insults, which I'm not going to dignify with a response.
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
> How childish. I got busy in the real world and just didn't have time to > keep on with the increasingly pointless and repetitive back and forth.
> >> I'm only using it for free hosting of full res sample images > >Ahem??? The 'large' image is a whopping 768 x 614 pixels.
> You're as far off the mark on this as on your other comments. There's a > large Download Image button. It's hard to miss but apparently you did.
> >>And I fail to see how it could possibly have any impact on my reputation > >Frankly, as soon as someone makes a comment about popups, you can > >halve the number of visits you'll get.
> Nonsense.
> >[SNIP]
> The rest of your post is just childish insults, which I'm not going to > dignify with a response.
> -- > Best regards, > John Navas > Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
Seems like a lot of uneccessary chatter over a mediocre image.
BTW the "Panasonic DMC-FZB(and several others)" is highly impressive. I'm inviting all the neigbors over this evening to share with the how hip you are.
Now that the dust has settled I can't resist noting how little relevant signal about the image was posted as compared to all the irrelevant noise, and how everyone missed that (a) the image was shot wide open at 1/10 second with ISO pushed up to 200 (hand-held), and (b) the image was corrected for perspective distortion (and rotation). It's a testament to the effectiveness of the image stabilization, and that it turned out so well given all the challenges is remarkable.
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
Kevin McMurtrie: I also got 4 new regular expressions for my ad filter. That's a nasty hosting site - NSFW because of porn and malware banners.
Paul Allen: Seriously. I've looked at your stuff twice, and both times was presented with an ad for "hot dates" in my home town. Sleazy. I wouldn't use that hosting company if I cared about my reputation.
Charles: ..if I click on the larger size for the picture I get some spam add.
Ray Fischer: Pity it's not sharper, even with the sharpening artifacts. Still, it should be good for a nice 5x7. I'd go back another day and have another go at it.
Phil: Seems like a lot of unnecessary chatter over a mediocre image. BTW the "Panasonic DMC-FZB(and several others)" is highly impressive. I'm inviting all the neigbors over this evening to share with them how hip you are.
If it wuz me, I'd be gettin' the hint.
(Careful, John - don't dignify this with a response...)
In article <0fsem310l40dacjk8dsqiavqra2k0sg...@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:29:15 GMT, John Navas > <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in > <ina8m31aesatboscbj9aobhetoljo5l...@4ax.com>:
> Now that the dust has settled I can't resist noting how little relevant > signal about the image was posted as compared to all the irrelevant > noise, and how everyone missed that (a) the image was shot wide open at > 1/10 second with ISO pushed up to 200 (hand-held), and (b) the image was > corrected for perspective distortion (and rotation). It's a testament > to the effectiveness of the image stabilization, and that it turned out > so well given all the challenges is remarkable.
one reason there was so little 'relevant noise' was that there wasn't all that much to say. it wasn't very sharp and riddled with artifacts. either that or the viewers were busy dating hot girls in their neighborhood and didn't have time to respond. :)
>> Now that the dust has settled I can't resist noting how little relevant >> signal about the image was posted as compared to all the irrelevant >> noise, and how everyone missed that (a) the image was shot wide open at >> 1/10 second with ISO pushed up to 200 (hand-held), and (b) the image was >> corrected for perspective distortion (and rotation). It's a testament >> to the effectiveness of the image stabilization, and that it turned out >> so well given all the challenges is remarkable.
>one reason there was so little 'relevant noise' was that there wasn't >all that much to say. it wasn't very sharp and riddled with artifacts. >either that or the viewers were busy dating hot girls in their >neighborhood and didn't have time to respond. :)
Thanks for proving my point. :)
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
On Dec 19, 1:42 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:22:33 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote > >one reason there was so little 'relevant noise' was that there wasn't > >all that much to say. it wasn't very sharp and riddled with artifacts. > >either that or the viewers were busy dating hot girls in their > >neighborhood and didn't have time to respond. :)
> Thanks for proving my point. :)
The point being that it wasn't very sharp, riddled with artifacts, and hosted on a site that offered sleaze?
mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 19, 1:42 am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:22:33 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote > > >one reason there was so little 'relevant noise' was that there wasn't > > >all that much to say. it wasn't very sharp and riddled with artifacts. > > >either that or the viewers were busy dating hot girls in their > > >neighborhood and didn't have time to respond. :)
> > Thanks for proving my point. :)
> The point being that it wasn't very sharp, riddled with artifacts, and > hosted on a site that offered sleaze?
> If so, we are all now in agreement.
> Next.
Maybe Mr. Navas thinks that ISO 200 is high, that a lens should never be used wide open, or that a tenth of a second is a ridiculously long time for handheld. I can understand this; much of the hype nowadays promoted this kind of thinking.
I find ISO 200 only very slightly more noisy (for my camera and software) than 100. I have owned lenses (in the days before autofocus) that I routinely used at f/2 or f/1.4, and when I stopped them down, it was for gaining DOF. I still have two like that, and they aren't expensive "pro glass" either. As for the "long" exposure, it wasn't much of a test of IS or VR. I was shooting aperture-priority the other evening w/o flash. The exposures were a quarter- to a half-second, and only subject motion caused any blur, which was exactly what I was after.
To get oohs and aahs from a torture test, you have to push the limits hard, not tickle them. -- "It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:47:27 -0700, Tully <tully.albre...@cox.net> wrote in <tully.albrecht-0FEE04.10472719122...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>:
>[SNIP supercilious comments] >.... As for the "long" exposure, it wasn't much >of a test of IS or VR. I was shooting aperture-priority the other >evening w/o flash. The exposures were a quarter- to a half-second, and >only subject motion caused any blur, which was exactly what I was after.
Let's see them, full resolution, EXIF intact. Talk is cheap.
>To get oohs and aahs from a torture test, you have to push the limits >hard, not tickle them.
I never said this was a "torture test" and I'm not looking for "oohs and aahs'. These are simply nice photographs, nothing more, nothing less.
-- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
On 12/19/07 10:40 PM, in article 4esjm3d6jhnsnka33qu5b2gj5tsrpil...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:47:27 -0700, Tully <tully.albre...@cox.net> wrote > in <tully.albrecht-0FEE04.10472719122...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>:
>> [SNIP supercilious comments] >> .... As for the "long" exposure, it wasn't much >> of a test of IS or VR. I was shooting aperture-priority the other >> evening w/o flash. The exposures were a quarter- to a half-second, and >> only subject motion caused any blur, which was exactly what I was after.
> Let's see them, full resolution, EXIF intact. Talk is cheap.
And your mouth writes more checks than the Treasury Department can possibly cash. A friggin Humpback whale doesn't spew as much crap as you NavASS!
>> To get oohs and aahs from a torture test, you have to push the limits >> hard, not tickle them.
> I never said this was a "torture test" and I'm not looking for "oohs and > aahs'. These are simply nice photographs, nothing more, nothing less.
> On 12/19/07 10:40 PM, in article 4esjm3d6jhnsnka33qu5b2gj5tsrpil...@4ax.com,
> "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:47:27 -0700, Tully <tully.albre...@cox.net> wrote > > in <tully.albrecht-0FEE04.10472719122...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>:
> >> [SNIP supercilious comments] > >> .... As for the "long" exposure, it wasn't much > >> of a test of IS or VR. I was shooting aperture-priority the other > >> evening w/o flash. The exposures were a quarter- to a half-second, and > >> only subject motion caused any blur, which was exactly what I was after.
> > Let's see them, full resolution, EXIF intact. Talk is cheap.
> And your mouth writes more checks than the Treasury Department can possibly > cash. A friggin Humpback whale doesn't spew as much crap as you NavASS!>> To get oohs and aahs from a torture test, you have to push the limits > >> hard, not tickle them.
> > I never said this was a "torture test" and I'm not looking for "oohs and > > aahs'. These are simply nice photographs, nothing more, nothing less.
> Your opinion. No one else's. Crap is CRAP.
I think the whole thing is pretty funny. In other threads I say that P&S cameras are great when you don't want to haul a DSLR around, but I find a P&S to be pretty limiting compared to a DSLR. John then tells me that he is not limited by his camera, and then post photos that are clearly crap due to the limits of his camera.
> On Dec 20, 3:53 am, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On 12/19/07 10:40 PM, in article > > 4esjm3d6jhnsnka33qu5b2gj5tsrpil...@4ax.com,
> > "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:47:27 -0700, Tully <tully.albre...@cox.net> wrote > > > in <tully.albrecht-0FEE04.10472719122...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>:
> > >> [SNIP supercilious comments] > > >> .... As for the "long" exposure, it wasn't much > > >> of a test of IS or VR. I was shooting aperture-priority the other > > >> evening w/o flash. The exposures were a quarter- to a half-second, and > > >> only subject motion caused any blur, which was exactly what I was after.
> > > Let's see them, full resolution, EXIF intact. Talk is cheap.
> > And your mouth writes more checks than the Treasury Department can possibly > > cash. A friggin Humpback whale doesn't spew as much crap as you NavASS!>> > > To get oohs and aahs from a torture test, you have to push the limits > > >> hard, not tickle them.
> > > I never said this was a "torture test" and I'm not looking for "oohs and > > > aahs'. These are simply nice photographs, nothing more, nothing less.
> > Your opinion. No one else's. Crap is CRAP.
> I think the whole thing is pretty funny. In other threads I say that > P&S cameras are great when you don't want to haul a DSLR around, but I > find a P&S to be pretty limiting compared to a DSLR. John then tells > me that he is not limited by his camera, and then post photos that are > clearly crap due to the limits of his camera.
> Scott
I really didn't say anything negative about his "Palace" pix. What I did say (and wasn't very diplomatic about) was that if you're going to brag about long exposures hand-held--whether your point is that VR/IS works great, or that you did a great job of holding still while making the shot--then his posted parameters weren't much of a test. Here's one of the graduation images I was talking about~
~and notice that this, one of many culls, was captured at 0.8 second (braced sitting position). It isn't anyone's idea of a fine photograph, but you can tell that the only blur is coming from subject motion. I think it says a lot about the lens, which I consider one of my best--and it didn't cost two thousand bucks, either!
There should be enough EXIF data there to keep you busy. Not sure why the tags don't stay with the image all the way through, but I will absolutely NOT post portraits with recognizable features to this freakshow we call the internet.. -- "It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)
|
