Photography tourney: Sky

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, STARS, no offence but nothing you say makes sense. You say you don't have time to prove that your pictures are yours, but you do have time for lenghty argument and long posts. You seem not to know how to recognise a processed photography and you insist that you didn't, yet I can tell you (from almost 20 years of photographic experience) that they, in fact were processed. You provide a LOTS of additional info, that doesn't have anything to do with your a topic, but it does serve a purpose of covering that you really never answer any of the questions that were asked of you.

And most worryingly, even the last pic you posted for the sky, can be found in 81 other locations, including the Tripwire Magazine and more!

So you tell me, straight up, no distractions, no convoluted explanations, but do tell me, can you prove any of this is yours? Because so far, you are not making a believable case for yourself. Simple fact is, everytime I heard someone talk like you do,, they were lying. I am sorry but this is the truth. If you are now, it should make no offence to you to prove the photography is your work.

PS. Camcoders don't take such detailed pictures my friend, not before, not now, not ever.
 
mr.doom said:
Ok, STARS, no offence but nothing you say makes sense. You say you don't have time to prove that your pictures are yours, but you do have time for lenghty argument and long posts. You seem not to know how to recognise a processed photography and you insist that you didn't, yet I can tell you (from almost 20 years of photographic experience) that they, in fact were processed. You provide a LOTS of additional info, that doesn't have anything to do with your a topic, but it does serve a purpose of covering that you really never answer any of the questions that were asked of you.

And most worryingly, even the last pic you posted for the sky, can be found in 81 other locations, including the Tripwire Magazine and more!

So you tell me, straight up, no distractions, no convoluted explanations, but do tell me, can you prove any of this is yours? Because so far, you are not making a believable case for yourself. Simple fact is, everytime I heard someone talk like you do,, they were lying. I am sorry but this is the truth. If you are now, it should make no offence to you to prove the photography is your work.

PS. Camcoders don't take such detailed pictures my friend, not before, not now, not ever.
Click to expand...

I just said in one of my previous posts that I also found some of my Croatia nature pictures online on multiple places also.

So what???

I am telling the truth.I am not lying omg...

Please people stick to the topic.PLEASE!

Otherwise post somewhere else. (This applies for everyone).

And mr.doom...if you are so long in photography you would know that there are camcorders which can do a lot of things which can also be done using computer software.

This discussion ends now.
Let's stick to the topic.
 
Last edited:
S.T.A.R.S. said:
I just said in one of my previous posts that I also found some of my Croatia nature pictures online on multiple places also.

So what???

I am telling the truth.I am not lying omg...

Please people stick to the topic.PLEASE!

Otherwise post somewhere else. (This applies for everyone).

And mr.doom...if you are so long in photography you would know that there are camcorders which can do a lot of things which can also be done using computer software.

This discussion ends now.
Let's stick to the topic.
Click to expand...

You see? Here you go again. Why does it offend you so much? So your pictures were featured in magazines? Without your knowledge?

And yes, I do know that camcoders can take pictures(that is not what I said by the way), but what I did say, is that they do not take that kind of detailed pictures. They are camcoders and not supposed to do that. And why so hasty to end a topic?

I am sorry, but I am now pretty set on not believing you(although I really wanted at first). Too many obvious sings of you hiding something.

Also, STARS, people here have a right to ask questions, if the ligitimacy of your picture is in question. I can tell you, if you don't know, that using someone elses photographic work, without their written permission is illegal in most countries (yes that includes your country).

So, I don't say that you stole those pictures, because I really don't know that (and you provide no explanation whatsoever), but we have a right to know for sure they are yours. No one is just going to believe you on a face value, when the evidence mounts up aginst what you say, that is the simple truth.

There is only one solution to this, and please take no offence in this, but you will have to prove that those are, in fact your pictures (something easily proven if they are), or I call on the moderator to remove this topic, and invalidate the previous winner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S.T.A.R.S. said:
Some of them are already in 1024x768 since that's how I took them.
I use that same resolution as my desktop background by the way so I like pictures having that same size.
Those which are bigger are not MUCH bigger.
I never really had enough money to buy a great camcorder...unfortunately. :(
Click to expand...

Man, you really are a pathological liar. You do understand that none of this makes any sense? Furthermore it can be proved false based upon your own text.

You do realize that "your" photo was taken with a Nikon D2X, which was a $5,000 camera when released... I could be wrong, but it sounds a bit outside of your budget. Also, on what would have to be your Flickr account, you have that photo uploaded at a resolution of 4131x2666. Which just so happens to be a tad bit larger then 1024x768.
What is the point of all these lies?

If you've been lying to the ladies I can easily see why you have trouble with them.

I will be closing this thread if you fail to provide proof of this being your work.
 
Last edited:
You are posting links to sites that have no evidence of being owned by you. The albums and sites you link to have vastly different usernames of the person that uploaded the photo, they can be found on tons of different sites, and you have never once posted in the "post your photos" thread.

You can stop ALL of this arguing if you simply, calmly, and properly post a reply without going off topic. Simply provide us with some sort of proof, such as the photo being uploaded on an account with your name (not uploaded today). If you take/create photos of this magnitude, you surely have a photography page. This is not a photo that comes straight out of any camera or especially camcorder. It is a heavily processed shot, HDR most likely.

If we are continuing the tournament, here's my entry:

Untitled by Geoff Johnson., on Flickr
 
Last edited:
vroom_skies said:
Man, you really are a pathological liar. You do understand that none of this makes any sense? Furthermore it can be proved false based upon your own text.

You do realize that "your" photo was taken with a Nikon D2X, which was a $5,000 camera when released... I could be wrong, but it sounds a bit outside of your budget. Also, on what would have to be your Flickr account, you have that photo uploaded at a resolution of 4131x2666. Which just so happens to be a tad bit larger then 1024x768.
What is the point of all these lies?

If you've been lying to the ladies I can easily see why you have trouble with them.

I will be closing this thread if you fail to provide proof of this being your work.
Click to expand...

I second that, before you do close it though, could you please let us know who is going to be puting up the next poll. I really enjoy these and would very much like to continue :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top