Floyd L. Davidson
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:

Savageduck
On 2013-12-02 15:14:38 +0000, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>said:

Sandman
In article <016p99ljucsvm9d5l1h0gucsv84m2tjgqh@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:

Savageduck
There are several Floyd centric elements to this sub-thread:

Floyd L. Davidson
These are Sandman/nospam/Tony Cooper/Savageduck centric fables for the most part. Other than tacking my name to it, most has very little to do with anything I've ever said. It has more to do with what I *don't* say and you all then imagine.

Savageduck
1. Floyd has knowledge & experience in the technical World in areas few of us could challenge.

2. Floyd has been outspoken on his choice of OS and the tools he uses for image post processing. He holds negative opinions based on misinformation regarding at least one alternative OS, OSX, opinions he has formulated without admitting having ever been exposed to, or having used OSX.

Floyd L. Davidson
"Without admitting" does not mean no exposure. It is hilarious to see the bunch of you claim I made these decisions you worry about by refusing to learn and without ever testing.

Savageduck
3. Floyd claims he can do all that can be done in Photoshop and ACR using his methods,

Floyd L. Davidson
When you have to fabricate a statement like that it's very telling. Just another of many fabrication on your part...

Savageduck
and yet he remains ignorant of what can actually be achieved with other than his methods, because he has not(or claims he has not) ever made the comparison between his methods and alternative graphics software such as Photoshop.

Floyd L. Davidson
Your conclusion is based on another fabrication. Why do you find it necessary to cook up things I've never said and attribute them to me?

It should be extremely obvious that I've been comparing what can be done with a variety of software packages for at least the past couple decades. What I have said is that I've never owned and do not use the software that you do. Not that I have no idea what it does, and certainly not that I am unable to even get it to work.

Savageduck
Even with my strong opinions I have attempted to use and compare GIMP with my other choices. It is Floyd who claims his method is superior to all others, it certainly gets the job done to his satisfaction. I suppose that is all that matters.

Floyd L. Davidson
If you have merely "attempted" to use GIMP, it appears your ability to critique anything about it is invalid based on lack of necessary skills or background.

Since some people are quite able to use it at least as well as anything you can do,

if you can't even get past an "attempt" then perhaps some other area is where you should expound on your expertise?

Savageduck
4. We know that Floyd actually owns and uses some very good photographic equipment. Some of Floyd's kit mirrors equipment used by Sandman (a selection of Nikon cameras and lenses). He uses this equipment to shoot images in some of the harshest conditions on the planet. However he is not exactly producing NatGeo qualifying images, he is certainly not producing any better work than most of the regulars contributing to this NG.

Floyd L. Davidson
A very poor observation on your part.

Savageduck
5. He maintains a web page where a selection of his images can viewed by any of us. What is evident is the images Floyd produces and shows us are not much better than many shown here by others, and many are for

Floyd L. Davidson
So it's "not *much* better"; but your evaluation is that it is better.

Thank you. However, I don't claim that the photography on that web page is "better" than anything in specific, except I have made an effort at making it the best display available on the web showing what Barrow Alaska is.

If I've only shot one picture of the Midnight Sun on June 21st in the past ten years, and that was made with an old Sony FD91 that captured 1024x758 JPEG images on a floppy disk, I have no hesitation in putting it on my webpage. Indeed, for the past ten years that has been the front page highlighted image! (I like it too!)

Savageduck
reasons beyond the equipment used, not particularly special. The environment and many of his subjects are unique to his locale. His images range from "great capture" to an "OK snapshot", to "why did he bother with that?" In that He has produced much the same quality of images that most of us have, some great, but most ordinary and not particularly special other than the lock he has on location.

Floyd L. Davidson
Did you take note of the title to that web page? "Images of Barrow Alaska", and there is no place where I suggest these are intended to be Fine Fotos, or anything other than an album of snapshots meant to show what Barrow Alaska is.

It should also be obvious from looking at it that if I wanted to produce a web page of "NatGeo qualifying images" it would be relatively easy!

I don't suffer from the insecurities that some do, and don't mind showing images targeted at different audiences.

If you visit Barrow you would see examples of what I print. For those I am significantly more critical, and yet there too I allow for the same dichotomy to exist. I basically have a gallery display of fine art photography that is divided into three areas. One area is clearly "snapshot" type images (with a couple of notable exceptions). Another area is more graphic arts than just photography, though there are nearly as many photographs as not, and all of it you can rest assure is indeed the same quality as National Geographic. The largest area is nothing but fine art photography. It's all 16x20 or larger, mostly printed on canvas.

The prints are what feds me. The webpage is a hobby meant primarily to help other people.

Savageduck
So the conclusion that I have come to is Floyd can talk circles around me when it comes to Linux and writing scripts, an obvious void in my knowledge and experience.

He owns and uses some very good Nikon equipment, much of which I would own if I could afford it. He uses a personalized image processing method which produces images which are in some cases very good, and in others not particularly good. Pretty much what the rest of us come up with.

Floyd L. Davidson
You aren't necessarily very credible as an art critic... You might well know what you like, but that is not what defines good photography.

Worse yet, for a photographer the trick is not just knowing what you like (which is to say being able to pick out the keepers) but includes the more important aspects of previsualizing images and then shooting a scene in a manner that demonstrates your style. Or, to move from just getting random good pictures to purposely making good images in a unique style.

Savageduck
He has no working knowledge of OSX and bases his biases against it on mythology he has developed. The same applies to his opinion of choices regarding mainstream digital image editing software.

Floyd L. Davidson
Why do you say things like that? How do you know what level of knowledge I might have about OSX, or Windows, or even Linux? Even more hilarious is applying your fabrication to imaging software.

Savageduck
I have no idea if he would get better post processed results using Photoshop over his custom methods, but he has never made that comparison.

Floyd L. Davidson
Purely fabrication on your part.

All you know is that I don't use the same tools you do, and you admit I can produce results that are equal to anyone else.

Does that tell you something?

Savageduck
It is quite possible he is the best photographer in Barrow and he is abled to produce work that those around him are in awe of. I doubt that he gets much criticism of his work of any type in Barrow.

Floyd L. Davidson
More abject ignorance. It is also gratuitous and intended to be insulting. Shame on you.

I live in a place that attracts the best wildlife photographers in the world in a steady stream. How many film crews from every big name outfit you can imagine are *you* ever able to compare notes with over breakfast or a cup of coffee? How many of them ask you for advice?

up some prescheduling for two "guided photo tours" by a fellow who has been published by National Geographic.

I get that sort of thing every spring, between whaling, birds, and climate change.

Savageduck
He takes criticism of his methods as "gratuitous insults" where they never existed.

Floyd L. Davidson
Criticism, and even just obnoxious comments, are *not* gratuitous insults.

It's when you make up stuff about someone that has nothing to do with anything they actually said, and attribute it to them, that you cross the line.

That's gratuitous. And if it is nothing other than a way to insult someone, it is a gratuitous personal insult.

It demonstrates both a lack of logical ability and a lack of integrity.

Savageduck
...and finally Floyd discounts the knowledge & experience that any of the rest of us have (including knowledge that nospam undeniably has) to the point of issuing insults of his own. If you disagree with him you have no credibility, or integrity.

Floyd L. Davidson
Disagreement has nothing to do with it. When you add 2 + 2 and claim the answer is 15...

We have several people here that are just like nospam, they have some technical background and a large exposure, but they lack the ability to logically analyze facts and develop a broad perspective.

That is, a 10 degree left turn is just a left turn to them. So is a 40 degree turn and a 90 degree turn.

Some of them can't tell the difference between a left turn and a right turn, every move is just a new turn.