Photoshop How To Use: 26 new messages in 11 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 7:41 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."

Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
utmost importance compared to convenience.

There's a good web site with the trade-offs of D-SLR versus P&S at
"http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps".

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:06 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <ntDRk.3351$8_3.1404@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...

> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
> utmost importance compared to convenience.

Or because for most purposes the image quality of P&S cameras is good
enough.
--

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

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:21 am
From: SMS

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <ntDRk.3351$8_3.1404@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
>> utmost importance compared to convenience.
>
> Or because for most purposes the image quality of P&S cameras is good
> enough.

Yeah, that too. Though it is rather bad that those same people were
taking far better photos in the olden days with a film P&S. No shutter
lag, very good low light performance, no constant worrying about batteries.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:47 am
From: "J. Clarke"

SMS 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."
>
> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
> utmost importance compared to convenience.
>
> There's a good web site with the trade-offs of D-SLR versus P&S at
> "http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps".

Well, there's a web site. How good it is is debatable. Some of it is
pure opinion--he for example steers people away from P&S with high
pixel density and makes assertions about the size of print that can be
achieved that are at variance with blind tests conducted by another
photographer.

He would be more credible if he supported his arguments with evidence
rather than just making assertions.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

==============================================================================
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 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 7:43 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"

> Churches of ANY denomination not only marry according to their
> beliefs and religious laws, they also must abide by civil laws in
> their state(s) or even cities and counties. Moreover, marriage
> must conform to all relevant Federal law. But, it is impossible
> to duck God's law no matter how hard people try.

Indeed. As we all know, most of the homosexual men and women who married in
California and Massachusetts have been struck down by horrible diseases, or
killed in weird and improbable accidents.

You might want to look up the history of the Siwa oasis in Egypt. Your hair
will stand on end when you read about Islamic male-male marriages.

> Since when did gay come to mean homosexual instead of one
> who is happy and joyful?

It's a euphemism from the late-19th century meaning "debased", "degenerate",
or "low-life".

> Yes, it is. But, it is also valid for citizens of the several
> states and the federal government to state their STRONG
> preference AGAINST queer marriages. Civil unions, if you
> really think you want to, but marriage -- never.

I'm confused, here. What is the practical difference -- other than a word --
between marriage and a civil union, when both have exactly the same rights
and responsibilities?

I've never understood why those who object to same-sex marriage -- but _not_
to strictly equivalent civil unions -- don't also object to civil marriage.
These unions are even _called_ marriages. Why don't civil marriages also
debase the meaning of "marriage"?

> Have to agree here. Likewise, I think it is dead wrong for either
> states or the feds to mandate what so many think is perverted
> and immoral behavior in the name of "tolerance".

But in removing sodomy laws, many states implicitly tolerate such behavior.
And permitting something is not mandating it.

> Gee, last time I looked, it is the PEOPLE that make the laws so
> it seems to follow that the PEOPLE can and should decide what
> type of marriage they will permit.

Democracy is not about the majority forcing its views on the minority.
Democracy has to include tolerance -- even grudging tolerance -- for
differences.

> Show me where in the Consitution there is any express or implied
> right to ANY kind of marriage.

Uh... The First Amendment.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:00 am
From: Chris H

In message <1tudh45002ubv2na5me43qlbc1dgb4jk0p@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>> Some
>>>of it beneficial, and some of it not. Several states have, or are in
>>>the process of passing, legislation on morality as it applies to who
>>>can get married. Whether or not this is beneficial depends on
>>>personal viewpoint. Mine is that such legislation is not beneficial.
>>
>>I agree. However I would have two systems "marriage2 with is religious
>>and performed by a priest/saham/mullah or what ever and then a civil
>>legal partnership performed by the state with ONLY the state partnership
>>being legitimate in Law.
>>
>>Thus any religion can marry any being to any other being according to
>>their *custom* and the state will marry *ANY* Two people Legally for
>>legal, tax and other administrative reasons.
>
>The problem with this solution is in which type of marriage that
>various entities recognize. Will a hospital, for example, recognize
>only the state partnership type and only allow the state approved
>"spouse" privileges and rights accorded to a direct relative? Will a
>landlord? Will a probate court?

Some preamble to the answer...

In the UK EVERYONE has to have a state registered marriage. You can
forgo the religious part and marry at the local registry office (where
they register births deaths and marriages). This is a "civil ceremony"

For a long while Church of England priests have also been State
Registrants so after the religious Church wedding the priest takes you
off to do the signing of the register and effectively (and legally) does
a state marriage registration otherwise the Church wedding has no legal
validity on it's own. I believe some priests from other faiths can do
similar.

Now, in the last few years, the State Registrar can marry you in many
places other than the registry office. This has give a lot of
flexibility on where you can marry.

So in answer to your question you can get married in any religious place
you like BUT until you get an officially registered state civil
partnership/ marriage license you ain't married.

So as the gays have been complaining they have no rights in hospitals re
their partner. This would solve the problem.

If you are married by the local priest/ shaman/ which-doctor/ vicar/
pastor/bishop/pope/mullah/imam/cult leader/politician or Elvis
impersonator it has no validity in Civil Law no matter what you think
your God may say about the matter.

So the ONLY marriage certificate that is legally valid in a court of
law, a hospital etc is a state marriage certificate. Your religious
marriage certificate (if there is one) is valid in your religious
places but nowhere else.

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

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:08 am
From: Chris H

In message <Xns9B516ABBA2224ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI-Powered
<none@none.sn> writes
>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>> My point exactly. Anyone can believe in any god they like.
>
>Or none at all. Except that in the hereafter, whether one chooses
>to believe in a God or god or not, you WILL have to fess up.

Only if there is a God... And many (if not all) religious people will
be in a fix if they picked the wrong one. :-)

>>>of it beneficial, and some of it not. Several states have, or
>>>are in the process of passing, legislation on morality as it
>>>applies to who can get married. Whether or not this is
>>>beneficial depends on personal viewpoint. Mine is that such
>>>legislation is not beneficial.
>>
>> I agree. However I would have two systems "marriage2 with is
>> religious and performed by a priest/saham/mullah or what ever
>> and then a civil legal partnership performed by the state with
>> ONLY the state partnership being legitimate in Law.
>
>It IS this way now. No religion can marry two "people" contrary
>to the law of the land, which is the entire point here -

This is not correct. Any religion can "marry" anything it like in the
sight of it's own God. The state does not have to recognise that as a
marriage. For example the Mormon Church where it is a man and up to 4
women I beleive.

> namely
>that the law of the land MUST be changed to reflect the true
>feelings of "we the people", which is that marriage is defined as
>a union between one man and one woman.

Incorrect "we the people" want any two people to marry regardless of
their gender. So for the Mormons only the first wife would be
recognised.

>If the perverts want some sort of civil union to be able to
>control things like medical care, fine, but NOT marriage and
>cartainly NOT the raising of children in a morally corrupt
>environment.

I also think that children should not be raised in a morally corrupt
environment. There are very many white, heterosexual Christian
households that would fall into the mortally corrupt environment pit
long before most gay unions would.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Which means most
evangelical American Christians don't even need to bother turning up as
they are more morally bankrupt than most.

>And that is my right to believe.

It is but not to enforce on others.

>
>> Thus any religion can marry any being to any other being
>> according to their *custom* and the state will marry *ANY* Two
>> people Legally for legal, tax and other administrative
>> reasons.
>>
>No, that's not at all true. There are today only a small number
>of states that recognize queer marriage.

What is a queer marriage?
You are using some very strange terms? I though we were discussing same
sex marriages?

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

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:30 am
From: Chris H

In message <Xns9B51696B0A929ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI-Powered
<none@none.sn> writes
>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>>>The reason so many churches are for banning these marriages is
>>>because if its allowed, churches will be both forced to
>>>recognise these marriages and perform them.
>>
>> Why? Churches marry according to their religion. The state can
>> marry according to it's laws.
>
>Churches of ANY denomination not only marry according to their
>beliefs and religious laws,

Yes

>they also must abide by civil laws in
>their state(s) or even cities and counties. Moreover, marriage
>must conform to all relevant Federal law.

Only if you want it accepted as a legal marriage.

>But, it is impossible
>to duck God's law no matter how hard people try.

This is true but God is happy for Gays to marry.

>> A Christian, a Jew and a Muslin can each marry, now, in
>> their own churches. They would not marry in each others
>
>Yeah, and some people worship cows while others hate pigs. Some
>people also have strong feelings about left-handed people. In
>fact, Muslims believe that it is wrong to eat with the left hand
>because it is unclean. The root of this belief dates back to the
>days when toilet paper hadn't been invented.

All of it dates back to basic hygiene in the area where the three main
interrelated middle Eastern religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)
come from.

However none of the believers in those three inter linked middle Eastern
religion's believe in God.

>> In the same way gays can marry in the state civil marriage and
>> in any religious temple that recognises a gay marriage. Most
>> religions won't recognise it.
>
>No, all religions do not recognize any marriage except between
>one man and one woman.

This is NOT correct at all. You have a limited knowledge of religions.

> Queers simply do not count no matter how
>you attempt to gloss things over with bullshit euphemisms such as
>"gay", "diversity" or "tolerance".

God says otherwise.

> Since when did gay come to
>mean homosexual instead of one who is happy and joyful? And who
>in Fuck gave these "people" the right to mess up a perfectly good
>Chistmas carol?

I agree there. However you do NOT want to go there at all. You will
loose and in a very big way.

BTW you keep using "queer" well each to his own as they say but when did
queer start to mean homosexual? Only recently .

>> Ironically for this thread some Christian priests will
>> recognise it and marry gays in Christian churches. That is an
>> internal matter for the Christian Churches to work out.
>
>Yes, it is. But, it is also valid for citizens of the several
>states and the federal government to state their STRONG
>preference AGAINST queer marriages. Civil unions, if you really
>think you want to, but marriage - never.

Marriage certainly. You do not get to re-define the word nor the state
of something that was around long before your religion was invented.

>> However the State should not force any religion to recognise a
>> union it does not approve of.
>
>Have to agree here. Likewise, I think it is dead wrong for either
>states or the feds to mandate what so many think is perverted and
>immoral behavior in the name of "tolerance".

Quite. Personally I would ban all perverted and immoral things like
Christian Churches (an abomination in the sight of God) but I live and
let live.

So no laws against the churches or homosexuals. They all have the same
rights. It is up to the church to sort out what to do with their own
priests who want to marry same sex couples

>>>that is very wrong for the state to force a religion to do
>>>what they do not want to do.
>>
>> And the other way about. Religion has no place putting ANY of
>> it's laws into Civil law.
>>
>Gee, last time I looked, it is the PEOPLE that make the laws so
>it seems to follow that the PEOPLE can and should decide what
>type of marriage they will permit.

And the Gays, who are last time I looked, people who can vote. Along
with a lot of other people who want to live and lit live.

>Show me where in the Consitution there is any express or implied
>right to ANY kind of marriage.

Or any right to ban any sort of marriage.

Judge not lest ye be judged

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

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:41 am
From: Chris H

In message <gf70e4$1p5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, William Sommerwerck
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> writes
>> Churches of ANY denomination not only marry according to their
>> beliefs and religious laws, they also must abide by civil laws in
>> their state(s) or even cities and counties. Moreover, marriage
>> must conform to all relevant Federal law. But, it is impossible
>> to duck God's law no matter how hard people try.
>
>Indeed. As we all know, most of the homosexual men and women who married in
>California and Massachusetts have been struck down by horrible diseases, or
>killed in weird and improbable accidents.

It's a conspiracy.... I blame James Dean (again)

>You might want to look up the history of the Siwa oasis in Egypt. Your hair
>will stand on end when you read about Islamic male-male marriages.

Remind me what is Greek Love?

>> Since when did gay come to mean homosexual instead of one
>> who is happy and joyful?
>It's a euphemism from the late-19th century meaning "debased", "degenerate",
>or "low-life".

I wondered. BTW when did queers start getting called queers? And for
that matter the "straight" and "bent" divide come into being

>> Yes, it is. But, it is also valid for citizens of the several
>> states and the federal government to state their STRONG
>> preference AGAINST queer marriages. Civil unions, if you
>> really think you want to, but marriage -- never.
>
>I'm confused, here. What is the practical difference -- other than a word --
>between marriage and a civil union, when both have exactly the same rights
>and responsibilities?

To me "Marrige" has a religious overtone (note not any specific
religion) and "civil partnership" is a non religious union.

However in the UK the only recognised Marriage certificate is a state
issued one. No matter what religious ceremony you go through it has no
standing in the eyes of the state unless a state authorised registrant
has properly completed the forms.

So the pope can "marry" marry you in Westminster Abbey in the full
glare of TV cameras in the sight of his God but as he is not an official
UK Registrar you ain't married

>I've never understood why those who object to same-sex marriage -- but _not_
>to strictly equivalent civil unions -- don't also object to civil marriage.
>These unions are even _called_ marriages. Why don't civil marriages also
>debase the meaning of "marriage"?

Quite. It is the same thing.

>> Have to agree here. Likewise, I think it is dead wrong for either
>> states or the feds to mandate what so many think is perverted
>> and immoral behavior in the name of "tolerance".
>
>But in removing sodomy laws, many states implicitly tolerate such behavior.
>And permitting something is not mandating it.

Is that between opposite sexes or same sexes? Apparently a lot of
heterosexual men like performing anal sex on women..... Big sales of
that sort of thing in the US

>> Gee, last time I looked, it is the PEOPLE that make the laws so
>> it seems to follow that the PEOPLE can and should decide what
>> type of marriage they will permit.
>
>Democracy is not about the majority forcing its views on the minority.
>Democracy has to include tolerance -- even grudging tolerance -- for
>differences.

I agree. What does it matter if two gays sodomising each other is
immoral and perverted. God will sort them out in the end. They are
consenting adults and there are far greater wrongs in the world to sort
out first.

BTW any American who thinks that Guantanamo, Waterboarding or invading
Iraq was a good Idea doesn't have any moral high ground in the first
place!

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Excessive battery drain (when off) on Canon Powershot A60
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/55794b6aef7bfec8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 7:42 am
From: ASAAR

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 05:32:31 -0800, SMS wrote:

>> So my question is, does anyone else still have the same (old) camera
>> and do you suffer from the same effect? If that's the way they are
>> supposed to be then I guess I could get used to leaving the battery
>> door open when it is on the shelf.
>>
>> Any comments most welcome.
>
> My son has an A60 that he still uses, and I don't notice that problem,
> but he's using lithium AA cells because he uses the camera infrequently.

You doesn't notice the problem because his A60 isn't defective.
Lithium AA cells can last much longer than alkaline batteries, but
with very low loads, such as those from clocks and most cameras that
are turned off, they don't last appreciably longer than alkaline AA
cells. You can verify this by checking the manufacturer's data
sheets for low load capacities. How's your A570IS doing? It's been
many months since your relative returned it, and you've stopped
braying the bogus misinformation about how bad its alkaline AA
battery life is. Still getting a dozen shots from fresh AAs, or the
hundreds that almost everyone else gets?

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 7:44 am
From: ray

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:37:29 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:21:21 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:07:12 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:38:13 -0800, SMS wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a bit like the "film vs digital" wars. Quite obviously each
>>>>>>>> has it's place. I'm willing to grant that ultimately a DSLR may
>>>>>>>> actually take 'better' pictures than a P&S. But, quite frankly,
>>>>>>>> I don't want to pack thirty pounds of camera gear when I'm out
>>>>>>>> hiking, bicycling or showshoeing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's quite an exaggeration. The Canon XSi weighs 17 ounces. The
>>>>>>> Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens weighs 21 ounces (and there
>>>>>>> are a lot lighter lenses as well). These aren't the lightest
>>>>>>> D-SLRs and lenses either. You can easily keep it under 3 pounds,
>>>>>>> an order of magnitude less than 30 pounds. The real issue that is
>>>>>>> that it's a lot bulkier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the rest of the lenses I would need to equal the 12x zoom on my
>>>>>> Kodak P850?
>>>>>
>>>>> Use the 18-270 Tamron intead of the 18-200 Canon and you've got that
>>>>> zoom range beat.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have an 18-200 canon - I have an anything canon. I have a
>>>> Kodak P850 and it has a max (35mm equiv) of about 420.
>>>
>>> Which is less than the zoom range of the 18-270 Tamron.
>>
>> Geez last time I checked, 270 was still less than 420.
>
> The last time I looked it was 432 (equivalent), which is a bit more than
> the "420 (equivalent)" on your Kodak and it goes farther on the wide end
> as well.

Well, you didn't tell me that and I didn't feel like bothering to look up
your cameras specs to figure it out. So this is included with the base
camera - right?

>
>>>>>>> The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters for
>>>>>>> telephoto and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't
>>>>>>> saving much in terms of weight and volume and you're adding a lot
>>>>>>> of hassle and getting very inferior results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's a canon g10? I don't do canon. I use a Kodak P850.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fuzz machine? If you're satisfied with what that does then
>>>>> you're easy to please.
>>>>
>>>> Easy to please when it does what I need, yes. This is about
>>>> sufficiency.
>>>
>>> I see. Well if that's "sufficient" and you have visions of making
>>> your living as a photographer don't quit your day job.
>>
>> I'm retired. I "make my living" as I damned well please. If I expected
>> to "make a living as a photgrapher" I would probably have different
>> equipment. I don't.
>
> So what do you hope to accomplish by participating in this discussion?

Well, I was HOPING to get some rabid folks such as yourself to admit that
there is a place in this world for a decent P&S - I guess that' not going
to happen. You like your dslr - ergo everyone else on the planet should
only use similar equipment.

>
> --

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 7:53 am
From: SMS

ray wrote:

> Well, I was HOPING to get some rabid folks such as yourself to admit that
> there is a place in this world for a decent P&S - I guess that' not going
> to happen. You like your dslr - ergo everyone else on the planet should
> only use similar equipment.

"Decent" is so lame. There are several decent P&S models, and a few
that are more than decent.

It seems to be the camera manufacturers, not the folks here, that have
decided that there is no longer a place in the world for high-end P&S
models. The G10 is a good start, but it's still been decontented versus
earlier G series models. The manufacturers seem to be convinced that
very few people are willing to pay a lot for a feature-rich camera that
still suffers from the inherent limitations of the P&S design, and they
are correct.

One of the key problems is that as resolution has increased, the sensor
sizes have not, so noise and dynamic range get worse and worse on the
P&S models, with no way around the physics. With D-SLRs and their much
larger sensors, you see the same problem, but to a much less noticeable
extent since the pixels are still relatively large.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:05 am
From: "J. Clarke"

ray wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:37:29 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:21:21 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:07:12 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:38:13 -0800, SMS wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a bit like the "film vs digital" wars. Quite obviously
>>>>>>>>> each has it's place. I'm willing to grant that ultimately a
>>>>>>>>> DSLR may actually take 'better' pictures than a P&S. But,
>>>>>>>>> quite frankly, I don't want to pack thirty pounds of camera
>>>>>>>>> gear when I'm out hiking, bicycling or showshoeing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's quite an exaggeration. The Canon XSi weighs 17 ounces.
>>>>>>>> The Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens weighs 21 ounces
>>>>>>>> (and there are a lot lighter lenses as well). These aren't
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> lightest D-SLRs and lenses either. You can easily keep it
>>>>>>>> under 3 pounds, an order of magnitude less than 30 pounds.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> real issue that is that it's a lot bulkier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the rest of the lenses I would need to equal the 12x zoom
>>>>>>> on my Kodak P850?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use the 18-270 Tamron intead of the 18-200 Canon and you've got
>>>>>> that zoom range beat.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have an 18-200 canon - I have an anything canon. I have
>>>>> a
>>>>> Kodak P850 and it has a max (35mm equiv) of about 420.
>>>>
>>>> Which is less than the zoom range of the 18-270 Tamron.
>>>
>>> Geez last time I checked, 270 was still less than 420.
>>
>> The last time I looked it was 432 (equivalent), which is a bit more
>> than the "420 (equivalent)" on your Kodak and it goes farther on
>> the
>> wide end as well.
>
> Well, you didn't tell me that and I didn't feel like bothering to
> look up your cameras specs to figure it out. So this is included
> with
> the base camera - right?

It only works with APS-C cameras so you if you actually knew what you
were talking about would have been able to figure that out on your own
without having to know anything about the camera's specs.

And yes, if that's the lens you buy when you buy the base camera then
that's the lens that's included with the base camera.

>>>>>>>> The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> telephoto and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't
>>>>>>>> saving much in terms of weight and volume and you're adding a
>>>>>>>> lot of hassle and getting very inferior results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's a canon g10? I don't do canon. I use a Kodak P850.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fuzz machine? If you're satisfied with what that does then
>>>>>> you're easy to please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Easy to please when it does what I need, yes. This is about
>>>>> sufficiency.
>>>>
>>>> I see. Well if that's "sufficient" and you have visions of
>>>> making
>>>> your living as a photographer don't quit your day job.
>>>
>>> I'm retired. I "make my living" as I damned well please. If I
>>> expected to "make a living as a photgrapher" I would probably have
>>> different equipment. I don't.
>>
>> So what do you hope to accomplish by participating in this
>> discussion?
>
> Well, I was HOPING to get some rabid folks such as yourself to admit
> that there is a place in this world for a decent P&S - I guess that'
> not going to happen. You like your dslr - ergo everyone else on the
> planet should only use similar equipment.

I like my FZ7 too. But it doesn't do everything I need a camera to
do, not by a long shot.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:14 am
From: "J. Clarke"

SMS wrote:
> ray wrote:
>
>> Well, I was HOPING to get some rabid folks such as yourself to
>> admit
>> that there is a place in this world for a decent P&S - I guess
>> that'
>> not going to happen. You like your dslr - ergo everyone else on the
>> planet should only use similar equipment.
>
> "Decent" is so lame. There are several decent P&S models, and a few
> that are more than decent.
>
> It seems to be the camera manufacturers, not the folks here, that
> have
> decided that there is no longer a place in the world for high-end
> P&S
> models. The G10 is a good start, but it's still been decontented
> versus earlier G series models.

You keep using this word. I think it does not mean what you think it
means.

In what way has the G10 been "decontented" when compared to the G9?

The only area I can see in which it has less capability is at the long
end of the zoom range, and they went significantly wider, so it seems
to me to be a fair tradeoff.

> The manufacturers seem to be
> convinced that very few people are willing to pay a lot for a
> feature-rich camera that still suffers from the inherent limitations
> of the P&S design, and they are correct.
>
> One of the key problems is that as resolution has increased, the
> sensor sizes have not, so noise and dynamic range get worse and
> worse
> on the P&S models, with no way around the physics. With D-SLRs and
> their much larger sensors, you see the same problem, but to a much
> less noticeable extent since the pixels are still relatively large.

Have they reached the physical limits in sensor design?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:43 am
From: SMS

J. Clarke wrote:

> You keep using this word. I think it does not mean what you think it
> means.

So what do you think it means?

I think it means the removal of features that were present on early
generations of essentially the same product. That's how it's used in
terms of vehicles.

> In what way has the G10 been "decontented" when compared to the G9?

Not compared to the G9, compared to the earlier G series cameras. The
biggie is the loss of the articulating LCD. At least they brought back
RAW, which disappeared on one generation.

Canon isn't alone among corporations that balance the cost of providing
a specific feature against the expected loss of sales that will result
by removing the feature. Factored into this is the number of sales that
will not be lost to competitors, but to other products they make. If
someone decides to buy a Canon SX1 IS (to get the articulating LCD) or
decides to move up to a Canon D-SLR instead, then it's not a real loss.

In the SD series, Canon dropped the SD800 IS which was their only model
with both an optical viewfinder and 28mm at the wide end. The
replacement model doesn't have the viewfinder. Optical viewfinders are
costly, and if they only lose a few sales because of the decontenting
then it's well worth it to them.

In the A series, Canon dropped the A570 IS which had 30fps video,
replacing it with the A590 IS which has 20 fps video. They couldn't do
video as fast on the higher resolution model (8 MP versus 7.1). So
they've both worsened the image quality of still pictures in terms of
noise and dynamic range _AND_ worsened the video quality, but they are
forced to compete int the megapixel race.

In D-SLRs, they are going the other way, adding features, some of them
very useful.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Giving Up on Printer Color Management
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/9a6ceab013e5e8dd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 7:49 am
From: Alan Browne

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> I have calibrated my monitor as best technology allows, calibrated my
> (Canon) printer with Cathy's profiling service, and been relatively happy
> until now. Lately, I have had problems in the reds and in low light values,
> as in muddy shadow areas. So I told my Photoshop Elements 6 to just let the
> printer manage color, set the print optimization settings within the
> printer, and let her rip.
>
> I found that it handled contrasts and colors better than I was doing with
> all the printer management by Photoshop and depending on my monitor to show
> me what it would look like. So what the hell. You still use an accurate
> monitor to work the image and make it look the best you can. You adjust
> levels, dodge and burn here and there, sharpen, etc, but then in translating
> that image to print you may want to just let the printer drivers and
> optimization settings do the rest, to make the print "pop" and really look
> good.
>
> Please tell me your experiences if you have tried it all.

Still enslaved to management. Almost there... almost there...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:12 am
From: John McWilliams

Alan Browne wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> I have calibrated my monitor as best technology allows, calibrated my
>> (Canon) printer with Cathy's profiling service, and been relatively
>> happy until now. Lately, I have had problems in the reds and in low
>> light values, as in muddy shadow areas. So I told my Photoshop
>> Elements 6 to just let the printer manage color, set the print
>> optimization settings within the printer, and let her rip.
>>
>> I found that it handled contrasts and colors better than I was doing
>> with all the printer management by Photoshop and depending on my
>> monitor to show me what it would look like. So what the hell. You
>> still use an accurate monitor to work the image and make it look the
>> best you can. You adjust levels, dodge and burn here and there,
>> sharpen, etc, but then in translating that image to print you may want
>> to just let the printer drivers and optimization settings do the rest,
>> to make the print "pop" and really look good.
>>
>> Please tell me your experiences if you have tried it all.
>
> Still enslaved to management. Almost there... almost there...

I have Lightroom and Photoshop manage my printing on two Epsons and one
Canon. Comes out fine, but it's not always a cinch to set up correctly,
but once that's done, it's fine.

--
john mcwilliams

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:46 am
From: "bmoag" <-aetoo@hotmail.com>

At best color management yields reasonably reliable first time print/monitor
matching, not guaranteed WYSIWYG printing.
I am reasonably certain you are using an LCD panel. Except for high end
graphics units, which use a different display technology then the vast
majority of consumer grade LCD panels regardless of cost, it is the LCD
panel itself that is the cause of nearly all frustration with color
management.
These LCD panels are too bright and because of the display technology you
cannot adjust brightness and contrast on these units for color management.
Although monitor calibration devices claim to be able to take into account
the uber brightness and inflexible adjustment parameters of these screens as
you have learned Hueys, Spyders, Monacos et al simply do not. These devices
can match color but not brightness and contrast.
Part of the problem is neurologic: you see an overly bright transmitted
color image on the monitor and then look at a reflective print without
matching the ambient light. These are utterly different viewing experiences
and the print will always suffer in the comparison. A transmitted color
value will always look less muddy than a reflective color value.
Printer calibration is not as helpful as all the buzz out there would make
you think. Particularly with Epson printers and papers you will not get a
technically better custom profile compared to what the vendor supplies. That
does not mean that a custom profile will not be more to your liking, but you
have to generate the profile through trial and error, not rely on a third
party.
Which leads me to my last comment on color management--follow the
calibration ritual and then generate a series of test prints varying
brightness/contrast by fixed/reproducible amounts, analogous to a darkroom
test print. You can use the curves tool or the CS4-4 brightness/contrast
adjustment layers. You should be able to find a fixed setting that
compensates for the monitor calibration mismatch and will yield an
acceptable print on the first try the vast majority of times.
Or do what I do. Hang on to your last good CRT monitor and use it to proof
images prior to printing.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: picking an intro level P&S
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/68a020728b9d1bdc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 7:49 am
From: "H.S."

Hello,

I am looking for a P&S going to be a gift for a relative of mine. I am
looking for a battery-included (Li ion), at least 6 MP, reasonably good
picture quality and costing around $110 (in Canada) camera. There is
some leeway in the price. If the lens starts from 28mm, all the better.
Also, ease of use and no complicated controls are desired (the user is
not familiar with camera controls). So cameras in which menus are needed
for even routine typical touristy picture taking sessions are something
I want to stay away from.

Some of the ones I am looking at are:
Nikon Coolpix 8MP Digital Camera (L18)
Fujifilm Finepix F480 8.2MP
Nikon Coolpix P50
Nikon Coolpix L16
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W110

I wanted to know of people can comment on these and if somebody can
suggest other models to look at. Obviously, given the constraints I
mentioned above, a camera with shorter shutter lag and good picture
quality is desired.

Thanks.

--
Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 7:58 am
From: "Paul"

"H.S." <hAs.saLEmixT@gTHEmail.com> wrote in message
news:392e0$49170697$4c0a945b$10810@TEKSAVVY.COM-Free...
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for a P&S going to be a gift for a relative of mine. I am
> looking for a battery-included (Li ion), at least 6 MP, reasonably good
> picture quality and costing around $110 (in Canada) camera. There is
> some leeway in the price. If the lens starts from 28mm, all the better.
> Also, ease of use and no complicated controls are desired (the user is
> not familiar with camera controls). So cameras in which menus are needed
> for even routine typical touristy picture taking sessions are something
> I want to stay away from.
>
> Some of the ones I am looking at are:
> Nikon Coolpix 8MP Digital Camera (L18)
> Fujifilm Finepix F480 8.2MP
> Nikon Coolpix P50
> Nikon Coolpix L16
> Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W110
>
> I wanted to know of people can comment on these and if somebody can
> suggest other models to look at. Obviously, given the constraints I
> mentioned above, a camera with shorter shutter lag and good picture
> quality is desired.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
> one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.

GFYS.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:18 am
From: SMS

H.S. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for a P&S going to be a gift for a relative of mine. I am
> looking for a battery-included (Li ion), at least 6 MP, reasonably good
> picture quality and costing around $110 (in Canada) camera. There is
> some leeway in the price. If the lens starts from 28mm, all the better.
> Also, ease of use and no complicated controls are desired (the user is
> not familiar with camera controls). So cameras in which menus are needed
> for even routine typical touristy picture taking sessions are something
> I want to stay away from.
>
> Some of the ones I am looking at are:
> Nikon Coolpix 8MP Digital Camera (L18)
> Fujifilm Finepix F480 8.2MP
> Nikon Coolpix P50
> Nikon Coolpix L16
> Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W110
>
> I wanted to know of people can comment on these and if somebody can
> suggest other models to look at. Obviously, given the constraints I
> mentioned above, a camera with shorter shutter lag and good picture
> quality is desired.
>
> Thanks.
>

For an ultra-compact with a wide angle lens, look at the Sony Cyber-shot
DSC-W170. This is presently the only sub-compact with a Li-Ion battery,
wide-angle lens, optical viewfinder, and image-stabilization. Alas, it's
$225 (US).

Also look at the Fuji FINEPIX J150W, which has the 28mm wide-angle lens,
but lacks image-stabilization, lacks an optical viewfinder, and lacks
af-assist.

Personally I'd get the Canon A590 IS, and buy them some Eneloop
batteries and a charger. While Li-Ion batteries are highly desirable, at
the low end like that you're getting a very de-featured model in that
price range. Forget about the 28mm as well.

==============================================================================
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: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:21 am
From: "Paul"

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ePydncv8BtVeuYvUnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Paul wrote:
>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:5fadnTjlHdS0KYjUnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>>>> Interesting comparisons page (magnifier top right):
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5uog2m
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even with downsized images, the 30D noise levels/banding look better
>>>>>> than the 50D.
>>>>>> 30D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6dfpau
>>>>>> 50D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/5mpe3u
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 30D Raw 1600 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6cb53u
>>>>>> 50D Raw 1600 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6pwjzv
>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>> 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;
>>>>
>>>> 30D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6dfpau
>>>> 50D Raw 3200 DPP: http://tinyurl.com/6c2yjr
>>
>>
>>> Why isn't the comparison between both photos processed by DPP? Two RAW
>>> converters will never give the exact same rendition no matter how you
>>> tweak settings.
>>
>>
>> No particular reason. They original links were with ACR as this is what
>> I use myself. But then John pointed out that ACR was lacking for the
>> 50D, so I posted a link showing the 50D converted with DPP as a
>> comparison.
>>
>> On the original link, you can compare 30D, 40D and 50D with whatever
>> ISO's/RAW converters you wish.
>
> Yes, I see all that.
>
> But you'll notice that the WB and exposure are different for the two 3200
> exposures of the two cameras even when processed (the same, one presumes)
> the same by the same RAW processor.

Maybe, but I have viewed a lot of photos and am yet to see one shot where
the 50D is better.

Lets face it, since the 1D II, 20D and 5D, we have not seen anything
particularly exiting from Canon. I like Canon, but, they need to have
photographers working for them, not some moppets who don't know their asses
from their elbows. That includes Chuck Westfall who for some reason rates
it 1-1.5 stops ahead of the 40D.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:46 am
From: Gary Edstrom

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:22:51 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:

>
>"Gary Edstrom" <GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> wrote in message
>news:0i9vg4hbmtlth93arnk9mjdg0u6oi5iatr@4ax.com...
>> Why do you have to pick one over the other?
>>
>> I use both.
>>
>> My DSLR is for serious photography. Enough said.
>>
>> My P&S is outstanding and convenient for everyday use. The primary
>> reason I carry it is because it takes a LOT less space than my DSLR and
>> is inconspicuous on my belt. I ALWAYS have it with me. I take it
>> places where it would be too awkward or inadvisable to take a bigger
>> camera. It's great for those candid shots. Under daylight conditions,
>> it performs almost as well as my DSLR. It is also an excellent backup
>> camera in case my DSLR malfunctions in a critical situation, or the
>> battery goes dead. I took both to Hong Kong with me last spring and got
>> excellent pictures with both.
>>
>> Another excellent reason to carry it is for documentation! It probably
>> saved me some money a couple of years ago. I had parked in the parking
>> lot for a McDonalds. While I was getting out of my car, I lost my
>> balance and swung my door open and against the car next to me. The
>> owner immediately launched into a tirade about how I had ruined her car
>> and how she was going to make me pay for it. I examined the 'damage'.
>> It was almost invisible. Literally, a chip of paint, less than a
>> sixteenth of an inch had been knocked off the bottom edge of her right
>> rear wheel well. If you weren't looking for it, you never would have
>> seen it. I got out my P&S camera with a ruler to take a picture of the
>> 'damage'. The driver objected. I told her that if I was going to pay
>> for the repair work, then I wanted documentation of the damage.
>>
>> I never heard from her again!
>>
>> Gary
>
>That's the best reason I've heard, yet, to carry a p&s....
>
>Take Care,
>Dudlley

To expand on the inconspicuous aspect: Trying to be inconspicuous does
NOT necessarily mean that you are trying to sneak a camera into a place
where they are not allowed! Here in the Southern California area, we
have Forest Lawn Memorial Park cemeteries. They strongly enforce their
'No professional photography written permission' policy. I was even
stopped from photographing my father's grave once because I had my
camera on a tripod. In their eye, that made me a 'Professional'. You
also attract their attention if your camera equipment looks too
professional, or you 'Look' like a photographer. Enter my P&S camera in
a pocket on my belt. As I said before, under daylight conditions, it
performs almost as well as my DSLR. You certainly don't look
'Professional' when simply composing your image on an LCD screen of a
small camera. I have taken many excellent pictures all around the park
under such conditions.

Gary

==============================================================================
TOPIC: entry level P & S
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e9ba66e1464d8906?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:55 am
From:

Quite a few of my friends have one of those elegant looking Lumix cameras,
I think they have suffix's like FX-30 or something similar after the word
LUMIX. One of he recent models starts at 25mm.

I had one but gave it away as a present to my friend, because I did not like
it, image was'nt up to standard, no manual etc. But my friend who had
previously had a compact film camera was thrilled. Another friend got one
after getting into photography via a camera phone.

As you can see, I have avoided selling a camera on its technical ability as
I think 99% of people that are asking about entry level cameras don't want
anything more than a small, good looking camera to take snapshots.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ^^^ Free Enormous Titty Videos ^^^
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a32074617ad9366f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 8:55 am
From: boobs

http://enormusjugs.blogspot.com/ - The only true source for the
largest tits on the internet!!!! Download free videos , pics and more
after all you have to , to see them!

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 9 2008 9:00 am
From: Doug Mitton

[I had originally posted this to a couple of Linux OS groups BUT then
thought I would post here as well to see if anyone using alternative
web browsers or operating systems (ie. Safari and Mac) are having
trouble as well. I really dislike it when a major chain (like
Walmart) starts using proprietary services. I'm looking for feedback
to see if this is indeed the case.]

Hi All;

I'm looking to see if anyone can confirm a change on the Walmart Photo
web site. It appears it has gone "Internet Explorer" only as I can't
get Konqueror or Mozilla on Linux (or WinXP) to work. The clerk at
the store says she is processing online orders. It was working fine
for the last couple of years and up to 1 month ago. The "look" is now
different also.

I submit photos regularly online then go to the store and pick them
up. My main use of this though is to send pictures to my parents in
another province who do not have a computer.

Sometime in the last month it appears they have started using a new
"shopping cart" vendor. Regardless, the new system allows uploading,
editing and the like BUT as soon as you select photos to send to the
"Shopping Cart" the list is empty and the message states "you must
select size, finish and quantity prior to submitting your order".

As you might expect there is no "Contact Us" link on the photo site or
the shopping-cart software. I have sent a message via the main
Walmart page but it is a Mon-Fri only system.

Regardless, do any other Linux using Canadians use this service, is it
working for you and if so, what browser are you using?

TIA!

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

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

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