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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:57 am
From: SMS

Don Stauffer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:10 am
From: "David Ruether"

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message news:Xns9B536945B59DAReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
> tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

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

I would add the obvious - that the officiant in the US can be
a wide variety of things, from a church group of two to a boat
captain, mayor, justice of the peace, etc...

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

You do realize (I think you do...) that the word "queer" is as
offensive to homosexuals as the word "Niggers" is to Blacks.
Use the words "homosexual", "gay", or "Lesbian" if you do not
wish to blatantly display your ignorance and bigotry.

>> This is the way that it is done, and established as legal, in
>> the US. It may not be done this way in the UK, but it's the
>> way that it's done here.
>>
>> The problem with "Hemi" is that he wants everyone else to
>> follow his beliefs and doesn't recognize the rights and
>> customs of others. When you say that all marriages should be
>> civil (as you have in another post), you are doing what Hemi
>> is doing: deciding that your system is the only right system.

> I don't want anyone to follow my views, I want people to follow two
> sets of views: 1) first and foremost, God's views and 2) the views
> of a MAJORITY of citizens of a given state.

As a matter for your own education (and perhaps understanding
of what is going on now), look up some history on how religious
bible-thumping people attempted to keep [Blacks] in their place
as first slaves (with no independent rights of marriage), then
as decidedly second class citizens (with no rights to racially
intermarry - as late as 1967 in some states!!!), and finally as
being kept essentially separate (but not equal) - all justified by
some now-forgotten quotes from the bible or the many common
prejudices and the bigotry of the times. It all sounds all too
familiar again regarding basic gay legal rights in this country.

You miss the point of all this discussion - YOUR PREJUDICES
AND BIGOTRY, OR EVEN THOSE OF A POPULATION
MAJORITY, OR THOSE PUT FORTH IN (A VERY FEW...)
QUOTES FROM A BOOK THAT CONTAINS MANY
OTHERS THAT HAVE LONG SINCE SLIPPED AWAY
INTO DISUSE AS THEY BECAME INAPPROPRIATE
FOR THE TIMES, DO NOT DETERMINE WHAT IS JUST
FOR A DISCRIMINATED-AGAINST MINORITY IN A
TRULY FREE SOCIETY. Also, if you understood the structure
of the US government at all (as presented in the Constitution),
you would know that we have a **REPRESENTATIVE**
form of democracy, not a direct democracy, just so that a
majority with ill will toward a minority is less likely to prevail.
This concept has been corrupted with simple-majority initiative
voting, permitting abominations like the passage in California of
Proposition 8, a clearly rights-limiting move against a minority
that is still struggling for its proper equality under the law.
People everywhere should be ashamed that Proposition 8
passed.

> Or, I pray the day will
> come when we as an American people will have the moral and
> political courage to ban both queer unions altogether and also
> overturn Roe v. Wade by Constitution Amendment to stop the murder
> of innocent fetuses. Since when, for example, does a woman's
> "choice" extend to premeditated murder? And, why is the doctor and
> anyone else participating in said murder co-defendents.

I guess stupidity and the will to be ignorant is incorrigible...
For them, it is all "black or white", with no other shades, so
they will favor only one group (their own), with no understanding
of, or appreciation for, the points of views of others. Of such
attitudes are wars produced, and the "H-Ps" of the world, if
they prevail, will force us all into eternal disasterous conflict.
Too bad...

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

> Right is right and wrong is wrong. I don't say so, God says so.
> And, tony cooper, so far the vast majority of people in the United
> States say so, INCLUDING the people of California. If that isn't
> enough for you, then please drink a big cup of Shut The Fuck Up
> coffee, OK?
> --
> HP, aka Jerry

Yuh, right.......
--DR

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:52 am
From: Jürgen Exner

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:
>I don't want anyone to follow my views, I want people to follow two
>sets of views: 1) first and foremost, God's views

Which one of the many thousands of gods should get a say in this? If She
speaks up I am willing to listen. So far I haven't heard a single voice
from Her yet.

> and 2) the views of a MAJORITY of citizens of a given state.

This is a point that indeed may merrit some discussion.

>Or, I pray

I strongly agree that is the best way to handle the situation. You
should leave religious affairs to whatever deity is supposed to take
care of it. We all know all too well from history what happens, when
people seize power in the name of a deity and are trying to enforce
whatever they percieve as the will of that deity on other people.

>Right is right and wrong is wrong. I don't say so, God says so.

Yeah, right. If you prefer living in a theocracy, then why don't you
move to Iran or Vatican?

jue

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:02 am
From: Chris H

In message <Xns9B536A4396F0CReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI-Powered
<none@none.sn> writes
>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>> Exactly. However what will he do when he dies and goes to meet
>> God and discovers he has been a blaspheming heretic most of
>> his life? It comes as quit a shock to many "believers of the
>> true god" when they find out they were completely wrong :-)
>
>Come again? I am following God's law as stated in the Bible.

The Bible isn't Gods Law. Never has been... Problem is you are a
Christian That is the middle part of three linked religions Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. (There are 5 books the same in both the Koran
and bible )

None of those as religions know God.

Incidentally if you know your history you will know why only 5 books are
in both the Bible and Koran... Because the current Bible is a political
document. The selection of books was horse trading to stop having about
20 different variations The various Christian denominations agreed on
which books were in and which out some 1000 years 1 AD

>The
>real question is what are you and the rest of the "tolerant" folk
>going to do to explain to your Maker why you so clearly violated
>in Law in so many obvious ways?

I haven't. Not in the slightest. You on the other hand are an
abomination and are not keeping many if any of Gods Laws.

>> The state should not tell Hemi's church that it has to accept
>> or marry gays, lesbians, democrats or any other reasonable
>> people. It's their club and it is up to them. However they
>> should not tell any one else how to live either.
>
>Look, this is first a church issue but because of the separation
>of church and state concept of the First Amendment,

Partly. The state civil Unions or Marriages can be for gays. If the
state permits Gay marriages then the state can. Churches don't have to
conduct them.

> the state
>indeed has no right to dictate policy to any church that is
>otherwise lawful.

I agree

>That isn't the issue here. The issue is two-
>fold: first legally defining marriage ONLY as a union between one
>man and one woman and second letting churches get on with
>whatever it is they want to do to support that simple concept.

WRONG marriage is between two people Simple
If your particular religion does not permit gay marriages then you don't
have to do them.

You can't stop other religions having them if they want to.

God says Gay Marriage is OK and you can't prove otherwise. (Hint man
wrote the Bible not God... it's NOT gods Word)

>Yes, it is. But, since when do the rights of one group come at
>the expense of those of another?

They do not.

>If I feel that marriage is a
>union of one man and one woman,

Then you only marry one woman. No one is forcing you to do otherwise.

If Gays want to marry each other who are you to stop them? Unless you
want to stop their rights?

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

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:09 am
From: Chris H

In message <t09jh451v5jvf8t5njkuotuthlb2c9vg7t@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:50:32 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>As far as any legal situation only the state marriage should be
>>recognised. There should be no additional legal status for getting
>>married in a particular religion or Church.
>
>I really don't follow you here. It seems you are missing something.

I think so.

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

OK.

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

Ok but in the religious ceremony the priest is a duly authorised
registrar of marriages as recognised by the state?

>I'm not sure you understand what gays in the US want to be able to do.
>They want to be able to be legally married. Some want that to be done
>in a civil ceremony,

Fair enough. They should be able to and that is a matter of state/civil
law.

>and some want it to be done in a church ceremony.

That is up to the Church and no one should force that on any religion.

>The issue is that they want to be able to be a married couple in the
>eyes of the law just as heterosexual couples are.

Isn't that a "civil ceremony" ?

>The issue is *not*
>where the marriage takes place or who performs it. That's an
>individual decision by the participants just as it is for heterosexual
>couples.

Quite.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:16 am
From: Chris H

In message <Xns9B536945B59DAReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI-Powered
<none@none.sn> writes
>tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> In the US, the church officiant is acting as a duly authorized
>> agent of the state in performing the marriage. Even though a
>> priest or minister conducts the ceremony, it is the state that
>> authorizes and allows it.
>
>That is correct. However, churches DO have the right to tell their
>congregations scriptures or other views on things of morality,
>including what God says about queers and what says about marriage,
>the latter being a union of one man and one woman.

In your Churches you can tell the congregation about what you think your
God says. No one has ever said you can't

More to the point no one can tell you who you can and can't marry in
your churches. You can marry 10 year old children if you like. It just
won't have any legal effect. (Of course if they get sexual then a crime
as been committed and the law won't see the "marriage" as anything
real.)

>I don't want anyone to follow my views, I want people to follow two
>sets of views: 1) first and foremost, God's views

1 you have know knowledge of God views.

>and 2) the views
>of a MAJORITY of citizens of a given state.

Fair enough so if the vote is for Gay marriages you will have to accept
it.

>> Don't be a Hemi. Recognize that other groups do things
>> differently, and that is perfectly OK.
>>
>Right is right and wrong is wrong. I don't say so,

You do loud and often,.

> God says so.

But you have no idea what God says.

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

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:28 am
From: Jürgen Exner

Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:
>>I don't want anyone to follow my views, I want people to follow two
>>sets of views: 1) first and foremost, God's views
>
>Which one of the many thousands of gods should get a say in this? If She
>speaks up I am willing to listen. So far I haven't heard a single voice
>from Her yet.

Please forgive me, I was wrong. There is one god who has spoken out. In
a private meeting reportedly the Dalai Lama urged 'respect, compassion,
and full human rights for all,' including gays:

"His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual
orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion, and the full
recognition of human rights for all."

jue

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:08 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Chris H wrote:
> In message <gfc6lt$52r$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes
>>
>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> news:kXx$D1FK4UGJFAaF@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <gfaatk$pt5$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether
>>> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes
>>
>>> For most religious people [their] Gods law is higher than Man's
>>> --CH
>>
>> Maybe so, but without that state-sanctioned marriage, they
>> are just individuals living together in terms of legal matters
>> normally of concern to couples...
>
> Absolutely!!
>
> If the pope comes to the UK and marries two god fearing Catholics
> One
> male one female. It is NOT a marriage in Law as the Pope is not a UK
> Registrar for performing state marriages.
>
>
> The other point is their god is not The God..... However most
> religious people are unclear about this and are easily confused into
> thinking their mythical god is The God. She isn't

Or is as the case may be.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: &&& Enormous Jugs Mother smothers child with tits!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/f1d074a0c91ae8c9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:11 am
From: Boobs

http://enormusjugs.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-to-expand-benefits-unionize-tsa.html
Were Not kidding how do these girls manage to stay upright! Full
Video Pics and more as usual.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: rec.photo.digital decline....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/2a7a2b9df6c5f2e5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:14 am
From: John Navas

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 18:47:05 -0600, "Ralph Samuelson, III"
<rks3@samuelson.com> wrote in
<KbMQk.57459$kh2.46559@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:

>So why do SOME of you sneer at Olympus users?

Because they are insecure with what they have, what they paid, and/or
their abilities. Those secure in all those things don't sneer.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
----------
"When the superior scholar hears of Tao, he diligently practises it.
When the average scholar hears of Tao, he sometimes retains it,
sometimes loses it. When the inferior scholar hears of Tao, he loudly
laughs at it. Were it not thus ridiculed, it would not be worthy of the
name of Tao." [Lao-Tzu]

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:31 am
From: SMS

Sheila wrote:

> What's really interesting about this group is the loyalty that user's
> have to either Nikon or Canon.

"Blind devotion" is more accurate than "loyalty."

Some people take it as a personal affront when anyone points out a flaw
in something that they have purchased.

I could tell you five bad things about my Canon camera, and five bad
things about your Nikon camera, without getting emotional about the
design flaws in either.

I could tell you things I like and dislike about Canon as a corporation,
and things I like and dislike about Nikon as a corporation, though I
have to admit that some of the policies of Nikon U.S.A. would make it
highly unlikely that I'd ever purchase a Nikon product.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: sigma buys foveon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/b45194b6b402b71a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:21 am
From: SMS

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:28:40 -0800, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> : <http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/info_081111.htm>
> :
> : i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...
>
> Doesn't Sigma sell a lot of lenses but very few cameras? If they're buying a
> company just to stay in a highly competitive business in which they're not
> doing very well, what's the point?

"Buying" may be the wrong word here, I'm sure that Sigma is just
acquiring the remains of Foveon, probably at no cost at all.

Too bad. Foveon exhibited their studio camera (three sensors with a
prism) in the booth of the company I worked for at Comdex many years
ago. It was a good concept to use three sensors, but impractical. They
sold a bunch of their studio cameras (Canon lens mount) but the silicon
color separation never worked out as well as they had hoped for consumer
cameras.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:20 am
From: John Navas

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:08:23 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in
<MPG.2383be55a7ecdafb98bf0c@news.supernews.com>:

>In article <101120081828405505%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...
>> <http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/info_081111.htm>
>>
>> i suppose sigma would lose more if foveon actually shut down...
>
>Hopefully we'll finally see a Foveon sensor with more pixel count. 12 or
>15MP would be fine.

Would take some serious technical breakthroughs; i.e., don't hold your
breath.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:31 am
From: Rich

On Nov 11, 2:04 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <0af34422-6f8a-4f97-af94-5ea8649585a6
> @k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>
> > That's why they make "P" settings on DSLRs for soccer moms. Oops!
> > Damn! Shot blurred because the Program mode only gave me 1/40th
> > second!!!
>
> At 1/40s the photo will come out sharp, unless you are unable to hold a
> camera in your hands.

How about if your P&S is set for a 300mm equivalent or you're shooting
action?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:39 am
From: Dan Schmidt

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:31:22 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 11, 2:04 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <0af34422-6f8a-4f97-af94-5ea8649585a6
>> @k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>>
>> > That's why they make "P" settings on DSLRs for soccer moms. Oops!
>> > Damn! Shot blurred because the Program mode only gave me 1/40th
>> > second!!!
>>
>> At 1/40s the photo will come out sharp, unless you are unable to hold a
>> camera in your hands.
>
>How about if your P&S is set for a 300mm equivalent or you're shooting
>action?
>

And the problem with that, is? I shoot at that focal length, hand-held, and much
more when shooting photos of birds in flight with a high-quality super-zoom P&S.
Did you really want to reveal your lack of talent and experience by stating what
you did? Think about it--for your future virtual-photographer-troll reference.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:35 am
From: Rich

On Nov 11, 6:57 am, MarkMark <markm...@mark.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:13:39 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 8, 9:17 am, Stephen Henning <pigh...@aol.com> 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.
>
> >> --
> >> Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhody...@earthlink.net
> >> Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA -http://rhodyman.net
>
> >Presuming it is true, there are often over monied hacks who buy
> >equipment, take expensive trips, only to wish they had learned what
> >they were doing. Just ask the idiots who died on Everest in 1996. I
> >saw a Nat Geo photog use a 600mm telephoto on a Nikon to shoot animals
> >in the Arctic and his motions were like ballet, he missed nothing that
> >I saw. I also went to a airshow last year and watched some poor
> >bastard with a superzoom P&S fail on about 40 attempts to track and
> >lock focus and get decent images of the jets. He would have had no
> >trouble with a DSLR, I didn't.
>
> Of course you didn't. Someone with no talent needs those machine-gun burst modes
> to get those chance random shots like you do.

I tend not to use rapid fire, I prefer single shots. Olympus E-330,
old 300mm manual telephoto.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/84860213

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:38 am
From: Rich

On Nov 11, 8:57 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > Presuming it is true, there are often over monied hacks who buy
> > equipment, take expensive trips, only to wish they had learned what
> > they were doing. Just ask the idiots who died on Everest in 1996. I
> > saw a Nat Geo photog use a 600mm telephoto on a Nikon to shoot animals
> > in the Arctic and his motions were like ballet, he missed nothing that
> > I saw. I also went to a airshow last year and watched some poor
> > bastard with a superzoom P&S fail on about 40 attempts to track and
> > lock focus and get decent images of the jets. He would have had no
> > trouble with a DSLR, I didn't.
>
> When I see people struggling like that, whether it's for wildlife or
> jets (I took some good photos of the Blue Angels with the D-SLR), I'll
> gently explain to them that it's really impossible to get photos they
> want with that type of camera, and I'll offer to e-mail them my photos.

I did exactly that. I often get asked for photos from non-photogs at
events.

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:49 am
From: frank

On Nov 10, 8:32 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
> ASAAR wrote:
> >> After talking to many pro wildlife photographers from both the Nikon
> >> and Canon camps, I have found that most prefer shooting FX or full
> >> frame with their super-teles.
>
> > That would be true if the super-teles have sufficient reach to
> > allow the subjects to fill the FX frames. But I suspect that most
> > of your talking occurred in your dreams or waking fantasies. It
> > doesn't jibe with what most wildlife photographer's written
> > opinions. And of course by saying that you got this information by
> > "talking", you don't have to provide URLs to support your misguided
> > theory. You could at least have named those pro photographers, but
> > then we'd be able to check what they previously said on the matter.
>
> <YAWN>
>
> And how many 400, 500, or 600mm lenses have you shot with again? Must be
> nice to be a parrot?
>
> > No EXIF provided, but it's really foolish (if you can be believed)
> > to use a D3 and 500mm f/4 Nikkor, a kit costing over $12,000 and
> > weighing almost 10 pounds to take a closeup shot of your pet peon
>
> LOL! Worth every penny! Had Nikon released my 600/4 I would be shooting
> with that. I'm hoping to have my 600 by the end of the year. Oh, did I
> tell you how sweet my 200/2 is? You really ought to get out and experience
> life a bit, Son. Grab a long lens and a decent body and snap a shot of
> Spot's bulbous brown round.
>
> Rita

What a crock. Having done wildlife, you don't need a 200 f2 for pretty
much anything. Except proving you have more money than brains. a 180
2.8 is just as good and you can spend the money on film, digital
cards, a printer, whatever.

You need at least a 300. A nice 400 would be nice, but once you get
beyond that, its not something you can use without a tripod and
depending on what you're shooting, you'll lose the shot by the time
you get the lens on the tripod.

The whole rationale for 35mm and digital is that its hand holdable.
none of that lugging around a tripod. Going up and down hills, into
the woods. Out in the brush actually looking for the bird. Or
whatever. At some point you'll start shooting where a backpack makes
more sense than an over the shoulder bag. Get to that point and you
stop lugging around every lens you own.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:17 am
From: John McWilliams

frank wrote:
> On Nov 10, 8:32 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>> After talking to many pro wildlife photographers from both the Nikon
>>>> and Canon camps, I have found that most prefer shooting FX or full
>>>> frame with their super-teles.
>>> That would be true if the super-teles have sufficient reach to
>>> allow the subjects to fill the FX frames. But I suspect that most
>>> of your talking occurred in your dreams or waking fantasies. It
>>> doesn't jibe with what most wildlife photographer's written
>>> opinions. And of course by saying that you got this information by
>>> "talking", you don't have to provide URLs to support your misguided
>>> theory. You could at least have named those pro photographers, but
>>> then we'd be able to check what they previously said on the matter.
>> <YAWN>
>>
>> And how many 400, 500, or 600mm lenses have you shot with again? Must be
>> nice to be a parrot?
>>
>>> No EXIF provided, but it's really foolish (if you can be believed)
>>> to use a D3 and 500mm f/4 Nikkor, a kit costing over $12,000 and
>>> weighing almost 10 pounds to take a closeup shot of your pet peon
>> LOL! Worth every penny! Had Nikon released my 600/4 I would be shooting
>> with that. I'm hoping to have my 600 by the end of the year. Oh, did I
>> tell you how sweet my 200/2 is?

> What a crock. Having done wildlife, you don't need a 200 f2 for pretty
> much anything. Except proving you have more money than brains. a 180
> 2.8 is just as good and you can spend the money on film, digital
> cards, a printer, whatever.

There has never been any indication, much less proof, that "Rita" owns
any good glass. He strips out all EXIF data, and no image among the
dozens I have examined speaks "Good sharp tele". Could be proved wrong,
though, and that'd be fine. I never look at his images first as one time
he posted a shot that was nothing but dog shit.
>
> You need at least a 300. A nice 400 would be nice, but once you get
> beyond that, its not something you can use without a tripod and
> depending on what you're shooting, you'll lose the shot by the time
> you get the lens on the tripod.

Monopod= enough support, much more facile for wildlife, including that
found on sporting fields. And so far I've only borrowed or lusted after
a 400. The longest I go regularly is 200 x 1.4 extender x 1.6 sensor
multiplier.

--
John McWilliams

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:14 am
From: "Rita Berkowitz"

John McWilliams wrote:

>> LOL! You've been clicking on every one of them. Why should this
>> one be any
>> different? Dance, Baby, dance.
>
> As if.

Keep dancing my little pet.

Rita
--
High-performance Usenet! Reaching terminal stupidity in 3.25
nanoseconds.

http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:16 am
From: "Rita Berkowitz"

frank wrote:

>> LOL! Worth every penny! Had Nikon released my 600/4 I would be
>> shooting with that. I'm hoping to have my 600 by the end of the
>> year. Oh, did I tell you how sweet my 200/2 is? You really ought to
>> get out and experience life a bit, Son. Grab a long lens and a
>> decent body and snap a shot of Spot's bulbous brown round.
>
> What a crock. Having done wildlife, you don't need a 200 f2 for pretty
> much anything. Except proving you have more money than brains. a 180
> 2.8 is just as good and you can spend the money on film, digital
> cards, a printer, whatever.

I've found the 200/2 on a second body to be very valuable for wildlife, but
that's just me. The 500/4 works great, but sometimes zooming with your feet
gets you way too close so the 200/2 works its magic. I won't even mention
the sweet light gathering capability of it.

> You need at least a 300. A nice 400 would be nice, but once you get
> beyond that, its not something you can use without a tripod and
> depending on what you're shooting, you'll lose the shot by the time
> you get the lens on the tripod.

Huh? I shoot the 500 pretty much all the time without a tripod. Every once
in a while I do bust out the old monopod.

> The whole rationale for 35mm and digital is that its hand holdable.
> none of that lugging around a tripod.

It is! It just seems that a lot of parrots and other pretenders simply
don't experience it in real life. I have no problem at all hand holding the
500/4 and D3 at slow shutter speed.

Rita

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:21 am
From: George Kerby

On 11/11/08 12:17 PM, in article
8-WdnYYfAMDTUYTUnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@comcast.com, "John McWilliams"
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> frank wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 8:32 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>>> After talking to many pro wildlife photographers from both the Nikon
>>>>> and Canon camps, I have found that most prefer shooting FX or full
>>>>> frame with their super-teles.
>>>> That would be true if the super-teles have sufficient reach to
>>>> allow the subjects to fill the FX frames. But I suspect that most
>>>> of your talking occurred in your dreams or waking fantasies. It
>>>> doesn't jibe with what most wildlife photographer's written
>>>> opinions. And of course by saying that you got this information by
>>>> "talking", you don't have to provide URLs to support your misguided
>>>> theory. You could at least have named those pro photographers, but
>>>> then we'd be able to check what they previously said on the matter.
>>> <YAWN>
>>>
>>> And how many 400, 500, or 600mm lenses have you shot with again? Must be
>>> nice to be a parrot?
>>>
>>>> No EXIF provided, but it's really foolish (if you can be believed)
>>>> to use a D3 and 500mm f/4 Nikkor, a kit costing over $12,000 and
>>>> weighing almost 10 pounds to take a closeup shot of your pet peon
>>> LOL! Worth every penny! Had Nikon released my 600/4 I would be shooting
>>> with that. I'm hoping to have my 600 by the end of the year. Oh, did I
>>> tell you how sweet my 200/2 is?
>
>> What a crock. Having done wildlife, you don't need a 200 f2 for pretty
>> much anything. Except proving you have more money than brains. a 180
>> 2.8 is just as good and you can spend the money on film, digital
>> cards, a printer, whatever.
>
> I never look at his images first as one time
> he posted a shot that was nothing but dog shit.
"One time"?!? BAWHAWHAW!!!!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: forsale trainer acceptable paypal jordan shoes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/f593cbf615af7781?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:59 am
From: jordan shoes

welcome to visit our website www.forsale-trainer-apparel.com
air max 87 89 90 95 ltd timberland jeans ugg boots lacoste sandals
hoodies, t-shirts, mauri shoes, dsquared , hogan shoes, dunks , red
monkey, polo t-shirts, evisu jeans, bbc jeans , dior, lv, dg, versace,
coach
puma shoes, nfl jerseys shox r2 r3 r4 r5 r6 tn tl1 tl3, sandals, nhl
jerseys, mlb jerseys, nba jerseys probowl jerseys,prada shoes,kobe
james, hockey jerseys, nfl jerseys, football jerseys, baseball
jerseys, jordan shoes, jordan fusion air force ones
25 years basketball jerseys Men's women's shocks OZ NZ TL shoes
Discount Coach Sandals, Dior Sandals, Prada Sandals, Chanel Sandals,
Versace Sandals, Crocs Sandals, Women's Sandals Men's Slippers From
China jordan shoes, jordan fusion air force ones
Affliction T-shirts lacoste T-shirts Polo T-shirts Brand ShirtsGGG T-
shirts Designer T-Shirts Helen Coat burberry coat Jacket Juicy
Couture bbc hoodies bape hoodies Designer Hoodies NFL NHL NBA
MLB Jersey Lacoste Trainers, Prada Sneakers

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:59 am
From: John McWilliams

Don Stauffer wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>> Has this newsgroup been renamed rec.photo.dslrbigotsslampanandscans
>> recently?
>>
> Actually it was worse in mid summer. The group was virtually unusable
> for awhile. Don't like the spam any better now, but it is certainly
> better than earlier.
>
> In fact, the P&S/SLR war now is more bothersome than the spam :-)
>
It's not so much a war as a pestilence.

Completely ignoring the pest and his hundred sox is the only salvation
to us.
And not even mentioning him, as I am not doing!

--
john mcwilliams

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:29 am
From: "Pete D"

"Wallace McCarthy" <wmccarthy@noaddressforyou.com> wrote in message
news:d0ajh4hkimdi305j20e9hrs3n8hi2qv6em@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:17:06 -0000, "Fred" <fredapain@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Has this newsgroup been renamed rec.photo.dslrbigotsslampanandscans
>>recently?
>>
>
> Ever since P&S cameras

<snip>

> it all on their little own.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, show us the photos big fella. We are all standing by to
be truly amazed dude.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:15 am
From: "Rita Berkowitz"

George Kerby wrote:

> I'm hurt! I guess I can never do as well as 'Rita' in that
> department...
>
> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Republican_Dance.htm>
>
> "She" has such a 'remarkable talent', does "she" not?

That's a kick-ass sweet shot, isn't it George? Remy made that just for you
since you are so special.

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

Oh, you're just jealous that your turd cutter isn't as tight as Remy's.
After all, you did wear yours out with those unnatural sex acts.

Rita
--
High-performance Usenet! Reaching terminal stupidity in 3.25
nanoseconds.

http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/

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

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

26 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic