Photoshop How To Use: 25 new messages in 12 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 1 ==
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: 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 7:20 am
From: Steve

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:50:28 -0600, HunterStevens
<hstevens@blockedaddress.org> wrote:

>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.

You haven't shown or said anything that proves you know what you're
doing. That's why you're just a talentless internet hack,
regurgitating the same post over and over again even hoping that
someone without a clue might actually believe you know something that
the rest of the professional and advanced amateur photography world
doesn't.

Steve

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:28 am
From: Steve

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:58:41 -0600, Gavin O'Donnel
<godonnel@replyhere.com> wrote:

>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.

Let's see one of those perfectly illuminated flash shots in pitch dark
90 ft away using a shirt pocket sized P&S camera flash alone. Don't
worry about someone stealing your copyrighted work. I don't care if
it's just a shot of a brick wall.

Show us a high quality, perfectly illuminated, low noise shot of even
just a brick wall taken from 90 ft away in pitch dark using just a
pocket sized P&S flash and a fresnel lens at say, a 35mm equivalent
focal length of 50mm.

If you can't do that, then you've proven you're just a dumb hack that
has no idea what you're talking about.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:22 am
From: Gavin O'Donnel

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:28:46 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:

>
>Show us a high quality, perfectly illuminated, low noise shot of even
>just a brick wall taken from 90 ft away in pitch dark using just a
>pocket sized P&S flash and a fresnel lens at say, a 35mm equivalent
>focal length of 50mm.

Whenever did I say that I would limit myself to a 50mm lens? Are you this naive
about photography, light, and optics?

When focusing the light at great distances the fresnel-lens then of course has
to reduce the angular field of illumination. I'll use this method when I have to
capture a close-up shot of an animal. Exactly when a long zoom lens would
normally be used. The on-board P&S flash perfectly filling that zoomed-in FOV at
90 ft. Absolutely no different than using a focusing hood on an auxiliary flash
to reach the same distances.

You really are a cerebrally challenged virtual-photography dolt, aren't you. I
was going to give you the benefit of the doubt but now you've removed every last
possible consideration for that.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:57 am
From: SMS

Don Stauffer wrote:

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

It's been done already by Ricoh. The problem they ran into is trying to
collect the dollars (or yen) they spent on the solution from the
purchaser, so they dropped phase-detection auto-focus on the Caplio line.

The real question is whether any manufacturer can afford to increase
their manufacturing cost by adding phase-detection auto-focus to a P&S.
The typical P&S buyer may not be as naive as our favorite troll, but
neither are they necessarily willing to pay a $50-100 premium over the
competition for fast auto-focus. Most of those that understand the
technology have already moved on to a D-SLR, so the TAM (total available
market) for such a camera is very small (as Ricoh found out).

> 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.

Yes, P&S cameras are not suitable for macro work where you need precise
focusing, though for casual macro shots some of them work fine.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:21 am
From: "eugene"

"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:QJydnYVvCtP-AYTUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> 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

I can get a 20x20 canvass mount for about £40. That's it ready to hang on a
wall with the canvass wrapped around the frame. A few years ago I would have
paid over £100 for that. So, saying you wanted a 5"x20" print on canvass,
you would probably be talking no more than £20. If you just wanted it
printed on photographic paper it would be much less. You would only have to
e-mail the image to them. I would make the image the size I wanted on
Photoshop first so that I know exactly how it's going to look. Hope that
helps and good luck

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:35 am
From: John McWilliams

eugene wrote:
>
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:QJydnYVvCtP-AYTUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> 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.

>
> I can get a 20x20 canvass mount for about £40. That's it ready to hang
> on a wall with the canvass wrapped around the frame. A few years ago I
> would have paid over £100 for that. So, saying you wanted a 5"x20" print
> on canvass, you would probably be talking no more than £20. If you just
> wanted it printed on photographic paper it would be much less. You would
> only have to e-mail the image to them. I would make the image the size I
> wanted on Photoshop first so that I know exactly how it's going to look.
> Hope that helps and good luck

You may get far more mileage out of placing several panos on a single
"canvas" of more or less standard rectangular size, then cutting them
yourself when you get back the, say, 50" x 40".

--
John McWilliams

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:39 am
From: "eugene"

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bfSdndBYFoTeKYTUnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@comcast.com...
eugene wrote:
>
> "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
> news:QJydnYVvCtP-AYTUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> 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.

>
> I can get a 20x20 canvass mount for about £40. That's it ready to hang on
> a wall with the canvass wrapped around the frame. A few years ago I would
> have paid over £100 for that. So, saying you wanted a 5"x20" print on
> canvass, you would probably be talking no more than £20. If you just
> wanted it printed on photographic paper it would be much less. You would
> only have to e-mail the image to them. I would make the image the size I
> wanted on Photoshop first so that I know exactly how it's going to look.
> Hope that helps and good luck

You may get far more mileage out of placing several panos on a single
"canvas" of more or less standard rectangular size, then cutting them
yourself when you get back the, say, 50" x 40".

--
John McWilliams

Maybe so but then you have to frame them yourself. The frames are just
inexpensive wood mind as the canvass covers it.

==============================================================================
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 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:22 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> 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 correct. However, churches DO have the right to tell their
congregations scriptures or other views on things of morality,
including what God says about queers and what says about marriage,
the latter being a union of one man and one woman.

> 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.

I don't want anyone to follow my views, I want people to follow two
sets of views: 1) first and foremost, God's views and 2) the views
of a MAJORITY of citizens of a given state. Or, I pray the day will
come when we as an American people will have the moral and
political courage to ban both queer unions altogether and also
overturn Roe v. Wade by Constitution Amendment to stop the murder
of innocent fetuses. Since when, for example, does a woman's
"choice" extend to premeditated murder? And, why is the doctor and
anyone else participating in said murder co-defendents.

> Don't be a Hemi. Recognize that other groups do things
> differently, and that is perfectly OK.
>
Right is right and wrong is wrong. I don't say so, God says so.
And, tony cooper, so far the vast majority of people in the United
States say so, INCLUDING the people of California. If that isn't
enough for you, then please drink a big cup of Shut The Fuck Up
coffee, OK?

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Most people with power would like to use it wisely, if someone
believable would tell them how", Robert Townsend in the book "Up
The Organization"

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:16 am
From: Chris H

In message <gfc6lt$52r$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether
<d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:kXx$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...

Absolutely!!

If the pope comes to the UK and marries two god fearing Catholics One
male one female. It is NOT a marriage in Law as the Pope is not a UK
Registrar for performing state marriages.

The other point is their god is not The God..... However most religious
people are unclear about this and are easily confused into thinking
their mythical god is The God. She isn't

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

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:28 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

> 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 :-)

Come again? I am following God's law as stated in the Bible. The
real question is what are you and the rest of the "tolerant" folk
going to do to explain to your Maker why you so clearly violated
in Law in so many obvious ways?
>> 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.

There is a BIG difference between a civil union and a marriage,
or haven't you been listening?

> 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.

And you point wrt the the queers protesting in California is
what?

> 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.

Look, this is first a church issue but because of the separation
of church and state concept of the First Amendment, the state
indeed has no right to dictate policy to any church that is
otherwise lawful. That isn't the issue here. The issue is two-
fold: first legally defining marriage ONLY as a union between one
man and one woman and second letting churches get on with
whatever it is they want to do to support that simple concept.

> 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.
>
Yes, it is. But, since when do the rights of one group come at
the expense of those of another? If I feel that marriage is a
union of one man and one woman, and a majority of my fellow
citizens do also, who are the queers to protest me or protest the
Mormon church or Rev. Rick Warren's Saddleback church? If they
want to protest someone, go protest the black churches as the
percentage of blacks voting for Prop 8 exceeded 70%, much more
than any denomination of white voters including evangelicals.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Most people with power would like to use it wisely, if someone
believable would tell them how", Robert Townsend in the book "Up
The Organization"

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:37 am
From: tony cooper

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:50:32 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>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.

I really don't follow you here. It seems you are missing something.

There is no additional legal status for getting married in a
particular religion or church. Not in the US, and not anywhere I know
of. No one, including homosexuals, is asking for this.

There is one legal state of marriage whether the couple is married in
a civil or religious ceremony. The only difference is the venue and
the person who officiates.

I'm not sure you understand what gays in the US want to be able to do.
They want to be able to be legally married. Some want that to be done
in a civil ceremony, and some want it to be done in a church ceremony.
The issue is that they want to be able to be a married couple in the
eyes of the law just as heterosexual couples are. The issue is *not*
where the marriage takes place or who performs it. That's an
individual decision by the participants just as it is for heterosexual
couples.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:11 am
From: Vic Gant

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:28:44 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:

> I am following God's law as stated in the Bible.

Ah, there's been your whole problem. You do realize that most of the bible was
written to teach newcomers how to be good Roman Citizens, don't you? Or to
manipulate them into becoming citizens of Rome. Whoever was leader of Rome was
considered "God". The phrase, "The Kingdom of God" only refers to the land and
possessions of Rome.

The bible is just a brown-shirts' behavior guide for those that they wanted to
manipulate and control and have power over.

You silly twit. Educate yourself, would you? Can you? Though that would require
that you put your nose into more than one book. But even then, what knowledge
and wisdom you obtain is dependent on this:

"A book is a mirror: if an ass peers into it, you can't expect an apostle to
look out." - G. C. Lichtenberg

Clearly we are dealing with an ass peering into just one book.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:17 am
From: "David Ruether"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:GufntGYxGaGJFA8k@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <gfc6lt$52r$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes
>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:kXx$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...

> Absolutely!!
>
> If the pope comes to the UK and marries two god fearing Catholics One male one female. It is NOT a marriage in Law as the Pope is
> not a UK Registrar for performing state marriages.

Yes - we have agreed on this before. In the US, if the pope marries
a couple and they do not have a state marriage license, the marriage
has no legal standing here either. And here it is the piece of paper plus
its use by an officiant (either religious or civil) entitled to perform the
marriage that are both required for a legally recognized marriage to
take place. The qualifications for the religious officiant can be quite
minimal. The ones for the civil officiant are determined in law, but a
diverse group is qualified (justices of the peace, ship captains, judges,
city mayors, etc.). Even a temporary (stand-in) mayor can marry
couples...

> The other point is their god is not The God..... However most religious people are unclear about this and are easily confused into
> thinking their mythical god is The God. She isn't
> --CH

Umm, I take umbrage with the designation "she" unless that great
invisible pink cloud that hangs 13' above the ground that is god
has a mate of some sort, and the two of them (or more...) can sort
out which provides what mating functions in the relationship(s), if
any is required or desired...8^)
--DR

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:24 am
From: "David Ruether"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:t09jh451v5jvf8t5njkuotuthlb2c9vg7t@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:50:32 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
> wrote:

>>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.

> I really don't follow you here. It seems you are missing something.
>
> There is no additional legal status for getting married in a
> particular religion or church. Not in the US, and not anywhere I know
> of. No one, including homosexuals, is asking for this.
>
> There is one legal state of marriage whether the couple is married in
> a civil or religious ceremony. The only difference is the venue and
> the person who officiates.
>
> I'm not sure you understand what gays in the US want to be able to do.
> They want to be able to be legally married. Some want that to be done
> in a civil ceremony, and some want it to be done in a church ceremony.
> The issue is that they want to be able to be a married couple in the
> eyes of the law just as heterosexual couples are. The issue is *not*
> where the marriage takes place or who performs it. That's an
> individual decision by the participants just as it is for heterosexual
> couples.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Well (and succinctly) put...
--DR

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Panasonic Lumix G1
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/139b7843edc1bd75?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 7:32 am
From: aniramca@gmail.com

I heard that this mini camera is already on sale. It has not arrived
in my local store yet. I saw some photos in the dpreview's discussion
forum, and they appear to be excellent shots. I did not hear much in
this newsgroup, and perhaps a rather cool reception. Has anyone seen
it at the store, held it in his/her hand and tried out? I think this
is the camera that I would like to have. However, I am not in a hurry
to jump in right away.Just want to hear about its performance and
comments from the users first. To bad that the economy is in a
downturn. Otherwise, I have a feeling that this product would be a
favourite christmas stocking gifts. I just love the three colours that
they introduce. But I must see it and hold it in my hand!

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:31 am
From: Franklin B Anthony

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:32:57 -0800 (PST), aniramca@gmail.com wrote:

>I heard that this mini camera is already on sale. It has not arrived
>in my local store yet. I saw some photos in the dpreview's discussion
>forum, and they appear to be excellent shots. I did not hear much in
>this newsgroup, and perhaps a rather cool reception. Has anyone seen
>it at the store, held it in his/her hand and tried out? I think this
>is the camera that I would like to have. However, I am not in a hurry
>to jump in right away.Just want to hear about its performance and
>comments from the users first. To bad that the economy is in a
>downturn. Otherwise, I have a feeling that this product would be a
>favourite christmas stocking gifts. I just love the three colours that
>they introduce. But I must see it and hold it in my hand!

It sounds like a phenomenal design, but I can't buy a micro4/3 system until they
do away with that noisy and limiting focal-plane shutter too. I'm too spoiled by
the dozens of advantages of a good leaf-shutter in all my favorite cameras.

Will be interesting to see how the rest of that design pans out though.

If the rest of it holds up as advantages, then it's only a matter of time until
someone also improves it further by getting rid of that focal-plane shutter.

Plus, my documentation of wildlife and nature photography *requires* that I have
instant access to video and CD quality audio recordings when needed. That too
was left out, for now, so say the manufacturers. Too bad that they didn't
include those features this time around, instead of next, as planned. More
people would have been inclined to buy them and test them. I being one of those
people.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:38 am
From: SMS

aniramca@gmail.com wrote:
> I heard that this mini camera is already on sale. It has not arrived
> in my local store yet. I saw some photos in the dpreview's discussion
> forum, and they appear to be excellent shots. I did not hear much in
> this newsgroup, and perhaps a rather cool reception. Has anyone seen
> it at the store, held it in his/her hand and tried out? I think this
> is the camera that I would like to have. However, I am not in a hurry
> to jump in right away.Just want to hear about its performance and
> comments from the users first. To bad that the economy is in a
> downturn. Otherwise, I have a feeling that this product would be a
> favourite christmas stocking gifts. I just love the three colours that
> they introduce. But I must see it and hold it in my hand!

Avoid it at all costs.

==============================================================================
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 7:59 am
From: Wallace McCarthy

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:17:06 -0000, "Fred" <fredapain@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Has this newsgroup been renamed rec.photo.dslrbigotsslampanandscans
>recently?
>

Ever since P&S cameras started to surpass DSLRs. They feel bad on why they had
to waste so much money on so many overpriced lenses and overpriced bodies. Even
worse, locking themselves into just one manufacturer due to expense alone.
They're still desperately trying to justify that investment and all those (what
they once thought were) educated choices so long ago. It's wholly
understandable.

Don't worry. Just like the film vs. digital debates finally died down when 35mm
film wasn't as good as digital anymore, this will too will die down when the
majority finds out that DSLRs and all the lenses in the world just aren't as
good a high-quality full-featured P&S camera.

It's called evolution. Some people have to be dragged, kicking and screaming,
into the technology and benefits of this century. Or be left behind.

Then too, think how many of them have lived out their virtual-photography lives
in this newsgroup for the last 20 years. All that parroted "net-knowledge" that
they once thought they had amassed by reading downloaded manuals and reviews
online no longer has any value. That's what happens when reality hits their
psychotic fan. They've made their own selves obsolete from the only lives
they've ever known. It must be scary for them to find out that nobody needs them
anymore in their virtual life, which they wouldn't have had in the first place
if anyone really needed them in real life to begin with. Self-evident.

Their cries of anguish speak tomes about their tiny little virtual-worlds &
lives. Tomes that they wish would have never been revealed. Too late. They did
it all on their little own.

==============================================================================
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: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:24 am
From: John Sheehy

"Paul" <a@a.com> wrote in
news:z72dnQjzGNazyIjUnZ2dnUVZ8qLinZ2d@pipex.net:

> But even if you look at the difference between the 30D with ACR and
> the 50D with DPP, the 30D noise levels/banding still look better than
> the 50D. Hit the magnifying glass and look at the top right of the
> following pictures;

The 50D image had more of a push of the red channel in the WB. The 30D
clearly has more chromatic noise reduction applied to it.

All these discussions will be futile until all reviewers realize how
inequitable their favorite converters are, and start comparing with
something like DCRAW which is fully capable of treating all cameras
equally.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pro Wildlife Photographers Prefer FX Over DX!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/eb534bd5da6c2966?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:31 am
From: John McWilliams

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>>> No EXIF provided, but it's really foolish (if you can be believed)
>>>> to use a D3 and 500mm f/4 Nikkor, a kit costing over $12,000 and
>>>> weighing almost 10 pounds to take a closeup shot of your pet peon
>>
>>> LOL! Worth every penny!
>>
>> The lens may be, but Jerry's point stands. And: You don't got no
>> steekin' 500 ƒ4....
>
> Prove it.
>
>>> Had Nikon released my 600/4 I would be shooting
>>> with that. I'm hoping to have my 600 by the end of the year.
>>
>> Oh, right.
>
> Talk to Nikon distribution abou it.
>
>> > Oh, did I tell you how sweet my 200/2 is?
>> I can hardly wait to pass on clicking the links that "show" this lens
>> you also don't have.
>
> LOL! You've been clicking on every one of them. Why should this one be
> any
> different? Dance, Baby, dance.

As if.
>
>> For those supreme images I have viewed, not a shred of EXIF data
>> remains. Ergo,
>
> Why should it matter when you "pass on clicking the links" you liar? It's
> alright, I understand "ASSar's" and your unique predicament.

You can grasp, I am pretty sure, that while I eschew clicking on any of
your links unless someone has commented favorably upon them, or made an
interesting comment that piques my curiosity, I have viewed perhaps a
dozen of your hundreds of links over the last 3-4 years. All right is
two words.
>
>> Post your proof!
>
> No! Must keep the mystique alive.

None for me; it's apprarent you use a camera phone, perhaps a P+S, and
flaunt your results in tiny JPEGs purposely stripped of EXIF data.

--
John McWilliams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Catching The Fall Colors With The D3!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/523627fd51caad60?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:34 am
From: George Kerby

On 11/10/08 8:10 PM, in article gfapiq$345$1@registered.motzarella.org,
"Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C53E44EC.170C9%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/08 6:57 PM, in article gfal94$t1v$1@registered.motzarella.org,
>> "Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C53E214F.1703E%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>> I got plenty of pictures of my dog taking a shit. Are you really
>> interested?
>> If so, I will be glad to direct you to them. Let me know, OK?
>
> As I am not interested in your shit on this forum, I'll pass on your dog
> shit as well.
>
>
I'm hurt! I guess I can never do as well as 'Rita' in that department...

<http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Republican_Dance.htm>

"She" has such a 'remarkable talent', does "she" not?

What do you think 'she' feeds her canine to produce that unusual scat?

Tootles, Charlie.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Obamanation Gets a Dire and Critical Warning From South Africa..
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/66a180c16d084ddf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:36 am
From: John McWilliams

Eli Grubman wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:56:50 -0800, Gunner Asch
> <gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 03:53:54 -0500, Eli Grubman
>> <eli.grubman@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Europeans? Fuck them all. They even screwed up the english language.
>>>>>> Nothing but a bunch of pompous self-righteous asswipes.
>>>>> Nobody fucked up the English language as much as you cunts.
>>>>>
>>>> Be nice, now. Many of us like cunts.
>>> Language-garbling Yankee cunts?
>>>
>>> Eli
>> "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
>> the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. We don't just
>> borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down
>> alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new
>> vocabulary." James D. Nicoll
>>
>>
>> "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
>> Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania
>
> Yes, but what the Yankees have done to the English language is nothing
> less than a travesty.

Er, look up "travesty"

==============================================================================
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 8:39 am
From: John McWilliams

SMS wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> The LAST high-end P&S was Sony's R1, before that, the Olympus C-8080,
>> not this tiny-sensored, sheet tin clad rubbish they charge $500 for.
>>
>> The other day I saw a near-mint used DSLR body going for $200 in an
>> outlet store. I've seen Nikon D40 bodies going NEW for $299.00.
>> Anyone passing up such bargains for a P&S is insane.
>
> Never believe that prices can't go lower. Early adopters always pay a
> premium. Canon and Nikon are fighting to gain market share with their
> low-cost models in order to get more users lens-committed to their
> systems. I think you'll see a bunch of D-SLR camera bodies in the sub
> $300 price range before the end of 2009.
>
> 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.

How 'bout you stop baiting the 'bator??

--
lsmft

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:56 am
From: Trent Helmswell

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:45:10 -0600, Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

> 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?

While on yet another extended photo-trek expedition in the Everglades I,
surprisingly, ran into one of the very people that invented and developed the
Foveon sensor concept. He too was very disappointed at the way they implemented
it and marketed it. The Foveon technology could do so much better according to
him. From what he explained to me it became obvious what they were doing wrong.
Don't ask me to repeat it now, nor even remember his name, but I could name the
campgrounds where I ran into him, this was over 3 years ago. The main thing that
I do recall being highly impressed with what the Foveon sensor could do in the
right camera and firmware. It made for some extremely interesting campfire +
beer discussions for a couple nights.

On the plus-side, he did buy the pop-up camper that I was leaving behind, no
longer needing it as a base-camp housing, but was perfect for his photo needs as
it was already set-up for that and he was just getting started on his Everglades
romp. Interesting guy, anyone would have found a chat with him fascinating.

This Foveon marketing is reminiscent of the Amiga computer that could multi-task
up to 1000 programs running simultaneously without showing one bit of slow-down.
But due to marketing and idiot pencil-pushers the PC platform won out over the
mis-marketed Amiga architecture. The benefits lost to humanity forever due to
some know-nothing bean counters and marketing departments. Alas, the same might
happen to the advanced technology of the Foveon concept. For all our sakes I
hope it does not. Knowing what I do about the stupidity of humanity, it will.

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

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