Photoshop How To Use: 26 new messages in 13 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:22 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

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

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

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

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

--
HP, aka Jerry

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

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:24 am
From: Alfred Molon

I switch it on, point and shoot. Most of the time I don't waste time
playing with the settings.
--

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

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:30 am
From: SMS

Alfred Molon wrote:
> I switch it on, point and shoot. Most of the time I don't waste time
> playing with the settings.

Watch professional photographers, they rarely are using manual settings,
except in exceptional circumstances like shooting in snow.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:40 am
From: QuentonA.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 07:30:43 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> I switch it on, point and shoot. Most of the time I don't waste time
>> playing with the settings.
>
>Watch professional photographers, they rarely are using manual settings,
>except in exceptional circumstances like shooting in snow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:28 am
From: SMS

Toby wrote:
> And the lack of an optical viewfinder
> is a fatal flaw IMO, especially in bright conditions. I hate having to rely
> on flaky AF and there is no good way to focus manually quickly.

Huh? The G10 most certainly does have an optical viewfinder.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:11 am
From: "J. Clarke"

David J Taylor wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <lheRk.84480$E41.81898@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David
>> J
>> Taylor says...
> []
>> It's quite likely that the lens of the R1 is better than the Nikon
>> 16-
>> 85. Almost sure for what concerns vignetting and quite likely for
>> what concerns resolution.
>
> Those who are interested can probably check the review Web sites.
>
>
>> I hate swapping the lens, because dust could come into the body.
>> It's
>> a bit tough holding the body down so that dust (hopefully) won't
>> come
>> in and at the same time holding two lenses with the mount side
>> down,
>> quickly so that dust won't come onto the lens lid etc. Some places
>> are quite dusty. Over 99% of the time I use the CZ16-80.
>
> Yes, dust can be an issue, although I tend not to travel to dusty
> places. My current DSLR has built-in sensor cleaning, so that may
> help, but even with my previous DSLR dust wasn't that much of an
> issue. I did adopt a regime of a nightly sensor clean, just with a
> blower.
>
>
>>> Have you compared the A350/R1/8080 taking the same scene?
>>
>> These cameras have all different resolutions, so you can't directly
>> compare the lenses. But the CZ16-80 has some ugly, non-correctable
>> vignetting when you use it with a polariser filter (and I bought a
>> slim one). Which means that a number of images have to be edited
>> manually with the copy tool (overwrite the blackened sky corners
>> with
>> parts of sky which have a normal brightness).
>> The 8080 had no such problems and the images of the R1 could all be
>> corrected during the RAW conversion, but the vignetting of the
>> CZ16-80 is simply too strong.
>
> I appreciate that the resolution may differ, but I am thinking about
> the same scene displayed at the same size, whether on a print, TV or
> computer monitor. I seem to be spared significant vignetting
> problems with the Nikon 16-85mm + 2nd-line polarising filter.

A side by side between the G10 and the 50D would be interesting IMO.
Both approximately 15 megapixels, same generation of technology, same
manufacturer.

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

==============================================================================
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: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:13 am
From: "J. Clarke"

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

If you get caught in a riot you'll find that Chinese lens to be very
handy. Pity that the owner didn't demonstrate the reason for you.

Oh, by the way, <plonk>.

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:34 am
From: Clarke Adams

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 10:13:33 -0500, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:

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

The DSLR trolls just hate it when someone cites some REAL WORLD experiences that
prove the complete inconvenience and hundreds of miss shots that happen when you
actually use one of their favorite virtual-troll's bricks.

They'd rather poke their own eyes out and remain ignorant than face up to FACTS.

Thanks for stepping up and providing another example of why I threw away my
nearly-useless DSLR gear long ago.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:30 am
From: Ollie Grant

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 07:22:09 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Well, I see those as "prime manufacturers", not third-parties. Although
>> one would expect the camera manufacturer to know more about the lens
>> than anyone else (unless the lens itself has been bought from an outside
>> supplier). Even the Nikon converters I used to use had problems, like
>> not being usable over the full zoom range due to vignetting.....
>
>One thing I found, when I was in to trying converters, is that buying
>the same brand converter as the P&S camera was not always the best plan.
>I.e. on the Canon G series, the Canon lens adapter tube was greater
>diameter than the after-market Lensmate tube, and it blocked the
>internal flash. It also used larger diameter, and more expensive
>filters. I bought a very high quality converter lens, much more
>expensive than the Canon converter. It worked okay, but as you know
>those converter lenses are big compromises. There were even some extreme
>wide-angle converters available, but these were horrible, versus juse
>mediocre.

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

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

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

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:49 am
From: "J. Clarke"

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

You mean besides Leica? There was the Epson RD-1, which was a Leica M
clone with a Leica M price, but it's out of production. OTOH, the M8
just had a minor upgrade.

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

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:18 am
From: "David J Taylor"

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

The Nikon wide-angle converter for the Nikon I had was not bad, but how
much easier having a camera which goes down to 24mm directly (whether P&S
or DSLR). It was the results from other wide-angle converters which, like
you, I found appalling.

David

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:36 am
From: Gunner

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:21:07 -0600, stevensmith
<stevensmith@ipt.aol.org> wrote:

>
>If only Europeans hadn't invaded so may civilizations and tried to make them
>like their selves. The world would have been a better place. European values are
>royally fucked-up. As testament by the original poster.

If that were actually true, when the Europeans pulled out of colonies,
they would not have dropped back into anarchy, blood and fire as most
did.

Your view of the "noble savage" is unrealistic, utopian and bullshit.

Gunner

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 30D, 40D, 50D, Raw, sRaw, sRaw1, sRaw2, ISO 100-12,800 test shots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/f950caadce00853b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:45 am
From: John McWilliams

Paul wrote:
> "John Sheehy" <JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B50F49E384jpsnokomm@199.45.49.11...
>> "Paul" <a@a.com> wrote in
>> news:YfKdnfsXoJi9L4_UnZ2dnUVZ8vudnZ2d@pipex.net:
>>
>>> 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.

<http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/30D40D50DRawSRawSRaw1SRaw2ISO10012800TestShots?authkey=7KDmp1s3qLg#5265125116370162450>

Is the URL for the 30D by DPP. However, even under these carefully
constructed tests, you'll notice that the WB and exposure differ.

Thanks for posting the tests.

--
john mcwilliams

==============================================================================
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 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:47 am
From: "Rev. Richard Skull"

On Nov 7, 9:19 pm, "SODDI" <mu...@jumbo.com> wrote:
> "Rev. Richard Skull" <msh...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:a5857301-c643-481d-b6f3-e8b39848346e@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 7, 2:28 pm, "SODDI" <mu...@jumbo.com> wrote:
>
> > "HEMI-Powered" <n...@none.sn> wrote>
>
> > > God's Law shall not be ignored by some
> > > nuts in Kalyfornia.
>
> > Your "god" never existed so who the fuck cares what some old beardie man
> > wrote down and pretended that was what some invisible sky daddy said.
>
> > You people are nothing but cave men.
> >As a person who have been claimed by many women to be a "cave man", I
> >take insult by that statement!
> >I'll see you in court!
> >NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
>
> Those women only said that because you didn't come out and tell them what
> you really were.
>
> Liberate your true metoh kangmi nature! Be proud of your yetinsyni heritage,
> my brother!
>
> WE'RE HERE! WE'RE METOH KANGMI! AND WE'RE HUNGRY!

UGH! Me want woman! Me want Beer! Woman get me beer!

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:55 am
From: Thanatos

In article <gf41a2$7bg$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

> PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a legitimate
> e-mail address.

Why does not wanting one's in-box deluged with spam make one a coward?

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:12 am
From: Unclaimed Mysteries

Thanatos wrote:
> In article <gf41a2$7bg$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a legitimate
>> e-mail address.
>
> Why does not wanting one's in-box deluged with spam make one a coward?

It indicates how closed-minded you are to new ideas about cheap Cialis.
Coward.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"I'm glad you're okay, whatever that actually means in your case."
-Jagosaurus

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:24 am
From: "Rev. Diva Schematic"

He's got a default on that in order to reply to his posts, we have to
email him directly...why bother activating that if he's not going to
provide a legit email?

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:29 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"

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

Oh, the Democrats are the only ones responsible? What about all those
anti-regulation, anti-government Republicans? Don't they take even a teensy
bit of blame?

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:30 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"

"Thanatos" <atropos@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-ED3652.10553808112008@news.giganews.com...
> In article <gf41a2$7bg$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

> > PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a legitimate
> > e-mail address.

> Why does not wanting one's in-box deluged with spam make one a coward?

I give my real address, and my in-box isn't clogged with spam. I have a
listed phone number, too.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:56 am
From: "Me Here"

"EducatingCluelessMorons" <anothernamehere@anotherisp.org> wrote in message
news:naabh41jq6j4ndcecrd70697s1d0ro591u@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:33:38 -0500, "Me" <not@given.eh> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
>>in
>>message news:49159F71.8070203@qwest.net...
>>> Assertions:
>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
>>> existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.)
>>

>>1248mm f:3.5 defies the laws of physics and optics. To have f: 3.5 on a
>>1.248mm (49.1" or about 4') lens requires an aperture diameter of 356.6mm
>>(14")
>
> Shall we try to educate this resident troll moron just one more time?
> Sure, why
> not.
>
So where exactly is you degree in optical science from? It isn't a 1248mm
f:3.5, can't be! You can't comprehend cropping.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:59 am
From: "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"

Sam Taylor wrote:

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

Incorrect. The phase function of the moon changes rapidly near
full moon. There are two reasons for this effect. (The phase
angle is the angle from the sun to the object to the observer.)
At full moon, the phase angle is near zero (if too close to zero,
the moon goes into the Earth's shadow, and we see an eclipse).
At such low phase angles, the tiny shadows cast by grains in the
surface are hidden by other grains so the intensity of light
from the surface is greater (1st effect). Second, and much more
important is an effect called coherent backscatter: the constructive
interference of photons scattered from a particulate surface.
You can often see this effect from airplanes as a bright spot on
the ground in the direction opposite the sun.

All this means that the exposure on the moon changes significantly
near full moon, so one must meter for the conditions at that time.

Try googling: coherent backscatter lunar phase function
and you will find scientific articles like:

Phase Curves of Selected Particulate Materials: The Contribution of Coherent Backscattering to the Opposition Surge
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-45K0YV5-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=31fbc122696d5595db91f74e98126ff2

Roger

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Remember, check!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/4311e6502bd1e5aa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 7:59 am
From: Henry

After reading some of the more recent threads I felt the urge
to repeat my previous post of a few days ago. It seems to me
that there is something quite horrible going on in this ng.

You probably are already aware that usenet attracts all sorts of
numpties, nutters and malignant entities. This news group is no
exception. Indeed it may well have more than its fair share.
It seems to me to be infested with brainless trolls who exhibit a
nasty malign tendency to dish out aggravation under the
guise of "help".

My advice would be for you to post your queries to other news
groups and consider the replies sent to this one with extreme
caution. There are of course genuine people frequenting this
news group who will only give good advice but they are in the
minority, in my honest opinion that is.

I hope this advice helps in your dealings with this news group.
The follow-ups will give you hours of mirth.

Regards,

Henry.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:12 am
From: "Me"

"Henry" <henryNOeqitablelife@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dqdbh4puq0dmb11f7a8erqp9i3nd4d79u3@4ax.com...
> After reading some of the more recent threads I felt the urge
> to repeat my previous post of a few days ago. It seems to me
> that there is something quite horrible going on in this ng.
>
The morphing TROLL is persistant. He seems to have several different NNTP
providers, so hard to filter him out.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:12 am
From: John McWilliams

Henry wrote:
> After reading some of the more recent threads I felt the urge
> to repeat my previous post of a few days ago. It seems to me
> that there is something quite horrible going on in this ng.

Yes.
Usenet is dead; film at eleven.

--
lsmft

==============================================================================
TOPIC: the p&s troll
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/394a6b6e8f462f95?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:02 am
From: John McWilliams

old.salt@cmaaccess.com wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:10:50 +1300, Eric Stevens
> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
>
> Trolling isn't offence, spamming is, which he is not doing.
> Use you Usenet Client to kill file him.

Reposting the same stuff is spamming and against the TOS of every News
Provider I know of.

It's not difficult to report: it's in the [full] Headers where to send it.

You can't k=f a nym shifting coward.

--
lsmft

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mikey the dumbfuck
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a6e609c7e435d98?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:25 am
From: "# 4"

On Nov 4, 5:14 pm, olaftimandahaf...@gmail.com wrote:
> To all you people who host "The QUEERIEST FUCK" in Ottawa, Darrell A.
> Larose (darrelllarose.ca, darr...@darrelllaross.ca, who is still
> fucking trying to fool the decent people of Usenet,

"decent people of Usenet"??!! I guess that leaves you out Mikey.

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

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

Saturday, November 8, 2008

26 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Saturday, November 8, 2008

26 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic