Photoshop How To Use: 25 new messages in 10 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Printing business cards
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/533b1a9f0d343c3a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 7:37 am
From: ray

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:07:55 -0600, Don Stauffer wrote:

> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:46:08 -0600, Don Stauffer
>> <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I am designing a new business card using PS Elements. In the past when
>>> I had a design complete I imported the design into Word, because Word
>>> had templates for printing from business card stock.
>>>
>>> Is there an easier way, to print multiple cards right from Elements,
>>> or Photoshop?
>>
>> I buy Avery Clean Edge business card at Office Depot. Avery provides
>> free templates to print them. Create the design/copy in PSE, save it
>> as a jpg file, and import the file into the template. Print.
>>
>>
> Is this on a disk? My box of Avery card stock is several years old, and
> includes a booklet on how to use various word processing and spread
> sheet programs. I suppose I may have lost a disk, but sure do not
> remember one in the box.

Have you ever heard the term 'download'? I doubt they are going to put a
disk in every package of labels - in fact some are way too small to hold
one. Try Avery's web site.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 7:45 am
From: tony cooper

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:07:55 -0600, Don Stauffer
<stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:46:08 -0600, Don Stauffer
>> <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I am designing a new business card using PS Elements. In the past when I
>>> had a design complete I imported the design into Word, because Word had
>>> templates for printing from business card stock.
>>>
>>> Is there an easier way, to print multiple cards right from Elements, or
>>> Photoshop?
>>
>> I buy Avery Clean Edge business card at Office Depot. Avery provides
>> free templates to print them. Create the design/copy in PSE, save it
>> as a jpg file, and import the file into the template. Print.
>>
>>
>Is this on a disk?

No. You download the template or do it online. See:
http://www.avery.com/avery/en_us/Products/Cards/_/Ns=Rank

>My box of Avery card stock is several years old, and
>includes a booklet on how to use various word processing and spread
>sheet programs. I suppose I may have lost a disk, but sure do not
>remember one in the box.

Just search for the template for the product number on the card stock
you have.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 8:40 am
From: SMS

Don Stauffer wrote:

> Is this on a disk? My box of Avery card stock is several years old, and
> includes a booklet on how to use various word processing and spread
> sheet programs. I suppose I may have lost a disk, but sure do not
> remember one in the box.

All you have to do is make a table in Word with ten cells, each 3.5"
wide x 2" high, with top and bottom margins of 0.5" and right and left
margins of 0.75" (be sure to go into "Table Properties" and set the row
height to "Exactly" 2" rather than "at least" 2"). If you're using the
Avery card stock then you may need to adjust the margins slightly to
match your printer. I find it easier to just use non-scored card stock
and then cut them with one of those precision paper cutters.

I didn't get good results with the Avery template software, it was very
flaky when I did a complex dual language business card that I use when
traveling to China and Taiwan. See "http://i34.tinypic.com/2dr5mw6.jpg"

Actually the process I use in Word is a bit more complicated because I
start with a table with a lot of small cells then merge cells to get the
field size I want, which makes it much easier to align each field. I
also include margins for each card to avoid putting content too close to
the edges.

I did a detailed and illustrated 17 page document about making your own
business cards in Microsoft Word that I presented to an organization I
used to belong to. If you want I can e-mail the pdf to you. Send me your
e-mail address (you can modify my e-mail address for "gmail" from "geemail."

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 9:15 am
From: tony cooper

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:40:42 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Don Stauffer wrote:
>
>> Is this on a disk? My box of Avery card stock is several years old, and
>> includes a booklet on how to use various word processing and spread
>> sheet programs. I suppose I may have lost a disk, but sure do not
>> remember one in the box.
>
>All you have to do is make a table in Word with ten cells, each 3.5"
>wide x 2" high, with top and bottom margins of 0.5" and right and left
>margins of 0.75" (be sure to go into "Table Properties" and set the row
>height to "Exactly" 2" rather than "at least" 2"). If you're using the
>Avery card stock then you may need to adjust the margins slightly to
>match your printer. I find it easier to just use non-scored card stock
>and then cut them with one of those precision paper cutters.
>
>I didn't get good results with the Avery template software, it was very
>flaky when I did a complex dual language business card that I use when
>traveling to China and Taiwan. See "http://i34.tinypic.com/2dr5mw6.jpg"
>
>Actually the process I use in Word is a bit more complicated because I
>start with a table with a lot of small cells then merge cells to get the
>field size I want, which makes it much easier to align each field. I
>also include margins for each card to avoid putting content too close to
>the edges.
>
>I did a detailed and illustrated 17 page document about making your own
>business cards in Microsoft Word that I presented to an organization I
>used to belong to. If you want I can e-mail the pdf to you. Send me your
>e-mail address (you can modify my e-mail address for "gmail" from "geemail."

It's a horses-for-courses thing. For really professional cards, I'd
have a print shop print them. For less demanding purposes, I find the
Avery Clean-Cut cards to be very acceptable.

I do all of the body of my cards in Photoshop and import that image
into the Avery template. I use the template only because it positions
the image on all of the cards on the sheet. It makes for very quick
and simple printing.

The only reason for me to go to the trouble you have is if I wanted
the cards on some special stock. Avery cards are limited in card
stock choices.

Volume also makes a difference. I don't hand out many cards anymore,
so the Avery cards are fine. If I was handing out 10 cards a day, I'd
have them printed by a print shop.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 9:34 am
From: SMS

tony cooper wrote:

> It's a horses-for-courses thing. For really professional cards, I'd
> have a print shop print them. For less demanding purposes, I find the
> Avery Clean-Cut cards to be very acceptable.

It's actually pretty cheap to have them printed on professional quality
color laser printer at a print shop. You can get color printouts for aas
little as 39 cents each, and you can supply your own card stock paper
(but they typically won't allow you to use pre-scored business card stock).

The expense is having them design the cards. You want to do your own
design and supply them with a file that they can print onto card stock
that you supply. You don't want to even mention the word "business
cards" or the price goes up. You can end up with professional quality
color cards for 3.9 cents per card, with no minimum quantity and no lead
time.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Problem with Canon Powershot A720is
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/331ad5b84749bbfa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 8:45 am
From: Reinhard Zwirner

Dudley Hanks schrieb:
>
>...
>
> If you find out what the problem is, I'd be interested in hearing what the
> cause is. I've got an old A70 that has the same problem.
>
> Since it was a few years old when the display crapped out, I bought an A720
> rather than repairing it. But, it was such a good camera I haven't had the
> heart to throw it out. I keep hoping someone will post a solution so I can
> use it as a backup.

Hi Dudley,

I've found the following text on

<http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&tabact=SupportDetailTabAct&fcategoryid=221&modelid=8776>

<Quote>

Important Notice About Your Canon Product:
It has recently come to our attention that the vendor-supplied
CCD image sensors used in this Canon digital camera may cause
the following malfunction: When the product is used in recording
or playback mode, the LCD screen and/or electronic viewfinder may
exhibit either a distorted image or no image at all. While reports
of this malfunction have been rare in the United States, we have
determined that it may occur if the product is exposed to hot and
humid environments.

Effective immediately, and regardless of warranty status, Canon
will repair, free of charge, products exhibiting the above-mentioned
malfunction if the malfunction is caused by the CCD image sensor.
Canon will also cover the cost of shipping and handling in connection
with this repair.

U.S. residents are kindly directed to contact the Canon Customer
Support Center for further assistance at 1-800-828-4040. Support
hours are Monday thru Friday - 8:00 AM to 12:00 midnight; and
Saturday 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM (all times EST). Alternatively, if
electronic support is preferred, please send your email to
carecenter@cits.canon.com

This information is for residents of the United States of America
and Puerto Rico only. If you do not reside in the USA or Puerto Rico,
please contact the Canon Customer Support Center in your region.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused by this issue,
and appreciate your understanding in this matter. Thank you for your
support and patronage of Canon products.

Attachments:
Click here for more information regarding this issue

</Quote>

HTH

Reinhard

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thirteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/13dde23604233d59?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 8:50 am
From: -hh

On Nov 6, 9:01 am, MarcusGoodbie <marcg...@mymailbox.com> wrote:
>
> Someone like me wouldn't even bother going
> to look at your photography.

But of course you're not: you're just yet another "one shot"
sockpuppet post from a very old, lame troll. Its not our fault that
you don't have a real life.

> ...in the hands of someone with talent that the camera
> and media used is of no consequence nor can they
> be told apart by the final product.

In other words, you realized that you've been set up, so you're trying
to avoid having to play. Very transparent and lame.

> I personally find the convenience and greater
> advantages of P&S hardware more to my liking.

Regardless of your personal preferences, the camera is merely a tool.

There is always greater utility by having both a "hammer and a
screwdriver" in one's toolbox, rather than just a hammer or just a
screwdriver.

But there is no "one size fits all" solution, including having a full
toolbox, because not all people need or desire that greater degree of
overall utility, amongst other things. We each decide on our trade-
off solutions depending on our own priorities, preferences and
needs.

The hard part is to avoid the temptation of applying one's personal
preferences to another when they solicit advice, and that's something
that you've been spectacularly and repeatedly unsuccessful at, and
part of the reason why you try to continuously run away from your bad
reputation by constantly using new sockpuppets.

-hh

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 8:52 am
From: -hh

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> If pre-focus was an acceptable alternative
> to autofocus for general use then autofocus
> would never have gotten a foothold and the
> M8 would rule the industry.

Very well and very concisely said...much better than my effort.

Thanks,

-hh

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 9:04 am
From: SMS

-hh wrote:

> I'm not claiming that this is smart/dumb or right/wrong ... merely
> that it is the expected behavior by a healthy segment of product
> purchasers, and it is based on Joe's unsophisticated workflow that
> their product purchase decisions are based on.

Teaching people to pre-focus would be a help to many P&S users.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of situations where you simply can't
pre-focus.

The biggest complaints I hear about P&S cameras is from parents trying
to photograph action shots of their kids at sporting events, and from
parents of small children trying to take non-posed photographs of their
kids. A lot of parents have pictures of other people's kids on the
merry-go-round! Very difficult to pre-focus in these situations.

The other problem is that these people got very used to using film P&S
cameras which never has the long auto-focus delays inherent in P&S
digital cameras. Now they're told that they have to "work around" the
limitations of digital P&S cameras. They're also often very disappointed
with the results in sub-optimal lighting conditions, compared to what
they used to get with film. With film, everyone bought the same sensors
on rolls.

With digital, the very small sensors in P&S cameras have made the
problems of low-light photography much worse. In that sense, the
Panasonic G1 does offer some advantage over a typical P&S since the
sensor is much larger and presumably it will work better in high-ISO,
though the 4:3 high-ISO quality is decidedly worse than the quality from
a 1.6 or 1.5 crop CMOS sensor in a Canon or Nikon D-SLR.

Ricoh had the right idea with their phase-detect auto-focus that they
put into some of their higher-end P&S models for a while. Unfortunately
they dropped this feature due to the expense. The market was small
because anyone that really understood what was going on had graduated to
a D-SLR, and those that didn't understand balked at paying so much for a
P&S especially with D-SLR prices coming down so much. Also Ricoh doesn't
sell cameras into the U.S. except gray-market.

As an example, the Ricoh Caplio R2 had an AF speed of an amazing 0.04
seconds, compared to Canon G6 at 0.83 seconds.

The Caplio R6, other than the lack of an optical viewfinder, is probably
the best P&S ever made. As a result they of course had to discontinue it.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 9:09 am
From: robert_neuman

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:50:01 -0800 (PST), -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 6, 9:01 am, MarcusGoodbie <marcg...@mymailbox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Someone like me wouldn't even bother going
>> to look at your photography.
>
>But of course you're not: you're just yet another "one shot"
>sockpuppet post from a very old, lame troll. Its not our fault that
>you don't have a real life.

Awww... someone's upset that nobody looked at his boring and crappy vacation
snapshots. He can't even get anyone to look at his stuff even if he sets up a
lame challenge. One that can only prove one of two things: he's either talented
enough to get excellent photography out of any camera in existence OR he's a
rotten photographer who can't accomplish that simple task.

>
>
>> ...in the hands of someone with talent that the camera
>> and media used is of no consequence nor can they
>> be told apart by the final product.
>
>In other words, you realized that you've been set up, so you're trying
>to avoid having to play. Very transparent and lame.
>

Set up? You set up yourself. If you can tell the photos apart from different
cameras, then you only prove you're not a very good photographer. How come you
didn't address that part? Oh, that's right, you didn't want to fall into your
own set up.

>
>> I personally find the convenience and greater
>> advantages of P&S hardware more to my liking.
>
>Regardless of your personal preferences, the camera is merely a tool.
>
>There is always greater utility by having both a "hammer and a
>screwdriver" in one's toolbox, rather than just a hammer or just a
>screwdriver.
>
>But there is no "one size fits all" solution, including having a full
>toolbox, because not all people need or desire that greater degree of
>overall utility, amongst other things. We each decide on our trade-
>off solutions depending on our own priorities, preferences and
>needs.
>
>The hard part is to avoid the temptation of applying one's personal
>preferences to another when they solicit advice, and that's something
>that you've been spectacularly and repeatedly unsuccessful at, and
>part of the reason why you try to continuously run away from your bad
>reputation by constantly using new sockpuppets.
>

Ah, but you fail to realize, the only time I post advice is in contrast to the
idiot DSLR-trolls that relentlessly tell everyone that they need a DSLR or they
can never be a "Pro". What a bunch of total bullshit that is.

As are you.

>
>
>-hh

(Hey Sammy! No need to set up the traps and baits for this one, it provided them
all on its own this time! (sammy replies) Yeah? Wow. they're getting dumber and
dumber. I thought that would be impossible.)

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 9:26 am
From: FentonHarper

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:04:23 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>-hh wrote:
>
>> I'm not claiming that this is smart/dumb or right/wrong ... merely
>> that it is the expected behavior by a healthy segment of product
>> purchasers, and it is based on Joe's unsophisticated workflow that
>> their product purchase decisions are based on.
>
>Teaching people to pre-focus would be a help to many P&S users.
>Unfortunately, there are a lot of situations where you simply can't
>pre-focus.

Name one.

>
>The biggest complaints I hear about P&S cameras is from parents trying
>to photograph action shots of their kids at sporting events, and from
>parents of small children trying to take non-posed photographs of their
>kids. A lot of parents have pictures of other people's kids on the
>merry-go-round! Very difficult to pre-focus in these situations.

Oh, I see. You tried to name one.

LOL

You can't predict where a merry-go-round is going to go-round the next time
'round?

LOL

>
>The other problem is that these people got very used to using film P&S
>cameras which never has the long auto-focus delays inherent in P&S
>digital cameras. Now they're told that they have to "work around" the
>limitations of digital P&S cameras. They're also often very disappointed
>with the results in sub-optimal lighting conditions, compared to what
>they used to get with film. With film, everyone bought the same sensors
>on rolls.

Yes, all at ASA25, ASA64, ASA80, ASA100, rarely ASA200, and all managed to get
those photos just fine. What's your problem today? Oh, that's right, you are a
talentless idiot who has never used any camera. Those wanting to do starscapes
then delved into the very grainy ASA400 and ASA800 films, often using more
elaborate darkroom processes like push-processing and hypering. If they could
first wrap their minds and exposure times around reciprocity failure in those
films.

You were saying?

Ah, that's right, you were saying even more uneducated and clueless crap....

>
>With digital, the very small sensors in P&S cameras have made the
>problems of low-light photography much worse. In that sense, the
>Panasonic G1 does offer some advantage over a typical P&S since the
>sensor is much larger and presumably it will work better in high-ISO,
>though the 4:3 high-ISO quality is decidedly worse than the quality from
>a 1.6 or 1.5 crop CMOS sensor in a Canon or Nikon D-SLR.
>
>Ricoh had the right idea with their phase-detect auto-focus that they
>put into some of their higher-end P&S models for a while. Unfortunately
>they dropped this feature due to the expense. The market was small
>because anyone that really understood what was going on had graduated to
>a D-SLR, and those that didn't understand balked at paying so much for a
>P&S especially with D-SLR prices coming down so much. Also Ricoh doesn't
>sell cameras into the U.S. except gray-market.
>
>As an example, the Ricoh Caplio R2 had an AF speed of an amazing 0.04
>seconds, compared to Canon G6 at 0.83 seconds.
>
>The Caplio R6, other than the lack of an optical viewfinder, is probably
>the best P&S ever made. As a result they of course had to discontinue it.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 10:24 am
From: SMS

J. Clarke wrote:

> If pre-focus was an acceptable alternative to autofocus for general
> use then autofocus would never have gotten a foothold and the M8 would
> rule the industry.

Yeah, well if P&S film cameras had been as bad as P&S digital cameras in
terms of auto-focus time then user would have accepted the slow response
time instead of realizing that there was indeed a problem.

The single company that actually solved the problem was Ricoh, they've
dropped their fast-focus P&S models because the cost of phase-detect
focus was too high, and the few people willing to pay for it have moved
on to D-SLRs.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 11:33 am
From: -hh

SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > I'm not claiming that this is smart/dumb or
> > right/wrong ... merely that it is the ... behavior..
>
> Teaching people to pre-focus would be a help to many P&S users.

Agreed. Unfortunately, the adage of "can lead a horse to water, but
can't make him drink" applies.

> Unfortunately, there are a lot of situations
> where you simply can't pre-focus.

Do you more concisely mean: can't use the camera's AF in its default
mode to achieve a suitable focus lock?

> A lot of parents have pictures of other people's kids on the
> merry-go-round! Very difficult to pre-focus in these situations.

If the image of the "other people's kid" was in good focus, this would
appear to be that the camera did AF okay, but due to the amount of
time that it took to achieve focus, their kid had wizzed by.

> The other problem is that these people got very used
> to using film P&S cameras which never has the long
> auto-focus delays inherent in P&S digital cameras.
> Now they're told that they have to "work around" the
> limitations of digital P&S cameras. They're also
> often very disappointed...

Exactly. Joe's consumer expectation is that its new technology, so it
shouldn't have these sorts of problems.

> With digital, the very small sensors in P&S cameras have made the
> problems of low-light photography much worse.

Hence, complaints about pictures from inddors birthday parties (dark
room lit by the cake's candles).

> The Caplio R6, other than the lack of an optical
> viewfinder, is probably the best P&S ever made.
> As a result they of course had to discontinue it.

I'm still looking for a worthy replacement for the Canon A80...runs on
AA batteries, optical viewfinder, manual controls, a 'flippy' display
screen, and is adequately compact/small. For it to also use CF cards
would be gravy.

-hh

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Panasonic Lumix G1 Kludge Combines all the disadvantages of a P&S with
the disadvantages of a D-SLR?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/bdc5ba5b3a625266?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 8:54 am
From: ASAAR

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:09:23 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

>> I personally believe that DIL is the silliest version, one could
>> easily quip that "Only a dill would want a DIL camera".
>> That's something I'd never do. ;-)
>
> How about DILDO--Digital Interchangable Lens Devoid of Optical finder?

Focusing with such cameras could be problematical in some lighting
conditions. The owner of one might then find themselves in a pickle.
Or vice-versa!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 30D, 40D, 50D, Raw, sRaw, sRaw1, sRaw2, ISO 100-12,800 test shots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/f950caadce00853b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 10:01 am
From: "Paul"

"Sachin Garg" <sachingarg@rawzor.com> wrote in message
news:geui92$8v8$1@aioe.org...

>> Interesting comparisons page (magnifier top right):
>> http://tinyurl.com/5uog2m
>>
>> Even with downsized images, the 30D noise levels/banding look better than
>> the 50D.
>> 30D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6dfpau
>> 50D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/5mpe3u
>>
>> 30D Raw 1600 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6cb53u
>> 50D Raw 1600 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6pwjzv

> Interesting shots, would you mind sharing the original raw images?
>
> You can either send them to www.rawsamples.ch or drop me an email and I
> can send you my server's ftp login details where you can upload them.

These aren't my images. He didn't upload the RAW's due to file size,
although 100% JPEGS can be found here:
http://rapidshare.de/files/40841061/100.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40841132/200.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40841189/400.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40840996/800.rar.html

http://rapidshare.de/files/40840672/1600.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40840795/3200.rar.html

http://rapidshare.de/files/40840846/6400.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/40840944/12800.rar.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Good Article for Resident-Trolls to Begin Their Education
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/155a6b0a3e8e8771?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 10:30 am
From: "Me"

"Roy G" <roy.gibson1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:hYDQk.3182$nA3.2158@newsfe03.ams2...
>
>
> What makes you think anyone here is impressed by your claims about being a
> Professional. You ignore requests about which Professional Association
> you are in membership. Could it be none?
>
The Professional Associations are merely really another type of camera club.
Being a member or not being a member doesn't really make a big difference.
Many top pros are not members of any association, as they feel there is not
much of a benefit in membership.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 10:33 am
From: Dave Cohen

MSM wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 06:14:04 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> "http://www.spamlink.com/2007/06/21/technology/21pogue.html"
>> "http://www.spamlink.com/features/digital_slr_questions/index.html"
>
> "If I had read as many books as other fools, I should have been as ignorant as
> they are." - Thomas Hobbes
>
> Talented, creative, and original photographers don't like to have their skills
> downgraded and tainted by reading advice from the less talented. On rare
> occasions I'll occasionally download a photography e-book (from the pirate
> sites, scans of expensive hard-copies) and glance through it. I often laugh at
> the advice that they dole out to others, based on the photographs they have
> published in their own books. Then I delete that book fearing someone I might
> know would follow the lame advice published in that book. You, on the other
> hand, would never be able to tell that those authors are fools. That's why
> you're nothing but a moronic follower of others. Even worse, encouraging others
> to blindly follow your own blindness. Never doing one thing revolutionary in
> your whole pathetic life.
>
> "There are none so lost -- as those who follow."
>
> That one might be too deep for you to comprehend. So let's try this other little
> truism:
>
> "Those who can't, teach."
>
> Those who can do neither will only read about it.
>
> Those who can't comprehend the written word will want someone else to do it for
> them. (E.g. SMS)

I didn't realize that the more I read the more ignorant I would become
until I read your most informative post pointing out same.
Unfortunately, the very act of reading your post has had the unfortunate
effect of increasing my total absorption of written material thus
leaving me even more ignorant and uninformed than before.
Please don't respond. Were I to read your response I would sink to even
lower levels of ignorance and despair.
Dave Cohen

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 10:56 am
From: Max balisle

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:33:05 -0500, Dave Cohen <user@example.net> wrote:

>Were I to read your response I would sink to even
>lower levels of ignorance

My first instinct is to think that might be impossible, how could you get even
more ignorant, I like to give others the benefit of the doubt. But the levels of
ignorance and stupidity that I've seen others display in this newsgroup proves
that, yes, even you could be come a bigger idiot than you already are. The other
resident-trolls do it all the time whenever they try to espouse the imaginary
benefits of DSLRs over P&Ss. I'll have to presume that you too aren't immune
from becoming an even bigger idiot.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Long Snake Video
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/40f4e03ebfba6191?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 10:55 am
From: "Paul"

Long snake video. Holy crap, not advisable for those like myself who are
not particularly fond of snakes.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SuXO_lbPeS0

==============================================================================
TOPIC: photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e5821c93abc3b7d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 10:58 am
From: George Kerby

On 11/5/08 4:35 PM, in article
22722-49121F95-1976@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net, "get_a_life2@webtv.net"
<get_a_life2@webtv.net> wrote:

> is there any way to get pictures back once they have either been
> accidently deleted or somehow disappeared??
> thanks
>
Ghostbusters.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-
marriage ban. WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 11:03 am
From: testtest505050@googlemail.com

Gay California street party
Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php

Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
ban on gay marriage.

Demonstrators marched through West Hollywood, Hollywood and Santa
Monica where several protesters stopped at busy intersections,
blocking traffic and prompting police intervention.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447744,00.html

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 11:18 am
From: MissBinkyz@aol.com

On Nov 6, 11:03�am, testtest505...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Gay California street party
> Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
> Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
> engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.
>
> http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
>
> Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
> Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
> ban on gay marriage.
>
> Demonstrators marched through West Hollywood, Hollywood and Santa
> Monica where several protesters stopped at busy intersections,
> blocking traffic and prompting police intervention.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447744,00.html

NINE DOLLARS FOR BEER!!!!!????? That IS disturbing!

--
Miss Binky

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 11:38 am
From: For Europeans

On Nov 6, 7:18 pm, MissBin...@aol.com wrote:
> On Nov 6, 11:03 am, testtest505...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gay California street party
> > Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
> > Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
> > engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.
>
> >http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
>
> > Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
> > Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
> > ban on gay marriage.
>
> > Demonstrators marched through West Hollywood, Hollywood and Santa
> > Monica where several protesters stopped at busy intersections,
> > blocking traffic and prompting police intervention.
>
> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447744,00.html
>
> NINE DOLLARS FOR BEER!!!!!????? That IS disturbing!
>
> --
> Miss Binky

Go ride your dog harlot

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 11:31 am
From: "SODDI"

"For Europeans" <sweep101946@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:c8d2a1f6-6564-4b5b-a084-b9ecf4d77d12@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 7:18 pm, MissBin...@aol.com wrote:
> On Nov 6, 11:03 am, testtest505...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gay California street party
> > Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
> > Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
> > engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.
>
> >http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
>
> > Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
> > Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
> > ban on gay marriage.
>
> > Demonstrators marched through West Hollywood, Hollywood and Santa
> > Monica where several protesters stopped at busy intersections,
> > blocking traffic and prompting police intervention.
>
> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447744,00.html
>
> NINE DOLLARS FOR BEER!!!!!????? That IS disturbing!
>
> --
> Miss Binky

>Go ride your dog harlot

Go suck your mom's dick, hillbilly.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sigma's New Lens Is Now Available!! [OT - politics]
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/2b0b8721f86b8173?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 11:41 am
From: "Ken Hart1"

"Peter Chant" <REMpeteOVE@CAPpetezilla.ITALSco.uk> wrote in message
news:namau5x1d.ln2@phoenix.fire...
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> That may be your system, but it is not our system in the US. The
>> majority of voters in the US do not join a party, pay party dues, or
>> become members of a political party. Unless we choose to vote in
>> either the Republican or Democratic primary, we don't need to declare
>> our party affiliation.
>
> So bascially the primarys are internal party matters. Albeit the partys
> let
> anyone vote who wants to "register".
>
> Is there to stop anyone registering as both a republican and democrat and
> voting in primaries for both sides? You could vote for who you thought
> was
> the "lame duck" for the side you did not favour.
>
> --
> http://www.petezilla.co.uk

The primary elections are just like the general elections: you only vote
once in each election. But for the primary, you declare a party preference,
and that determines which ballot you get; or in the case of my local polling
place that uses electronic voting, they insert either a red or blue card,
and that causes a particular list of candidates to display. In the primary,
if there a candidate in the opposite party that I prefer, I can't vote for
him/her, so I vote for the person in my party that I think is the weakest
(least likely) candidate. A "lame duck" is a politician who has been voted
out of office, but still has the balance of his term of office to complete.
The current President could now be considered a lame duck (although some may
have other names for him!).

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en