.... new photo-gallery, including pictures of the lunar eclipse, double
rainbow, clouds, sky....

http://y23stockpic.free.fr/200808_springtime/index.html
"Auckland New Zealand in Springtime"

and tons mo
http://y23stockpic.free.fr/

"DONOTREPLY" wrote in message
oups.com...
... new photo-gallery, including pictures of the lunar eclipse, double
rainbow, clouds, sky....

http://y23stockpic.free.fr/200808_springtime/index.html
"Auckland New Zealand in Springtime"

Dude, what kind of f**ked up camera do you use? Pictures are horrible. Big
squares in the sky? Seems like over compressed movie MPEG.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:44:59 +0100, "Sosumi" wrote:


"DONOTREPLY" wrote in message
roups.com...
... new photo-gallery, including pictures of the lunar eclipse, double
rainbow, clouds, sky....

http://y23stockpic.free.fr/200808_springtime/index.html
"Auckland New Zealand in Springtime"

Dude, what kind of f**ked up camera do you use? Pictures are horrible. Big
squares in the sky? Seems like over compressed movie MPEG.


It's called using high-compression JPG as a means of copy protection. You can't
recreate data that is missing, but it's very simple to wipe out any water-mark
ever made when all the data is intact behind it. It can't be done with highly
compression JPG artifacts.

Catch up with the times, and get a dose of intelligence while at it. First off,
the camera being used has nothing to do with it. Secondly, anyone with the least
bit of experience and knowledge knows that small images with enough JPG
compression artifacts makes for the very best copy protection, better than any
watermarking method ever invented.

To be perfectly honest I don't see any photos there that warrant using that as a
means of copy protection, but then you never can tell what others might find of
value. (No offense intended, but they appear to be just the usual snap-shots
most everyone does.) I suspect the high JPG compression was done more out of
consideration for others that don't have high-speed net access (the majority of
the world) due to the image sizes too. There's nothing more inconsiderate on the
net than someone that posts 200k photos and then wants you to go look at them
to tell them how good they are. As soon as I notice a large file-size coming
down the line I just say to myself, "Oh, another ****ingly inconsiderate idiot
that isn't worth one second of my time. (I even have hi-speed access.) Ergo,
their photography is already crap. If they can't see things from someone else's
shoes then they don't have a clue about how to convey a message to anyone that
is ever worth seeing. Their photography can do nothing more than reflect their
already existing inconsiderate and self-serving values." I stop the transfer of
their photos and then move on to someone that deserves consideration and
attention in return. While also having a nice little private laugh, knowing that
anyone on earth can steal their photography and do whatever they want with it.
Images in that size are easy to make functional for any media purpose. Watermark
removal is a photo-restoration hobby of many. Often using larger photos just
like theirs to fine-hone their restoration editing skills.

The ratio of photographers to idiots on the internet is in the proportions of 1
to every 63,165,081, or thereabouts. It's like trying to notice the merest
glimmer of gold in a limitless and pervasive dung-heap. The most obvious and
relentless self-promoting ones stinking the very worst, their piles of
crap-photography monstrously towering above all others.