Photoshop How To Use: 25 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Sometimes DSLRs achieve comical/pathetic results - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e8507563c32175c6?hl=en
* P&S cameras exist for one reason - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/7076f36b91d1c779?hl=en
* 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo
corrections) - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/541401c3b2747095?hl=en
* The 1248 mm challenge - 6 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/45464bb7793115c9?hl=en
* Why do DSLR's still use mirrors? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a53e34f2dbe14272?hl=en
* Keeping An Open Ear Out For Obama!! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/831184ccc9af1358?hl=en
* 30D, 40D, 50D, Raw, sRaw, sRaw1, sRaw2, ISO 100-12,800 test shots - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/f950caadce00853b?hl=en
* Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.
WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
* P & S cameras - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/070ba95970b289dc?hl=en

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:17 am
From: Stephen Henning

I was on safari in Kruger in South Africa. I had a Minolta Super-Zoom
and another fellow had two Nikons including one with a very looong
telephoto lens. He didn't get very many shots, but his wife had many
bumps on her head. He had his loooong lens on a monopod. When he tried
to swing his loooong lens around he would inevitably hit his wife in the
head with it. Then it would be the wrong focal length. We got
extremely close to many of the animals, especially the cats. He had to
have a second camera for the closer shots. When his wife wasn't getting
banged in the head with the looong lens, she was holding it so that he
could use the camera with a shorter zoom lens. He didn't have time to
change lens, he just had to switch cameras. Several times our guide
stopped just below Leopards that were lying on a branch in a tree. He
missed some of the best shots. I know his cameras were much better than
mine, but they didn't get him very many good shots. I hope his marriage
survived.

I use my shots mostly for presentations with digital projectors, so most
of the super resolution is not useable. Several have been published in
magazines, so that I do try to get good resolution when I can. In my
case, the super zoom was much more effective. I also try to get at
least 4 good shots of each subject so that when I am doing my programs,
I don't dwell on the same photo very long but use the Ken Burns effect
and move right along. With the super zoom I can get lots of good shots
off. My wife was able to use her own camera and get some good shots of
her own.

Bigger isn't always better.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:41 am
From: "AnotherD@rnedSock" < @ >

Stephen Henning wrote:
> I was on safari in Kruger in South Africa. I had a Minolta Super-Zoom
> and another fellow had two Nikons including one with a very looong
> telephoto lens. He didn't get very many shots, but his wife had many
> bumps on her head. He had his loooong lens on a monopod. When he tried
> to swing his loooong lens around he would inevitably hit his wife in the
> head with it. Then it would be the wrong focal length. We got
> extremely close to many of the animals, especially the cats. He had to
> have a second camera for the closer shots. When his wife wasn't getting
> banged in the head with the looong lens, she was holding it so that he
> could use the camera with a shorter zoom lens. He didn't have time to
> change lens, he just had to switch cameras. Several times our guide
> stopped just below Leopards that were lying on a branch in a tree. He
> missed some of the best shots. I know his cameras were much better than
> mine, but they didn't get him very many good shots. I hope his marriage
> survived.
>
> I use my shots mostly for presentations with digital projectors, so most
> of the super resolution is not useable. Several have been published in
> magazines, so that I do try to get good resolution when I can. In my
> case, the super zoom was much more effective. I also try to get at
> least 4 good shots of each subject so that when I am doing my programs,
> I don't dwell on the same photo very long but use the Ken Burns effect
> and move right along. With the super zoom I can get lots of good shots
> off. My wife was able to use her own camera and get some good shots of
> her own.
>
> Bigger isn't always better.

This was a fascinating story.

Do you have any other imaginary adventures you want to share?

Socky

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:04 am
From: BÔwser

"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message
news:pighash-9658BF.09175908112008@news.isp.giganews.com...
>
> Bigger isn't always better.

Not according to your wife.

Dammit! I was trying so hard not to respond to trolls! Damn!

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:12 am
From: trevor thompkins

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 10:04:52 -0500, BÔwser <b0wser@h0me.c0m> wrote:

>
>"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:pighash-9658BF.09175908112008@news.isp.giganews.com...
>>
>> Bigger isn't always better.
>
>Not according to your wife.
>

Have you ever stopped to wonder why you're the only one that mentions
male genitalia when you imagine that you are engaged in a conversation
with another male?

Really, think about it. Ask yourself why those are always some of the foremost
topics in your own mind when addressing others, and is not a consideration in
the mind of anyone else.

The rest of us already know why these topics are always on your mind, now it's
just a matter of you trying to figure it out.

What a sad little closet-case that you are. Overtly obvious, but sad. You so
desperately keep trolling for masculine involvement on the internet but it'll
never fill that gaping closet-case hole of yours.

Try to find what you are after in real life then you don't have to be such an
obvious close-case troll on the internet.

Do try to stay on topic and not let your unfulfilled homosexual needs get in the
way of that, would you?

That's a good chap.

Thanks.

We'll all appreciate it.

Why oh why do these insecure closet-cases try to use the internet to come out of
the closet. I can only guess because it's the safest way for them. Nobody in
their personal life has to know who they are. How pathetically and immaturely
sad. The people that I know who are gay and secure with their lives just look
down on these kinds of insecure fools with a glance of abject pity. How
pathetically sad.

And now, back to something photography related ....

==============================================================================
TOPIC: P&S cameras exist for one reason
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/7076f36b91d1c779?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:29 am
From: SMS

RichA wrote:
> Because users of them are congenitally lazy people. Same can be said for
> nearly every "labour saving" device ever invented. If these weren't lazy,
> they'd put up with the extra EFFORT needed to shoot with a DSLR and marvel
> at the vast quality increase instead of crying about "wanting to put it in
> their pocket."

They do marvel at the vast quality increase, but you're wrong about the
reason.

A D-SLR can be used in full auto mode just as a P&S can be used in full
auto mode, and it's no more effort. In fact, it's when the P&S user
starts trying to turn the P&S into "a system" with various kludges such
as lens adapters remote flashes, etc., that they're expending the extra
effort and not achieving the increase in quality that they expect.

There are two reasons that people buy P&S cameras:

1. P&S cameras are cheaper.
2. P&S cameras are smaller.

If you shoot mainly outdoors, at low ISO, and don't do action shots,
then a P&S is just fine.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:51 am
From: DSLRTrollsShouldReadThis

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:29:47 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>> Because users of them are congenitally lazy people. Same can be said for
>> nearly every "labour saving" device ever invented. If these weren't lazy,
>> they'd put up with the extra EFFORT needed to shoot with a DSLR and marvel
>> at the vast quality increase instead of crying about "wanting to put it in
>> their pocket."
>
>They do marvel at the vast quality increase, but you're wrong about the
>reason.
>
>A D-SLR can be used in full auto mode just as a P&S can be used in full
>auto mode, and it's no more effort. In fact, it's when the P&S user
>starts trying to turn the P&S into "a system" with various kludges such
>as lens adapters remote flashes, etc., that they're expending the extra
>effort and not achieving the increase in quality that they expect.
>
>There are two reasons that people buy P&S cameras:
>
>1. P&S cameras are cheaper.
>2. P&S cameras are smaller.
>
>If you shoot mainly outdoors, at low ISO, and don't do action shots,
>then a P&S is just fine.

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."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor
typo corrections)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/541401c3b2747095?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:32 am
From: SMS

Stephen Henning wrote:

> According to early reviews, the new Canon G10 appears to be better than
> some of the poorer DSLRs. A DSLR only makes sense if you are using more
> than one lens. For those not needing specialized lenses, and wanting
> light weight compact models, the best P&S fit the bill nicely.

You're forgetting about auto-focus lag and low-light performance. These
are issues that P&S users complain about endlessly, because these
problems didn't exist when they were using P&S film cameras.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:48 am
From: Hank Thomas

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:32:52 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Stephen Henning wrote:
>
>> According to early reviews, the new Canon G10 appears to be better than
>> some of the poorer DSLRs. A DSLR only makes sense if you are using more
>> than one lens. For those not needing specialized lenses, and wanting
>> light weight compact models, the best P&S fit the bill nicely.
>
>You're forgetting about auto-focus lag and low-light performance. These
>are issues that P&S users complain about endlessly, because these
>problems didn't exist when they were using P&S film cameras.

>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:04:23 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The other problem is that these people got very used to using film P&S
>>cameras which never has the long auto-focus delays inherent in P&S
>>digital cameras. Now they're told that they have to "work around" the
>>limitations of digital P&S cameras. They're also often very disappointed
>>with the results in sub-optimal lighting conditions, compared to what
>>they used to get with film. With film, everyone bought the same sensors
>>on rolls.

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

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:07 am
From: "Toby"

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:3qhRk.4408$W06.3960@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Stephen Henning wrote:
>
>> According to early reviews, the new Canon G10 appears to be better than
>> some of the poorer DSLRs. A DSLR only makes sense if you are using more
>> than one lens. For those not needing specialized lenses, and wanting
>> light weight compact models, the best P&S fit the bill nicely.
>
> You're forgetting about auto-focus lag and low-light performance. These
> are issues that P&S users complain about endlessly, because these problems
> didn't exist when they were using P&S film cameras.

Apparently the lens on the G10 is quite good. However the high (even medium)
ISO performance is abominable. Resolution at low ISO is like a medium-grade
DSLR--not bad. But like all P&Ss it is much too menu-driven for my
tastes--no way to quickly change exposure comp on a dial, or shutter
speed/aperture combo in program mode. And the lack of an optical viewfinder
is a fatal flaw IMO, especially in bright conditions. I hate having to rely
on flaky AF and there is no good way to focus manually quickly.

Still and all, for a pocket cam, it's great (in sunlight).

Toby

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:22 am
From: Nathan Browne

On 8 Nov 2008 09:07:01 -0600, "Toby" <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:

>
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:3qhRk.4408$W06.3960@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> Stephen Henning wrote:
>>
>>> According to early reviews, the new Canon G10 appears to be better than
>>> some of the poorer DSLRs. A DSLR only makes sense if you are using more
>>> than one lens. For those not needing specialized lenses, and wanting
>>> light weight compact models, the best P&S fit the bill nicely.
>>
>> You're forgetting about auto-focus lag and low-light performance. These
>> are issues that P&S users complain about endlessly, because these problems
>> didn't exist when they were using P&S film cameras.
>
>Apparently the lens on the G10 is quite good. However the high (even medium)
>ISO performance is abominable. Resolution at low ISO is like a medium-grade
>DSLR--not bad. But like all P&Ss it is much too menu-driven for my
>tastes--no way to quickly change exposure comp on a dial, or shutter
>speed/aperture combo in program mode. And the lack of an optical viewfinder
>is a fatal flaw IMO, especially in bright conditions. I hate having to rely
>on flaky AF and there is no good way to focus manually quickly.
>
>Still and all, for a pocket cam, it's great (in sunlight).
>
>Toby
>
>Toby
>

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."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The 1248 mm challenge
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/45464bb7793115c9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:33 am
From: "Me"

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:49159F71.8070203@qwest.net...
> Assertions:
> 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.)
>
1248mm f:3.5 defies the laws of physics and optics. To have f: 3.5 on a
1.248mm (49.1" or about 4') lens requires an aperture diameter of 356.6mm
(14")

> 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)
>
The Canon S5 iS has a lens of 6mm~72mm (not the myth of 35~420mm)

> 3. .... Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the
> best DSLR glass ever made.
>
> The chance to prove these assertions is coming up around November 13:
> photograph the full moon with your DSLR or P&S. Only camera lenses
> and teleconverters allowed; no telescopes. Do your best to match
> 1248 mm (35mm equivalent). The test is with HAND HELD imaging only.
> Then post a link to your results for everyone to compare.
> Any images within a day or so of full moon will do. Tell us
> your equivalent focal length, and exposure time. No up scaling;
> show the full resolution image, and a single image with no stacking.
>
Full moon, that should have the TROLL baying!!! or was that mastur-baying???

> Exposure times you can expect at ISO 200:
> 1/500 sec f/8, 1/250 f/5.6, 1/125 f/4, 1/60 f/2.8.
> Exposure times will vary depending on how close to full moon you image.
>
> Here is my entry: DSLR at 1000 mm, 1.3x crop factor camera giving
> 1300 mm (35 mm) equivalent.
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/moon.rnclark.handheld.c10.25.2007.jz3f6583f-8s-800.html
>
> Roger

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:42 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
[]
> Exposure times you can expect at ISO 200:
> 1/500 sec f/8, 1/250 f/5.6, 1/125 f/4, 1/60 f/2.8.
> Exposure times will vary depending on how close to full moon you
> image.
[]
> Roger

I think the exposure times aren't consistent, Roger.

David

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:54 am
From: "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"

David J Taylor wrote:
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> []
>> Exposure times you can expect at ISO 200:
>> 1/500 sec f/8, 1/250 f/5.6, 1/125 f/4, 1/60 f/2.8.
>> Exposure times will vary depending on how close to full moon you
>> image.
> []
>> Roger
>
> I think the exposure times aren't consistent, Roger.
>
> David
Oops you are right! I multiplied when I should have divided. Should be:

1/500 f/8, 1/1000 f/5.6, 1/2000 f/4, 1/4000 f/2.8.

Roger

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:57 am
From: DSLR-TROLL-SPOTTER

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 07:17:21 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>Assertions:
>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.)
>
>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)
>
>3. .... Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the
>best DSLR glass ever made.
>
>The chance to prove these assertions is coming up around November 13:
>photograph the full moon with your DSLR or P&S. Only camera lenses
>and teleconverters allowed; no telescopes. Do your best to match
>1248 mm (35mm equivalent). The test is with HAND HELD imaging only.
>Then post a link to your results for everyone to compare.
>Any images within a day or so of full moon will do. Tell us
>your equivalent focal length, and exposure time. No up scaling;
>show the full resolution image, and a single image with no stacking.
>
>Exposure times you can expect at ISO 200:
> 1/500 sec f/8, 1/250 f/5.6, 1/125 f/4, 1/60 f/2.8.
>Exposure times will vary depending on how close to full moon you image.
>
>Here is my entry: DSLR at 1000 mm, 1.3x crop factor camera giving
>1300 mm (35 mm) equivalent.
>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/moon.rnclark.handheld.c10.25.2007.jz3f6583f-8s-800.html
>
>Roger

You've already lost this test, ages ago. It was already brought to your
attention that an inexpensive P&S camera out-resolved your beloved $12,000 DSLR
+ L-Glass when compared to HAND-HELD P&S images of the moon and your DSLR with
mirror-locked-up on a sturdy tripod. You hated it so much then when someone
proved it to you WITH YOUR OWN IMAGES. Do you want me to drag up that post again
that made you look like the utter fool that you are and proved it to the world?

Quite frankly it's really not worth the time. But it IS fun watching you run
away in shame for another 6 months, so that you quit spamming this newsgroup to
your commercial site that's full of misinformation and misleading deceptive
info.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:01 am
From: EducatingCluelessMorons

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:33:38 -0500, "Me" <not@given.eh> wrote:

>
>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
>message news:49159F71.8070203@qwest.net...
>> Assertions:
>> 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.)
>>
>1248mm f:3.5 defies the laws of physics and optics. To have f: 3.5 on a
>1.248mm (49.1" or about 4') lens requires an aperture diameter of 356.6mm
>(14")

Shall we try to educate this resident troll moron just one more time? Sure, why
not.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:12:58 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:39:04 -0500, Si Taylor
><keepyourmail@nothanks.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:26:05 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>OMFG! I cannot even fathom someone being this unbelievably stupid.
>>
>>>
>>>Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. A 432mm lense
>>>with an aperture of f3.5 has a diameter of 123mm (quite a lump of
>>>glass for a P&S). A lens assembly with an effective focal length of
>>>2.89 x 432 = 1248mm and a diameter of 123mm has an f number of
>>>1248/123 = 10.15.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:53:02 -0500, Si Taylor <keepyourmail@nothanks.org> wrote:
>>
>>>The true focal-length in this instance (not 35mm equivalent) is 208.08mm for
>>>that sensor, 72mm x 2.89. You only need a primary lens diameter of 59.45mm to
>>>equal the light-grasp of an effective f/3.5 aperture at that focal-length with
>>>that sensor. 208.08mm / 3.5 = 59.45mm. The extremely high-quality telextender
>>>setup that I use has a full effective aperture of 80mm. This is enough to allow
>>>for an f-stop as large as f/2.6 on the same sensor at that focal length,
>>>208.08mm / 80mm = f/2.6.
>
>You jumble numbers. You talk sh*t. Why should I take you seriously?
>
>
>
>Eric Stevens

If you think those grade-school calculations are "jumbled", no wonder that other
idiots and DSLR camera manufacturers can so easily pull the wool over your
ignorant-consumer's eyes.

Follow close:

The camera has a 432mm f/3.5 lens, as advertised. That's the 35MM CAMERA
EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH. That number is only to give you an idea what "reach" it
has, what FOV it's going to provide when shooting, because everyone grew up on
full-frame 35mm cameras. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL FOCAL-LENGTH OF
THE P&S's CAMERA LENS. The ONLY reason it acts as the same FOV and zoom-reach as
that 432mm f.l. 35mm-camera's full-frame lens is that the sensor is much smaller
than a 35mm full-frame size. This is no different than why you use the 1.6x crop
factor when figuring out the 35mm eq. focal length of DSLR lenses on the most
common DSLR bodies. This camera has a 6x crop factor. (What an amazingly stupid
name to give it, "crop factor", but then look at the vast majority of idiots
that are ignorantly perpetuating info about cameras online and why that stupid
term has become popular.)

The TRUE focal length of this lens is 72mm when zoomed to that setting. Its
actual, true, in reality, front lens element is only 32mm in diameter (just
measured it for this post). This allows it to have an f/ratio going from f/2.7
to f/3.5 throughout its whole zoom range. (72mm/3.5 = 20.5mm dia. 20.5mm dia. is
all that's really necessary for an aperture of f/3.5 if this was a fixed 72mm
focal-length lens, and if there were no internal stops to ensure full resolution
and sharpness at the full aperture.)

If this lens really was a 432mm focal-length lens then its OEM lens would have
to be at LEAST 123.5mm in dia. (432mm/3.5=123.5mm) That is not going to happen.
The whole camera is only 75mm tall, including the bump in the body for the
built-in flash.

Now we add a high-quality 2.89x, 80mm dia. telextender optical assembly on the
front. This OPTICALLY multiplies its _REAL_ focal length by that amount. (In
practice this is NO different than if you hooked up that camera and lens to the
Keck telescope and obtained images at high-resolution with an enormous
light-grasp. Or practiced the art of "digiscoping" where you might add your
camera to a 6" dia. f/4.5 Newtonian telescope where it might afford a 60x
telextender quotient (eyepiece dependent). But then your aperture would be
limited to the weakest link. In that case it would lower your camera's
performance to an f/4.5 aperture, the same as the telescope's.)

For all intents and purposes, with that 80mm dia. 2.89x telextender, it is now
giving us the 35MM EQUIVALENT FOCAL LENGTH reach of a 35MM CAMERA'S 1248mm lens.
2.89 x 432mm (35mm eq.)

This is not the TRUE focal length of this lens. In reality it is now behaving as
a 2.89 x 72mm focal length = 208.08mm. Its TRUE focal-length. One only needs a
59.45mm diameter lens to give that TRUE focal-length an f/ratio of f/3.5.
(208.08mmx3.5=59.45mm)

I'm using a telextender with a full 80mm diameter. Far more diameter than is
needed to afford an f/ratio of f/3.5. Zero light-loss (except for minor
air-to-glass transitions), zero f/ratio lost. Would that the original camera
manufacturer had originally built-in more aperture into their own lens affixed
to the camera, then that telextender lens could provide enough light gathering
ability for an f/2.6 aperture at a 35MM EQUIVALENT FOCAL-LENGTH 1248mm zoom lens
(2.89x432mm).

You have to figure the f/ratio from its TRUE focal-length and TRUE lens
diameters, not its imaginary 35mm equivalent focal length. You must use the
actual physical dimensions, not its advertised human-perception 35mm eq. value
which only give you a familiar idea its performance.

Got it? Did you follow any of that at all? Probably not. I explained it by
approaching it from every way that you might possibly misinterpret things again,
in the hopes that it might get through that pea-brain of yours and others'
similarly sized brains, but I still I feel it was just more wasted typing.

If, however, that intermittently shorted lightbulb in that empty little cavity
you have in that excuse you call a head finally did illuminate by a few
nanowatts, from at least one of the various ways I've proved it, then now do you
see why I'm laughing so hard at these moronic resident-trolls that don't know a
thing about optics and photography? The same relentless and idiotic band of
R.P.D. virtual-reality-living trolls that have been mindlessly parroting the
same stupid nonsense for years now, post after post, their whole pathetic lives.
Even worse are those that are so stupid as to ignorantly believe them without
bothering to figure it out on their own. Worse than that are those that haven't
bothered to correct the resident-trolls' blatant stupidity and reveal their
ignorance to the world, their stupidity borne of their entrenched
virtual-life-psychosis, to finally make them come to terms with the real world
and FACTS.

Hey, everyone is saying it in this newsgroup, it MUST be true. Right?

Fucking retards, all around.

Note to self: Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity -- ESPECIALLY
online.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:04 am
From: Sam Taylor

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 14:42:15 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>[]
>> Exposure times you can expect at ISO 200:
>> 1/500 sec f/8, 1/250 f/5.6, 1/125 f/4, 1/60 f/2.8.
>> Exposure times will vary depending on how close to full moon you
>> image.
>[]
>> Roger
>
>I think the exposure times aren't consistent, Roger.
>
>David

To top it off this self-deceptive misinformed moron doesn't even realize that
the sunlit portion of the moon will require the exact same exposure no matter
how much of it is showing.

Holy fuck this guy is a majorly clueless idiot.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:37 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <lheRk.84480$E41.81898@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
[]
> It's quite likely that the lens of the R1 is better than the Nikon 16-
> 85. Almost sure for what concerns vignetting and quite likely for what
> concerns resolution.

Those who are interested can probably check the review Web sites.

> I hate swapping the lens, because dust could come into the body. It's
> a bit tough holding the body down so that dust (hopefully) won't come
> in and at the same time holding two lenses with the mount side down,
> quickly so that dust won't come onto the lens lid etc. Some places are
> quite dusty. Over 99% of the time I use the CZ16-80.

Yes, dust can be an issue, although I tend not to travel to dusty places.
My current DSLR has built-in sensor cleaning, so that may help, but even
with my previous DSLR dust wasn't that much of an issue. I did adopt a
regime of a nightly sensor clean, just with a blower.

>> Have you compared the A350/R1/8080 taking the same scene?
>
> These cameras have all different resolutions, so you can't directly
> compare the lenses. But the CZ16-80 has some ugly, non-correctable
> vignetting when you use it with a polariser filter (and I bought a
> slim one). Which means that a number of images have to be edited
> manually with the copy tool (overwrite the blackened sky corners with
> parts of sky which have a normal brightness).
> The 8080 had no such problems and the images of the R1 could all be
> corrected during the RAW conversion, but the vignetting of the CZ16-80
> is simply too strong.

I appreciate that the resolution may differ, but I am thinking about the
same scene displayed at the same size, whether on a print, TV or computer
monitor. I seem to be spared significant vignetting problems with the
Nikon 16-85mm + 2nd-line polarising filter.

Cheers,
David

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:13 am
From: Don Stauffer

dj_nme wrote:
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?
>>
>> Simple. If it didn't have a mirror (or surface that acts like a
>> mirror) it wouldn't be a single lens REFLEX. The term reflex means it
>> has a mirror in the viewfinding train. This is true film OR digital.
>>
>> Note that a "twin lens reflex" also generally has a 45 degree folding
>> mirror also.
>
> The TLR (twin lens reflex) cameras which I've used or examined seem to
> have a fixed mirror in the viewfinder.
> It doesn't have to move out of the way, as does in a SLR camera.
> They may have a folding hood for the focus screen or an interchangeable
> viewfinder prism eyepiece or a peep-sight "sports finder" as accessories.

Yes indeed. That lens does not need to move, since it does not block
the film/image chip area. The TLR preceded the SLR. The SLR mfgs had
to come up with a reliable way to have the mirror flip up, and then
return exactly to the same place it left (staying in alignment). And,
at a price people could afford.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Keeping An Open Ear Out For Obama!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/831184ccc9af1358?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:40 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

Ray Fischer wrote:

>
> You haven't offered any real option. Vague handwaving doesn't count.
> The deficit is about $450,000,000,000. That's almost equal to the
> entire military budget. You can't eliminate interest payments on the
> debt, you can't eliminate Social Security,

oh but you CAN eliminate Social Security ... and mark my word,
while it won't actually be eliminated, it WILL be cut, and cut
dramatically. We don't yet know how, but we know why: Social
Security in its present form requires an exponentially expanding
population, at the same expansion rate, forever. This is not going to
happen.

Doug McDonald

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:22 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>> You haven't offered any real option. Vague handwaving
>> doesn't count. The deficit is about $450,000,000,000. That's
>> almost equal to the entire military budget. You can't
>> eliminate interest payments on the debt, you can't eliminate
>> Social Security,
>
> oh but you CAN eliminate Social Security ... and mark my word,
> while it won't actually be eliminated, it WILL be cut, and cut
> dramatically. We don't yet know how, but we know why: Social
> Security in its present form requires an exponentially
> expanding population, at the same expansion rate, forever.
> This is not going to happen.
>
Doug, the CURRENT 2009 budget shows an approximate $450B+ deficit
but that was BEFORE the passage of an $850B bailout in late
September, the $700B really "needed" plus $150B as a sweetener to
get it passed. That's another one of those silly ass euphemisms
as in "bribes and earmarks". So, the NEW deficit is - Ta, Da! -
something OVER $1.5 TRILLION! And, since much of the War on
Terror is off the books, as is part of Social Security, it is
anybody's guess what the true number will be. Couple that with
using SEC mark-to-market accounting principles to value the
amount of Freddie and Fannie toxic debt you and I took on and it
could balloon the national debt to upwards of $17T by my
calculations.

No, you reall CAN'T cut or eliminate Social Security and
Medicare, at least not and stay in office. Do you really suppose
all the recipients backed by the AARP would just docilly take it
in the ass? Nope. There'd be MASSIVE recall campaigns, charges of
malfeasance and many impeachable offenses and ALL them dudes
voting to cut/kill SS and Med would either get their asses kicked
out very quickly or at least we'd have a brand new bunch of
people in just two years. Social Security and Medicare are by far
the biggest of the political 3rd rails.

Now, the real trick is how to save them and make them fiscally
and actuarily sound. Nobody yet has figured a way past the
reality of cut benefits, raise taxes, or both.

I'd be most interested to hear how you plan to do what you
propose. It isn't that I disagree with your fiscal conclusion -
I'm a BIG fan of David Walker - it's just that I don't know how
to make it happen. But, thankfully, the problem will be left to
my daughter because I'll be dead, likely, by the time the shit
hits the fan, circa 2040.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!

==============================================================================
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: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:45 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

Paul wrote:
>
>> Adobe 50D conversion seems to be lacking at this point in time; a rushed
>> implementation. Adobe typically ignores banding issues and has
>> minimal NR
>> for new cameras, before they are tweaked (all cameras have lots of RAW
>> noise at high ISOs, and even "0" NR usually means "medium"; not "none").
>> Thomas Knoll has acknowledged in the past that banding removal is applied
>> to individual cameras on a per need basis, and is not done automatically.
>

Does the DCRAW allow conversion with no noise reduction and no smoothing
and no sharpening. I thought that it does.

Doug McDonald

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:10 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

William Sommerwerck added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

> On what basis is the Federal government supposed to vet laws
> against Biblical standards?

The old fashioned way - just ask the people. The prohibition
against establishment of a state religion is often mis-quoted and
has absolutely NO-thing to do with setting legal standards for
behavior approved by a 2/3 majority of the people. Don't believe,
it? Cite the passage(s) in the Constitution that uphold your
beliefs, but don't bother with the First Amendment because that's
not what it says. Instead, start with the 10th and move forward
from there. Oh, and the "due process of law" clause of the 14th
Amendment DOES give the government the power to decide these
matters so long as you have your day in court - up until a new
strong law, but preferably, a Consitutional Amendment is passed
forever defining marriage as ONLY a union of one man and one
woman.

> And what right do you have to tell me how I should live my
> life -- especially when I had no say-so in the matter?

Because you cost ME money. That gives me the right to tell you
that you may NOT take advantage of marriage laws designed to
provide tax advantages nor does it give you rights to commit
sexual perversions or to raise children in a clearly immoral
home. And,in case you don't know, willie boi, sodomy is still a
crime in many places.

The last time I looked, there is simply NO protections in the
Constitution of the United States that give anyone the right to a
specific form of union, civil or religious. But, if I had my way,
we would start state by state enacting a constitutional amendment
banning queer marriage - or more correctly, defining marriage as
a union of one man and one woman - as just happened in
California. Along the way, there should be enough of a
groundswell of support from people that still have family values
and a sense of morality to get the federal government to pass an
Amendment bill that forever ends this debate and get it ratified
by 2/3 of the states. Along the way, I pray every day to also
overturn Roe v. Wade which is yet another bullshit euphemism -
abortion is NOT "a woman's right to choose", unless the choice is
between life and murder. Yes, murder, the unlawful taking of a
human life, in this case, premeditated murder in which a doctor,
a hospital, and others are co-defendents.

You want to debate family values, bring it on!

> PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a
> legitimate e-mail address.
>
Nobody provides a legitimate E-mail, you idiot!

--
HP, aka Jerry

Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:14 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

William Sommerwerck added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

>> Actually, it's not. It may be very unlikely but the
>> Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate led by
>> none other than Dennis Kuchinich plans to take their new,
>> larger majorities for a test spin and try to impeach
>> President Bush before he leaves office. And, failing at that
>> which is likely, they intend to get the new AG to bring him
>> up on charges of treason, abuse of power, and obstruction of
>> justice. Those charges ARE likely and may even stick.
>
> I certainly hope so. But there's so little time.
>
> What the Democrats should do is have public hearings outlining
> the "high crimes and misdemeanors" of one the most-corrupt and
> anti-democratic administrations of my lifetime.
>
Look, there just isn't any political will to impeach. Didn't you
learn anything from the assinine attempt to get rid of Clinton, who
was far less guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors"? I believe
that George W. Bush MAY be guilty of a variety of federal crimes
and MAY meet the test of impeachable offenses but it just ain't
gonna happen, especially in this Congress which is hamstrung by not
having the votes to stop a filibuster.

But, before the subpeonas start flying and room is made at
Leavenworth, be sure that YOUR guy isn't the next target. Remember
that it isn't IF the Republicans will regain a Congressional
majority, it is only WHEN. And, the mid-terms are less than two
years away, so, Mr. President Obama, best govern at least to the
center and rein in Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris
Dodd and the other architects of the current economic mess.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:16 am
From: Don Stauffer

michaelk@fromCardiff.com wrote:
> I own a P&S and an SLR, each has its uses. Recently I could'nt help but see
> all these threads that revolve around the question of which type of camera
> is "better". Personally I do not see that this is a question that has any
> sense as the two types of camera are designed for different uses. Anyway,
> has anyone any idea why the pro P&S posters tend to be so bizarre and quite
> frankly not quite right in the head, as witnessed by their somewhat
> hysterical postings. I am amazed at the emotion, derision, contempt and
> even hatred they are able to put in their postings. Its creepy and
> fascinating at the same time.
> Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And no
> comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
>
>
Are there still rangefinders? Remember the arguments about which was
better, rangefinders or SLRs? Some things never change. I do think the
rangefinders were a bit easier to focus in low light.

Does anyone make a digital rangefinder?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:22 am
From: SMS

David J Taylor wrote:

> Well, I see those as "prime manufacturers", not third-parties. Although
> one would expect the camera manufacturer to know more about the lens
> than anyone else (unless the lens itself has been bought from an outside
> supplier). Even the Nikon converters I used to use had problems, like
> not being usable over the full zoom range due to vignetting.....

One thing I found, when I was in to trying converters, is that buying
the same brand converter as the P&S camera was not always the best plan.
I.e. on the Canon G series, the Canon lens adapter tube was greater
diameter than the after-market Lensmate tube, and it blocked the
internal flash. It also used larger diameter, and more expensive
filters. I bought a very high quality converter lens, much more
expensive than the Canon converter. It worked okay, but as you know
those converter lenses are big compromises. There were even some extreme
wide-angle converters available, but these were horrible, versus juse
mediocre.

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

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