Photoshop How To Use: 25 new messages in 11 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: P&S V DSLR debate here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/d9743709abcda6dc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 5:50 am
From: HunterStevens

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:02:26 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:

>one might think that at least once
>you would post something that showed you have talent. Which, by the
>omission of anything of that sort, you so obviously lack.

One might think that you having missed an important comment that proves that I
know what I'm doing, that it would show everyone that you are nothing but
another virtual-photographer newsgroup troll.

Which is exactly what just happened.

You're so slow.

No wonder that you wish you had a camera with auto-focus on it someday.

Now, if you could only get a computer with auto-comprehension on it ....

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 5:58 am
From: Gavin O'Donnel

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:05:33 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:

>
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:50:22 -0500, "RichA" <votefor@johnmccain.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:gfafbm$ahd$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> OK, I am asking for trouble here but seriously want to focus the debate on
>>> one issue.
>>>
>>> Hey, that's not fair! This is a multi-issue debate!
>>>
>>> Not for me. I own and have owned a wide array of digital cameras and have
>>> found that the P&S cameras can rival the DSLRs in image quality in many
>>> situations.
>>
>>Yes, when using a flash or out of doors when it's sunny, provided the P&S
>>has a half-decent sensor size and most don't. The parameters for good P&S
>>shots are so narrow, it isn't worth having them.
>
>True pocketable P&S built-in flashes are almost worthless compared to
>the built-in DSLR flashes. In order for me to get any kind of proper
>exposure past a few feet with my P&S I have to use a slave flash. That
>actually works well, but now it's not a pocketable P&S anymore.
>
>Steve

Why is it that, with a simple and totally inexpensive plastic fresnel-lens
(folds flat, kept in shirt pocket) that I affix to my P&S camera when needed, I
get perfectly illuminated flash shots in the pitch dark up to 90 ft. away when
using the camera's flash alone? Oh that's right, because unlike the DSLR trolls
in this newsgroup, I know what I'm doing.

I guess they've not figured out yet that every time they post more of their
virtual-photographer DSLR-troll's misinformation and deceptions that they're
going to have to read the following again and again. They've never been too
bright. It's why they post what they do.

Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.

1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.

6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.

7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)

9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.

11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.

13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.

14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.

15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)

16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.

17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.

19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.

21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.

22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.

23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.

24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.

25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:41 am
From: Don Stauffer

Charles wrote:
> OK, I am asking for trouble here but seriously want to focus the debate on
> one issue.
>
> Hey, that's not fair! This is a multi-issue debate!
>
> Not for me. I own and have owned a wide array of digital cameras and have
> found that the P&S cameras can rival the DSLRs in image quality in many
> situations.
>
> What I really don't like about the P&S cameras is the shutter lag. Causes
> many missed opportunities here.
>
> What do you folks think?
>
> Please don't reply if you do not have actual experience with both types of
> reasonably late model cameras. I would prefer a practical discussion from
> users who use both.
>
>

I think it would be possible to avoid the shutter lag in P & S with a
technology of rectangular dollars.

However, my objection to P & S is focusing. I do a lot of macro work,
and there precise focusing is required. Neither the optical
viewfinders, nor the low resolution LCD screens provide good enough
focusing, compared to the TTL viewing at full aperture.

I do not trust autofocus anyway, so like to manual focus. In fact, the
long lens I bought for my D40X is a used lens that will NOT autofocus
because it uses a different motor drive system. I don't really miss the
autofocus.

I occasionally still use a P & S for its convenience/small size, but use
it for less important sessions. There IS something to be said for
convenience. And, I am considering buying a newer one- more resolution
with an even smaller size and lower price.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:07 am
From: Ernie Franklin

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:41:55 -0600, Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> OK, I am asking for trouble here but seriously want to focus the debate on
>> one issue.
>>
>> Hey, that's not fair! This is a multi-issue debate!
>>
>> Not for me. I own and have owned a wide array of digital cameras and have
>> found that the P&S cameras can rival the DSLRs in image quality in many
>> situations.
>>
>> What I really don't like about the P&S cameras is the shutter lag. Causes
>> many missed opportunities here.
>>
>> What do you folks think?
>>
>> Please don't reply if you do not have actual experience with both types of
>> reasonably late model cameras. I would prefer a practical discussion from
>> users who use both.
>>
>>
>
>I think it would be possible to avoid the shutter lag in P & S with a
>technology of rectangular dollars.
>
>However, my objection to P & S is focusing. I do a lot of macro work,
>and there precise focusing is required. Neither the optical
>viewfinders, nor the low resolution LCD screens provide good enough
>focusing, compared to the TTL viewing at full aperture.
>
>I do not trust autofocus anyway, so like to manual focus. In fact, the
>long lens I bought for my D40X is a used lens that will NOT autofocus
>because it uses a different motor drive system. I don't really miss the
>autofocus.
>
>I occasionally still use a P & S for its convenience/small size, but use
>it for less important sessions. There IS something to be said for
>convenience. And, I am considering buying a newer one- more resolution
>with an even smaller size and lower price.
>
>

If you do a lot of macro work then you would appreciate the extended DOF even
more in a P&S than any which can be obtained with any DSLR.

Greater DOF at full aperture and higher shutter speeds, making hand-held
available-light macro photography a breeze under all situations.

Perhaps you just need a little tip to make this possible for you.

If you are having focusing problems use a technique that I use. I discovered
this EVF effect long ago and found a way to use it to my advantage. Teaching
this to myself (and now others). When I reported this effect to Sony they even
implemented this as an extended manual-focusing-assist on some of their cameras.
By further defining these "scintillating edges" (as described below) with a
contrasting color, to make them even easier to see for the typical snap-shooter
and layman.

Learn to use this manual focusing technique by studying your EVF display while
carefully focusing. Watch very closely. Make sure that your EVF's lens is
sharply focused on the EVF pixels, using your EVF diopter adjustment if it has
one (I don't buy a P&S camera without this feature).

Any small contrasting textures and edges of anything that is in perfect focus
will change the luminance levels of adjoining EVF display pixels rapidly as
those details and edges pass over the display pixel boundaries. Giving them a
type of scintillating effect. You use your whole EVF display like one large
micro-prism, but in reverse. The parts out of focus will not rapidly change
pixel illuminations, those parts that are in perfect focus will.

I find that manually focusing with an EVF to be even faster and more accurate
than any OVF I've ever used. Instead of just having one small area of an OVF's
focusing screen's micro-prism tell you what is or is not in focus, you now have
the use of your whole field-of-view for the very same thing. Giving instant
feedback to what is in perfect focus across the whole image.

Teach your old-dog's mind and eyes new tricks. You'll be surprised what you can
do when you are more observant and hone your talents.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sometimes DSLRs achieve comical/pathetic results
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e8507563c32175c6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 5:57 am
From: SMS

Rich wrote:

> Presuming it is true, there are often over monied hacks who buy
> equipment, take expensive trips, only to wish they had learned what
> they were doing. Just ask the idiots who died on Everest in 1996. I
> saw a Nat Geo photog use a 600mm telephoto on a Nikon to shoot animals
> in the Arctic and his motions were like ballet, he missed nothing that
> I saw. I also went to a airshow last year and watched some poor
> bastard with a superzoom P&S fail on about 40 attempts to track and
> lock focus and get decent images of the jets. He would have had no
> trouble with a DSLR, I didn't.

When I see people struggling like that, whether it's for wildlife or
jets (I took some good photos of the Blue Angels with the D-SLR), I'll
gently explain to them that it's really impossible to get photos they
want with that type of camera, and I'll offer to e-mail them my photos.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:03 am
From: James Richter

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:57:25 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>
>> Presuming it is true, there are often over monied hacks who buy
>> equipment, take expensive trips, only to wish they had learned what
>> they were doing. Just ask the idiots who died on Everest in 1996. I
>> saw a Nat Geo photog use a 600mm telephoto on a Nikon to shoot animals
>> in the Arctic and his motions were like ballet, he missed nothing that
>> I saw. I also went to a airshow last year and watched some poor
>> bastard with a superzoom P&S fail on about 40 attempts to track and
>> lock focus and get decent images of the jets. He would have had no
>> trouble with a DSLR, I didn't.
>
>When I see people struggling like that, whether it's for wildlife or
>jets (I took some good photos of the Blue Angels with the D-SLR), I'll
>gently explain to them that it's really impossible to get photos they
>want with that type of camera, and I'll offer to e-mail them my photos.

When I see people struggling like that I realize they'd do no better with a
DSLR. Even more importantly, those that don't know this are just as talentless
and clueless about photography.

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:01 am
From: tony cooper

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:17:50 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In message <eu2hh4h8fogbjv9ld3s99h3tiumd5e1hpe@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:27:32 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <gf9t7u$2jb$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether
>>><d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes
>>>>Although they *may* be the same legally, they are *not* the
>>>>same in effect. For instance, let's say you went to a certain church
>>>>since you were a kid, and felt deeply about your religion, but legally
>>>>you were prevented from having a "real" marriage in that church
>>>>with your chosen partner? Not the same. It feels different.
>>>
>>>That is nothing to do wit the law or the state. That is up to the church
>>>and a matter internal to that church.
>>
>>But isn't a matter left up to a church. Without a license obtained by
>>the couple from the County Clerk (or whatever the title in the
>>jurisdiction), the church can't perform a marriage even if they want
>>to. The church must conform to civil law in this, and civil law
>>requires a marriage license granted by the county (state).
>
>The church can perform any marriage it likes. In the site of God it is a
>Marriage. In the eye of the believers it is a marriage.
>To the state it has no validity.
>
>Legally only the state union (civil union/ marriage) is valid
>
>The Church service has no relevance to the state.

In the US, the church officiant is acting as a duly authorized agent
of the state in performing the marriage. Even though a priest or
minister conducts the ceremony, it is the state that authorizes and
allows it.

This is the way that it is done, and established as legal, in the US.
It may not be done this way in the UK, but it's the way that it's done
here.

The problem with "Hemi" is that he wants everyone else to follow his
beliefs and doesn't recognize the rights and customs of others. When
you say that all marriages should be civil (as you have in another
post), you are doing what Hemi is doing: deciding that your system is
the only right system.

Don't be a Hemi. Recognize that other groups do things differently,
and that is perfectly OK.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:50 am
From: Chris H

In message <ie3jh45i92kju9k7r7t7gl6mcuvegn9bpd@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:17:50 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <eu2hh4h8fogbjv9ld3s99h3tiumd5e1hpe@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:27:32 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <gf9t7u$2jb$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether
>>>><d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes
>>>>>Although they *may* be the same legally, they are *not* the
>>>>>same in effect. For instance, let's say you went to a certain church
>>>>>since you were a kid, and felt deeply about your religion, but legally
>>>>>you were prevented from having a "real" marriage in that church
>>>>>with your chosen partner? Not the same. It feels different.
>>>>
>>>>That is nothing to do wit the law or the state. That is up to the church
>>>>and a matter internal to that church.
>>>
>>>But isn't a matter left up to a church. Without a license obtained by
>>>the couple from the County Clerk (or whatever the title in the
>>>jurisdiction), the church can't perform a marriage even if they want
>>>to. The church must conform to civil law in this, and civil law
>>>requires a marriage license granted by the county (state).
>>
>>The church can perform any marriage it likes. In the site of God it is a
>>Marriage. In the eye of the believers it is a marriage.
>>To the state it has no validity.
>>
>>Legally only the state union (civil union/ marriage) is valid
>>
>>The Church service has no relevance to the state.
>
>In the US, the church officiant is acting as a duly authorized agent
>of the state in performing the marriage. Even though a priest or
>minister conducts the ceremony, it is the state that authorizes and
>allows it.

That is what I said. The religious part has no relevance to the state.
If another priest did exactly the same thing but was not a dully
authorised agent of the state it would have no validity.

>This is the way that it is done, and established as legal, in the US.
>It may not be done this way in the UK, but it's the way that it's done
>here.

It is the way the CofE Churches do it here. All their priests are State
Registrars as part of their training, The same is not true of all
priests of other faiths. How ever now priests of other religions are
also registrars.

However whilst the priest is a registrar he/she will only perform
weddings their church approves of. A CofE preist is not going to marry a
pair of Moslems and an Imam is not going to marry a pair of Christians.
Neither will marry gays.

The State will marry any couple of any religion or none. Faith is not a
question in a state marriage.

>The problem with "Hemi" is that he wants everyone else to follow his
>beliefs and doesn't recognize the rights and customs of others.

Exactly. However what will he do when he dies and goes to meet God and
discovers he has been a blaspheming heretic most of his life? It comes
as quit a shock to many "believers of the true god" when they find out
they were completely wrong :-)

> When
>you say that all marriages should be civil (as you have in another
>post), you are doing what Hemi is doing: deciding that your system is
>the only right system.

No. Legally ALL unions/ marriages should be state marriages. If you want
to have a religious service in the sight of your god that is up to you
and your religious system. It should have no additional legal status one
way or the other.

In the UK some priests can do the state part as well as the religious
part. I am happy for priests of any religion to be registrars and do
both parts. But in all cases legally only the state part has any
relevance.

If Gays want to have a special ceremony as well as the state marriage I
have no objection. Even if the Registrar does both parts.

The only place where I differ with some of the Gays is if you want have
a religious marriage as well as the state marriage that is up to the
religion concerned NOT the civil law.

If you want to be a Jew, Christian Moslem then petition their church
courts and system to do what you want. Not the state. The State should
not interfere.

The state should not tell Hemi's church that it has to accept or marry
gays, lesbians, democrats or any other reasonable people. It's their
club and it is up to them. However they should not tell any one else
how to live either.

As far as any legal situation only the state marriage should be
recognised. There should be no additional legal status for getting
married in a particular religion or Church.

>Don't be a Hemi. Recognize that other groups do things differently,
>and that is perfectly OK.

I am not stopping them. You need the legal state paperwork by a dully
authorised official. EVERYONE needs that that is the state part for
taxes, inheritance and other legal process. Anything else is up to you.

I am not stopping duly authorised officials doing any additional
ceremonial that the happy couple and audience want to do. It's a free
country.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:54 am
From: "David Ruether"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:fWLhjLDisUGJFAcz@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <gf9up6$5gf$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes
>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:4S1oC0RbkEGJFAZK@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <iedgh4lc24j8s7kfi0005v7vujkmrki2td@4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes

>>>>But if we are not part of a group we we really can't ever understand
>>>>that group's attitudes about things. We can't truly see things from
>>>>their side. In this case, they think it's problem and I'm willing to
>>>>accept that it is.

>>> Can any homosexual on this group PLEASE explain the problem on the difference between civil union and marriage that is causing
>>> the
>>> problem in the US

>>See my response to the above post (tony cooper 11/10/08 8:36 AM).
>>Essentially "equal but different" is not acceptable - it is always lesser
>>if one of the options is not available to some citizens that is available
>>to others no matter how equal in law it is. Either anyone can marry,
>>or no one can, for true equality to exist for all citizens both under law
>>and in perception. Marriage for couples, not just the second-class
>>civil union, is a basic right essential for everyone to have.

> I have to disagree. Civil Union is open to everyone. Legally it is the only thing recognised by the state.

Not in the US. 1st, gay civil unions are available only in a few
locations in the US. 2nd, gay (legally recognized) marriages are
recognized also in few locations in the US (not necessarily the
same ones). 3rd, not all civil unions are the same in all locations
in the US, so these, even if acceptable in theory by gays, are
still unequal within the type. 4th, where straight marriages are
recognized in the US, for equality, gay marriages must also
be recognized. 5th, all state licensed religious marriages are
recognized by the state (no other marriage is required for state
recognition) in the US. 6th, the "bottom line", given the variety
of civil union types here (if permitted at all for gays), and the
higher "status" (whether real or imagined) of a marriage
(whether provided by a religion or the state, or both) is that
there is no (at a minimum) perceived equality between gays
and straights on this without the availability of fully recognized
(by the state, if not always by some religions) marriage. 7th, as
noted much earlier, none of this forces any religion to perform
a marriage for anyone, or to recognize it. And, 8th, why, given
the above, and the fact that gay marriage has not and does not
hurt in any way straights and straight marriage, but it does
provide an institutional form of union desired by some gays
(but not all - but for "real" equality, at least it should be available
equally to all), is there not universally recognized marriage
available for any couple who wishes to make use of it? I think
we all know the answer to that one, unfortunately. Much as
I abhor civil unions as a forced substitute (they are NOT the
same even if they were legally identical to marriages, which
they would generally not be in the US since there are 50
different state governments and sets of laws) if the alternative
of marriage (which is essentially similarly defined across the
50 states in terms of legal advantages and responsibilities) is
not also available to all, then there is inequality - something
all who believe that that is inherently wrong should oppose.

> [Religious] marriage is only open to those in the religion, or those who the particular church will marry. As some one who is not
> religious I can not (with a clear conscience) marry in any church. We had a civil ceremony.

Of course - but you had the choice...

> IF your Church accepts homosexual partnerships, divorcees, mixed race, mixed nationality, mixed faith marriages then they will
> marry them if not they won't

It is not like this. In most parts of the US, homosexual marriages
performed by anyone are not recognized by the state - THAT is the
problem! BTW, the same is true for civil unions.

> If you don't like that complain to the appropriate religious authorities NOT the state authorities.

See above... The religious authorities cannot force the state to
recognize marriages - here that is a state option only. Gay marriage
here is ONLY possible when the state changes its laws to permit
inclusion of gays (true also for civil unions) - and both are still
fairly rare here (only a very few of 50 US states permit gay unions
of any kind). So much for equality...;-(

> I will not accept under any circumstances any religion dictating what I can or can not do within the bounds of civil law. On the
> other hand I will not insist the religious people (of any group) have to do anything against their beliefs.

Of course! But that is very easy for straights to say - but it is MUCH
more complicated than that for gays! Think for a moment what it
would be like to have a gay partner, and you wanted to be joined
in a religious and/or state recognized union where none is available
in any form (most places here), and even if you travelled to obtain
one, it would not be recognized when you returned home. Pretty
bad, huh?

>>> BTW to quote Quentin Crisp when asked in court (UK 1950's) if he was "suffering from sexual perversion" replied:
>>>
>>> "Well....... I wouldn't call it suffering! "
>>> :-)

>>Q. C. was a great comedic writer about a difficult topic in the 50's.
>>He wrote brilliantly in a way that, in the midst of the laughs and self
>>parody, made readers understand and appreciate more of what
>>"out" gay people of the time had to deal with. My hat (if I were
>>ever to wear one...;-) would often be off in salutes to such a
>>courageous person...

> Agreed.
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Ah, we agree on something...! ;-)
--DR

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:00 am
From: "David Ruether"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:kXx$D1FK4UGJFAaF@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <gfaatk$pt5$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes

> For most religious people [their] Gods law is higher than Man's
> --CH

Maybe so, but without that state-sanctioned marriage, they
are just individuals living together in terms of legal matters
normally of concern to couples...
--DR

==============================================================================
TOPIC: P & S cameras
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/070ba95970b289dc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:03 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Fred" <fredapain@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49196c46$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:Rm9Sk.4293$hc1.3342@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> The question P&S owners have to consider is how long they're going to put
>> up with all the drawbacks of P&S cameras before they decide that it's
>> just not worth missing so many important memories.
>>
>>
> The question DSLR owners have to consider is that it's just not worth
> missing so many important memories,

They won't miss any of the memories as memories are stored in the brain
not on flash cards ;-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Response to P&S reasons list
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a54d4f54a92e6ebf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:14 am
From: SMS

David J Taylor wrote:
> SMS wrote:
> []
>> Yeah, I find it's really nice to have a P&S with a wide-angle lens. 36
>> mm can be intolerable. But I also find when taking group shots with
>> the lens at 28mm, if there are other people with P&S cameras they're
>> always trying to get everyone to move closer together, while I don't
>> want them closer together.
>
> Or can simply stand closer, in front of all those "36mm" photographers,
> and get your picture first! Or include more of the context and make a
> better picture.

The problem is all the people with the 36mm lenses yelling at the group
to move closer together until they're jammed up against each other and
faces are blocked. Unless there's someone else there with a wide-angle
P&S or D-SLR, I'll be the lone voice saying, "no, you're fine," and
afterward they'll ask, "what camera is that?"

How many people do you know that go into a store to buy a P&S camera
that have the slightest notion of what features to look for in terms of
the lens?

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:34 am
From: Hal Holbrook

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:14:35 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
>How many people do you know that go into a store to buy a P&S camera
>that have the slightest notion of what features to look for in terms of
>the lens?

Any photographer that knows what they are doing will know.

I buy my P&S cameras based on these things in the following order:

1. Image quality (dependent on #2).

2. Lens quality and zoom range.

3. Camera features & functions.

4. Adaptability.

5. Durability.

6. Size & weight.

7. Cost

Many P&S cameras rate very high on all 7 points. Many of them surprass most
DSLRs on all 7 points.

But how could you know this? You've never used any type of camera. Which is
clearly obvious by every one of your posts.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:46 am
From: "David J Taylor"

SMS wrote:
[]
> The problem is all the people with the 36mm lenses yelling at the
> group to move closer together until they're jammed up against each
> other and faces are blocked. Unless there's someone else there with a
> wide-angle P&S or D-SLR, I'll be the lone voice saying, "no, you're
> fine," and afterward they'll ask, "what camera is that?"

The very few groups I photograph first arrange themselves, and expect the
photographers to then sort themselves out!

> How many people do you know that go into a store to buy a P&S camera
> that have the slightest notion of what features to look for in terms
> of the lens?

In terms of the general public, I've only known one person recently who
bought a camera, and it was quite interesting to see just how he decided.
Usability was perhaps the most important factor (and he decided he wanted
an optical viewfinder after seeing them), and zoom range not so important,
even though they were going on a part-safari style holiday. He would not
describe himself as an "amateur photographer", though. "Good for groups
and parties" is a description he would understand.

David

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:08 am
From: SMS

David J Taylor wrote:

> In terms of the general public, I've only known one person recently who
> bought a camera, and it was quite interesting to see just how he
> decided. Usability was perhaps the most important factor (and he decided
> he wanted an optical viewfinder after seeing them), and zoom range not
> so important, even though they were going on a part-safari style
> holiday. He would not describe himself as an "amateur photographer",
> though. "Good for groups and parties" is a description he would
> understand.

Obviously he didn't worry about safari photos. Nothing wrong with that
these days, as someone on the safari is sure to have an SLR with a long
zoom, and will be able to share photos.

I was at Costco once, and some old guy looking at digital cameras asked
if I had any suggestions, and I told him that personally, I'd only buy a
digital camera with an optical viewfinder, and pointed to the only one
that had one. Until then he hadn't even realized that nearly every model
on display had no viewfinder, and it was kind of a shock to him. That
made the decision for him (even though it wasn't a camera I would have
chosen).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a53e34f2dbe14272?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:25 am
From: Chris Malcolm

David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <go0Sk.85648$E41.9859@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>> Taylor says...
>>
>>> I would still be interested in a comparison between the image
>>> quality on the Sony A350, Sony R1, and Olympus 8080 cameras which I
>>> believe you have owned.
>>
>> I still have them all, but how to do this comparison? What scene
>> should I shoot? An outdoor scene with everything in focus?

> Alfred,

> I have an indoor test scene which I usually use with new cameras as a
> basic function/quality check.

> But I was hoping for some more like: "If I print at A4 size, I can't tell
> the difference" or "The larger sensor usually provides a better quality
> image", or whatever.

I certainly couldn't tell the difference in detail between the R1 and
the A350 at A4. Probably a close look at an A2 print would be
required. More detail in the A350, less contrast (easily fixed in an
editor), much wider dynamic range, much less noise at higher ISOs, and
more latitude in all directions from the RAW image.

The R1's images usually look better in a straight ex-camera jpeg, more
vivid punch. The A350's images have about as much more detail as you'd
expect, and more detail can be brought out of the highlights and deep
shadows.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:37 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> David J Taylor
[]
>> The exposure
>> metering should be as good though, shouldn't it? Or is it that the
>> separate meter sensors on the A350 can offer a greater dynamic
>> measurement
>> range than the on-sensor exposure metering of the R1?
>
> The A350 meters exposure in two different ways. When using the optical
> viewfinder it does the same as other DSLRs (whatever that is). When
> using the separate live view sensor (smaller than the image sensor) it
> used that entire LV sensor to do the exposure, and as a result catches
> the tiniest highlights with very accurate exposure.

Do you notice any significant difference between exposure measured in the
standard and live-view modes?

> I use Picasa to organise my images and do minor snapshot type
> editing. I always push the "fix exposure" button just to see what
> happens. With the R1's images it nearly always made at least a slight
> adjustment. With the A350 it rarely does anything. I note that I don't
> have to underexpose on the A350 to avoid losing the occasional
> highlight, and it has enough dynamic range in RAW that that kind of
> conservative highlight exposure doesn't lose any shadow detail
> compared to the R1, quite the reverse.

I do find that I get the results I prefer with the Nikon D40 and D60 set
to -1/3 stop exposure compensation, but that might just be the way I
meter.

>> SAL - you have me puzzled!
>
> SAL18-250mm is Sony's name for their rebadged and slightly modded
> version of the Tamron 18-250mm.

Thanks, I saw your later post on this as well.

David

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:04 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <6ntcmpFpkd2U1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm says...

> Aren't you like me moving up to the Sony A350 from an R1?

Yep.

> The CZ16-80
> does sound like a remarkably good lens. I do a lot of architectural
> photography, and found that the R1's 14.3mm wasn't quite enough, and
> with the wide angle extension which brought it to 11.5mm, was just a
> touch short of that extremely useful 90 degree field of view. So the
> CZ16-80 wasn't wide enough for me.

Well, I do a lot of panorama stitching so wideness of a lens is a non-
issue, as I can go down to whatever angle of view by stitching
individual images together. Has the advantage that all geometric
distortions are automatically corrected.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:06 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <0GaSk.85832$E41.12592@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor says...

> But I was hoping for some more like: "If I print at A4 size, I can't tell
> the difference" or "The larger sensor usually provides a better quality
> image", or whatever.

Since the indoor image would be taken on a tripod at lowest ISO, the
larger sensor wouldn't give (almost) any noise advantage, only more
resolution.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canadian Walmart Photo Centre Problems?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/bdeebfbe846df453?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:29 am
From: Doug Mitton

Doug Mitton <doug_mitton@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>[I had originally posted this to a couple of Linux OS groups BUT then
>thought I would post here as well to see if anyone using alternative
>web browsers or operating systems (ie. Safari and Mac) are having
>trouble as well. I really dislike it when a major chain (like
>Walmart) starts using proprietary services. I'm looking for feedback
>to see if this is indeed the case.]
>
>Hi All;
>
>I'm looking to see if anyone can confirm a change on the Walmart Photo
>web site. It appears it has gone "Internet Explorer" only as I can't
>get Konqueror or Mozilla on Linux (or WinXP) to work. The clerk at
>the store says she is processing online orders. It was working fine
>for the last couple of years and up to 1 month ago. The "look" is now
>different also.
>
>I submit photos regularly online then go to the store and pick them
>up. My main use of this though is to send pictures to my parents in
>another province who do not have a computer.
>
>Sometime in the last month it appears they have started using a new
>"shopping cart" vendor. Regardless, the new system allows uploading,
>editing and the like BUT as soon as you select photos to send to the
>"Shopping Cart" the list is empty and the message states "you must
>select size, finish and quantity prior to submitting your order".
>
>As you might expect there is no "Contact Us" link on the photo site or
>the shopping-cart software. I have sent a message via the main
>Walmart page but it is a Mon-Fri only system.
>
>Regardless, do any other Linux using Canadians use this service, is it
>working for you and if so, what browser are you using?
>
>TIA!

Well, I haven't really heard from Walmart BUT I have found a solution.

I have been using Mozilla Firefox 1.5.x since my original
installation. It seems that Walmart has now made this version
obsolete. If I upgrade to (interim) 2.0.0.17 or the current 3.0.3 all
is working again.

I guess I'm a little at fault BUT I do wish they would provide
meaningful error messages in situations like this. My poor-ole 1.5.x
version was working so well.

Any way, it seems to be resolved ... for now!

Thanks for all the feedback and comments!

--
-------------------------------------------------
http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
SPAM Reduction: Remove ".invalid" from my domain.
-------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Two wrongs....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/b45194b6b402b71a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:45 am
From: Don Stauffer

RichA wrote:
> Look at their reasoning in this. It's almost as if they imply that
> communication between companies and product development isn't possible
> without one being aquired by the other. What rubbish. In some cases, it
> works against the aquiring company as inter-company product use can actually
> end up being more costly.
>
> "The acquisition of Foveon will not only enhance the development of new
> types of image sensors for high quality digital cameras, but will also
> create a synergistic effect with Sigma's camera and lens business by
> improving the integration between the camera and sensor. This will result in
> camera products which will uniquely meet the widely ranging functional and
> image quality needs of demanding photographers."
>
>
>
I always felt the guys who started Foveon really didn't want to
remain in the business world that long, and would soon sell the company
and go on to newer things. Did Mead go with Foveon or did he stay at
Cal Tech?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:08 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <101120081828405505%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
> <http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/info_081111.htm>
>
> i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...

Hopefully we'll finally see a Foveon sensor with more pixel count. 12 or
15MP would be fine.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

==============================================================================
TOPIC: rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/d7789e423256930a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:47 am
From: Don Stauffer

Fred wrote:
> Has this newsgroup been renamed rec.photo.dslrbigotsslampanandscans
> recently?
>
>
Actually it was worse in mid summer. The group was virtually unusable
for awhile. Don't like the spam any better now, but it is certainly
better than earlier.

In fact, the P&S/SLR war now is more bothersome than the spam :-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: large (WIDE!) prints of panoramas?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/2414fda655e0ec54?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:53 am
From: bugbear

eugene wrote:
>
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:-f-dnSNdXJZ6_oTUnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> bugbear wrote:
>>> Can anyone recommend an online service
>>> that will print panoramic photographs wide?
>>
>> I'm in the UK, which matters, of course.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> If I have any unusual size images that I want, I use my local printing
> company. They do fairly inexpensive framed canvas prints. You must have
> something similar near where you are.

Can you give a price for my example?

BugBear

==============================================================================
TOPIC: My DLSR is a P&S
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/38fd4912061b2683?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 6:54 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <49195ba8$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, Fred says...

> >> That's why they make "P" settings on DSLRs for soccer moms. Oops!
> >> Damn! Shot blurred because the Program mode only gave me 1/40th
> >> second!!!
> >
> > At 1/40s the photo will come out sharp, unless you are unable to hold a
> > camera in your hands.
> >
> >
> But the soccer action won't!

What's wrong with some motion blur?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

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

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