Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 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: JPG compression - yet another question !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6b76feb1a85f18f5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:27 am
From: phil-abrahms

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:43:50 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:

>Treads have a life of their own, but I honestly do not recall you
>coming back in after the very beginning when everyone told you
>that it just isn't possible to recover the compression factor
>from EXIF or anyplace else.

I was wondering why everyone was still going on about it after this was posted
on the very first day. It's that DOS program you asked about. It analyzes the
JPEG compression in a photo. You must have missed this.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:15:07 -0600, KentTR <kenttr@somedomain.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:42:58 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, I sure wish you could also!
>
>I just ran this one that I found when trying to retrace my "online" memory:
>
> ftp://ftp.lexa.ru/pub/domestic/jpeg-analyzer/ja001.zip
>
>It might be the one I recall using, the output looks a little familiar, but
>don't quote me on it. Yeah, the more I look at the output, the more I think this
>is the one. The last line has a "quality" estimation too.
>
>Open a command-prompt window and just type ja filename.jpg
>
>The program and images have to be in the same folder (if you don't want to type
>long filename paths).
>
>Example output:
>
>
>I:\Downloads 03\JPEG Analyzer - ja001>ja waves.jpg
>
>JPEG Analyzer v.0.01 (Win32) FREEWARE
>Written by Dmitry Gorshkov
>Copyright (c) 2003-2004 All Rights Reserved.
>
>Scanning...: waves.jpg
>FFD8 at 00000000 SOI (Segment Of Image)
>FFE0 at 00000002 APP0 (JPEG Identification) Type: JFIF
> Type: JFIF - standard JPEG marker
>FFDB at 00000014 DQT (Definition Of Quantization Table)
>FFDB at 00000059 DQT (Definition Of Quantization Table)
>FFC2 at 0000009E *SOF2 (UNSUPPORTED) (Adobe PhotoShop)
> SOF2 Info: X: 2816, Y: 2112, Mode: Color (24 bits)
>FFC4 at 000000B1 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>FFC4 at 000000D1 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>FFDA at 000000EF SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>FFC4 at 0003020A DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>FFDA at 0003023E SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>FFC4 at 00067D53 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>FFDA at 00067D8B SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>FFC4 at 000884D6 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>FFDA at 00088513 SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>FFC4 at 000B1591 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>FFDA at 000B15E8 SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>FFC4 at 000FFA8B DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>FFDA at 000FFAB4 SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>FFDA at 00170D50 SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>FFC4 at 001795F1 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>FFDA at 0017961A SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>FFC4 at 001A2525 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>FFDA at 001A254F SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>FFC4 at 001D05FC DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>FFDA at 001D0624 SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>FFD9 at 00273D60 EOI (End Of Image)
> Maked by: Independent JPEG Group's library (Quality=96) (color or b&w)
>
>Progressive JPEG

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 9:44 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

phil-abrahms added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> I was wondering why everyone was still going on about it after
> this was posted on the very first day. It's that DOS program
> you asked about. It analyzes the JPEG compression in a photo.
> You must have missed this.

Guess I did as I know of no way to determine the nature of the
compression algorithm used in a JPEG file. After all the
gibberish in the dump below, this little DOS utility purports to
say that the quality is 96?! First of all, the number is
backasswards as the JPEG spec is 1 highest to 100 lowest, and not
the normal way that percentage-like numbers are thrown around.

So, please explain again, since I missed it and apparently so did
the OP, how looking at remaining pixels after tons of them have
been "lossied" away permanently exactly where any information is
even available for analysis? The best I could guess might be to
try to examine and evaluate the types of pixel blocks left over
after the compression and do some sort of reverse engineering on
them to do a theoretical calculation of the original compression
spec. And, while I may still be missing it, I don't see anything
about chroma subsampling which plays a big role in all of this,
as does the very nature of the individual image.
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:15:07 -0600, KentTR
> <kenttr@somedomain.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:42:58 -0600, "HEMI-Powered"
>><none@none.sn> wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, I sure wish you could also!
>>
>>I just ran this one that I found when trying to retrace my
>>"online" memory:
>>
>> ftp://ftp.lexa.ru/pub/domestic/jpeg-analyzer/ja001.zip
>>
>>It might be the one I recall using, the output looks a little
>>familiar, but don't quote me on it. Yeah, the more I look at
>>the output, the more I think this is the one. The last line
>>has a "quality" estimation too.
>>
>>Open a command-prompt window and just type ja filename.jpg
>>
>>The program and images have to be in the same folder (if you
>>don't want to type long filename paths).
>>
>>Example output:
>>
>>
>>I:\Downloads 03\JPEG Analyzer - ja001>ja waves.jpg
>>
>>JPEG Analyzer v.0.01 (Win32) FREEWARE
>>Written by Dmitry Gorshkov
>>Copyright (c) 2003-2004 All Rights Reserved.
>>
>>Scanning...: waves.jpg
>>FFD8 at 00000000 SOI (Segment Of Image)
>>FFE0 at 00000002 APP0 (JPEG Identification) Type: JFIF
>> Type: JFIF - standard JPEG marker
>>FFDB at 00000014 DQT (Definition Of Quantization Table)
>>FFDB at 00000059 DQT (Definition Of Quantization Table)
>>FFC2 at 0000009E *SOF2 (UNSUPPORTED) (Adobe PhotoShop)
>> SOF2 Info: X: 2816, Y: 2112, Mode: Color (24 bits)
>>FFC4 at 000000B1 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>>FFC4 at 000000D1 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>>FFDA at 000000EF SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>>FFC4 at 0003020A DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>>FFDA at 0003023E SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>>FFC4 at 00067D53 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>>FFDA at 00067D8B SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>>FFC4 at 000884D6 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>>FFDA at 00088513 SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>>FFC4 at 000B1591 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>>FFDA at 000B15E8 SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>>FFC4 at 000FFA8B DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>>FFDA at 000FFAB4 SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>>FFDA at 00170D50 SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>>FFC4 at 001795F1 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>>FFDA at 0017961A SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>>FFC4 at 001A2525 DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>>FFDA at 001A254F SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>>FFC4 at 001D05FC DHT (Descriptor Of Huffman Table)
>>FFDA at 001D0624 SOS (Segment Of Scanning)
>>FFD9 at 00273D60 EOI (End Of Image)
>> Maked by: Independent JPEG Group's library (Quality=96)
>> (color or b&w)
>>
>>Progressive JPEG
>

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor

==============================================================================
TOPIC: XD ior SD
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f12650815109409f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:27 am
From: ray

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:53:07 +0000, bm wrote:

> I can choose either XD or SD memory cards for my camera What are the
> advantages of one type over the other? Blair

Well, for starters: SD are a standard format produced and used by many
compaines - hence are generally among the least expensive. XD is a
proprietary format used by only a couple of companies - hence generally
among the most expensive. Difficult choice!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: DSLR Sales Go Up as Prices Go Down
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a6f60010aa657fb8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:29 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <gg6j8l$2e0$1@aioe.org>, Me Here says...
> Where does your
> number of 90% come from?

I saw a statistic some time ago on dpreview. 95% for compact cameras, 5%
for DSLRs if I remember correctly.
--

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 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:47 am
From: nelson emmers

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:07:44 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <bgnVk.5325$hc1.5159@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>>> "http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/dslr-sales-go-up-as-prices-go-down/"
>>
>> That doesn't alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of people (>
>> 90%) use compact cameras.
>
>D-SLR sales are increasing at a much faster rate than compact camera
>sales, which have peaked as the market has become saturated. Also, your
>statement isn't quite accurate, because 99.99% of D-SLR users also use
>P&S cameras on occasion as will.
>
>The real question to ask is why are people moving to D-SLRs in such
>large numbers?
>
>Price is what's enabling them to consider D-SLRs, but isn't a reason to
>buy one in and of itself. There are many reasons why people are willing
>to put up with the larger size and expense of a D-SLR and lenses.
>Surprisingly, quality of images wasn't the top reason given in a recent
>study. The top reason was dissatisfaction with one key characteristics
>of P&S cameras, and that's shutter/auto-focus lag, something P&S owners
>complain about a lot, because it's something that they didn't have to
>put up with on P&S film cameras. What this reason really translates to
>is _content_. With the P&S they were unable to capture the content they
>desired.
>
>The other top reasons given in the study were (not in any order)
>expandability, better low-light capability, higher image quality, the
>need for longer and wider lenses, and the desire for a faster frame
>rate. Other reasons mentioned, but less often, were the things that
>drove professionals to D-SLRs, including wider dynamic range and lower
>noise, but clearly the understanding of these issues isn't as clear
>among amateurs as it is among professionals.

Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:

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."

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 9:09 am
From: SMS

Me Here wrote:
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.23907bc78db0189698bf52@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <bgnVk.5325$hc1.5159@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>>> "http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/dslr-sales-go-up-as-prices-go-down/"
>> That doesn't alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of people (>
>> 90%) use compact cameras.
>> --
>>
>> Alfred Molon
>>
> So? What does that have to do with increased dSLR sales??? Where does your
> number of 90% come from?

I'd say that it's much closer to 100% of people that use compact
cameras. Of course about 20% of that 100% also use SLRs, and the number
is growing.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 9:28 am
From: LesterCromwell

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:09:27 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Me Here wrote:
>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.23907bc78db0189698bf52@news.supernews.com...
>>> In article <bgnVk.5325$hc1.5159@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>>>> "http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/dslr-sales-go-up-as-prices-go-down/"
>>> That doesn't alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of people (>
>>> 90%) use compact cameras.
>>> --
>>>
>>> Alfred Molon
>>>
>> So? What does that have to do with increased dSLR sales??? Where does your
>> number of 90% come from?
>
>I'd say that it's much closer to 100% of people that use compact
>cameras. Of course about 20% of that 100% also use SLRs, and the number
>is growing.

Translation: As long as he can believe that other people still want DSLRs then
his own doubts about still wanting one won't seem so great. The only way he can
find value in them now is if he knows that others still might. Why else would he
care about what others are buying.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What, 2 stop dynamic range?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/608479883d22d5a3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:31 am
From: AlbertW

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:09 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>John Sheehy wrote:
>> Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in news:49242477$0$89392
>> $815e3792@news.qwest.net:
>>
>>> I can buy the general trend, but not the quantification originally
>>> listed. One could make such a quantification only if the camera were
>>> photon noise limited, and I don't believe most are.
>>
>> None are even close. Most sensors have several less stops less difference
>> between saturation and where 1:1 SNR falls because of the total system read
>> noise, at base ISO.
>>
>> ... and that's just statistically. Statistics lie, and shot noise is
>> actually much less annoying, disturbing, and obscuring than a statistically
>> equivalent amount of mean read noise. A camera with only shot noise would
>> be the stuff dreams are made of. ISO would only affect metering, and the
>> brightness of the review image and default conversion, and have no effect
>> on absolute SNR.
>
>John, What do you think of the charts on these new comparisons:
>http://www.dxomark.com
>The summary numbers are kind of meaningless but the 'compare cameras'
>format is fascinating:
>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/205|0/(appareil2)/265|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Sony
>also:
>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/More-pixels-offsets-noise!
>I suppose read noise isn't counted in any of this.
>Hmmm...
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=30060231

Too bad you've been citing them as a source. There's a lengthy discussion at
dpreview where they found all kinds of huge errors in DxO's tests and proved it.

You'll learn. (no, that's impossible, someone like you is incapable of learning)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Announcing the release of Anti-Steganography (AntiSteg v1.10)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6037d80baba478e8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:32 am
From: John McWilliams

seconserv wrote:
> Announcing the release of Anti-Steg

How nice

==============================================================================
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/t/541401c3b2747095?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:34 am
From: AlbertW

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:34 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:31:50 -0600, andie-barns
><andiebarns@antispam.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:22:55 -0500, "RichA" <obama@haslittletime.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>>>news:otqVk.800$jZ1.689@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>> Jesus Rich, no wonder I've got you plonked in most of these groups.
>>>> I have never commented like that before but come on...
>>>
>>>The one all-encompassing reason for buying a P&S is compactness. Everything
>>>else (including quality) comes second. I've heard it 100x in camera stores.
>>>
>> Quality is second? You've not used many P&S cameras in the last 3 years, have
>>you.
>>
>>Here's a quick recent example where the P&S quality far surpasses the DSLR.
>>
>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>>
>>Just one of hundreds that prove the P&S has surpassed the DSLR, long ago. Catch
>>up.
>
>
>This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.
>
>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings
>
>Notice how when tested according to real-world conditions, even the
>best p&s cameras fall FAR short of even the cheapest dslrs.
>
>

Too bad you've been citing them as a source. There's a lengthy discussion at
dpreview where they found all kinds of huge errors in DxO's tests and proved it.

You'll learn. (no, that's impossible, someone like you is incapable of learning)

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:39 am
From: thomas-paynes

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:08:39 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:

>
>On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:15:34 -0500, Stephen Bishop
><nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>
>>This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.
>>
>>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings
>>
>
>That site is furthering my decision that the next camera I get may be
>a D90 instead of a D300. I still have more research to do but it's
>looking more and more that way.
>
>Steve

You're going to feel so stupid when you find out what some folks at dpreview
have found out about their tests.

(this is getting more and more funny)

But then, you net-trolls never could see facts from fiction.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:41 am
From: MickJ

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:14:41 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:28:08 -0600, Seth Thomas
><sthomas@repytothewall.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:06:41 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Jesus Rich, no wonder I've got you plonked in most of these groups.
>>>I have never commented like that before but come on...
>>
>>
>>Dear Resident-Troll,
>>
>> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>>newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>>
>>
>This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.
>
>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings
>
>Notice how when tested according to real-world conditions, even the
>best p&s cameras fall FAR short of even the cheapest dslrs.
>
>

LOL!! Wait until you find out. LOL!

Yep, funnier and funnier.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:58 am
From: robert calter

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:07:09 +1300, "Colin.D" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>>> Vern, <CashTownsend> wrote:
>>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>> Although some P&S lenses are quite good, none are f/1.8 or faster,
>>>>>> most have purple fringing CA problems & there are no really wide
>>>>>> recitilear options on P&S.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You failed to read to what you are trying to refute. Already covered and
>>>>> disputed. Points #1, #2, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Purple fringing is a problem of ALL digital cameras. It is NOT caused by the
>>>>> lens, but by the sensor (are you actually this stupid?). Some DSLRs are worse in
>>>>> this regard than the better P&S cameras. Purple fringing is not just in the
>>>>> realm of P&S cameras. But only a moron would say something like that.
>>>> Correction. The purple fringing that plagues most P&S cameras is
>>>> rarely seen in dslrs. The problem is partly the sensor, which is
>>>> made worse by the small size of the P&S version. The other part of
>>>> the problem is the extremely short focal lengths of lenses on P&S
>>>> cameras.
>>
>>> It used to be believed that purple fringing was sensor blooming, maybe
>>> it is a part of how tiny pixels emphasize CA in the lens but mostly it
>>> is CA of the sort that you see is super-fast DSLR lenses, or cheap
>>> lenses.
>>
>> I thought that if the purple fringing was worst at the edges of the
>> image, and worst at wide apertures, i.e. varied across the image in
>> amount depending of how much refraction the light rays had gone
>> through in their path through the lens, then it was refractive
>> chromatic aberration. But if moving to the image centre and stopping
>> down didn't reduce it in the appropriate proportion for refractive CA,
>> then to that extent it was sensor blooming CA.
>>
>CA on the edges of an image is caused by lateral CA, a condition caused
>by different colors causing different sized images on the film/sensor.
>axial, or longitudinal CA is caused by different colors coming to a
>different focus, so some colors will be out of focus when others are in
>focus. To some extent, lateral CA is correctable by software, as is
>pincushion and barrel distortion.
>
>Blooming is really light spill into adjacent pixels, usually happening
>only on bright or overexposed areas of the image. It is worse with
>small sensors and very small pixel dimensions, a major drawback of
>compact or P&S cameras with sensors smaller than your little fingernail.
>
>Colin D.

Correction: It *can* be worse, but isn't always worse on smaller sensors. It has
to do with the sensor design. That is different from sensor to sensor, large or
small. I've seen worse blooming on some DSLRs than on the P&Ss that I bought and
use. You shouldn't make ignorant generalizations, it makes all your information
look suspect.

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:35 am
From: John McWilliams

Stephen Bishop wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:38:12 -0600, Pastor Aldwin Thomas
> <athomas@learnedtodelete.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:31:56 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:10:50 +1300, Eric Stevens
>>>> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:46:53 -0500, Alan Browne
>>>>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> michaelk@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>>>>>> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention
>>>>>> Stop feeding it, even with these posts.
>>>>> Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
>>>>
>>>> Why complain? This is the cheapest entertainment I've had in months.
>>>>
>>> You may be amused, "Stephen", but everyone but a handful are bored
>>> and/or refraining from replying. So, would you please lay off?
>>
>> Dear Resident-Troll,
>>
>> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>> newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:

> This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.
>
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings
>
> Notice how when tested according to real-world conditions, even the
> best p&s cameras fall FAR short of even the cheapest dslrs.

Did you think about the part where folks have said the equivalent of:

You may be amused, "Stephen", but everyone but a handful are bored
and/or refraining from replying. So, would you please lay off?

--
john mcwilliams

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:50 am
From: Ivan Brown

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:03:54 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:51:17 -0600, bobby vinten <bvinten@vinten.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:45:28 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:10:50 +1300, Eric Stevens
>>><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:46:53 -0500, Alan Browne
>>>><alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>michaelk@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>>>>> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention
>>>>>
>>>>>Stop feeding it, even with these posts.
>>>>
>>>>Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why complain? This is the cheapest entertainment I've had in months.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Eric Stevens
>>
>>
>>Dear Resident-Troll,
>>
>> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>>newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>>
>>
>
>This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.
>
>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings
>
>Notice how when tested according to real-world conditions, even the
>best p&s cameras fall FAR short of even the cheapest dslrs.
>
>

No it doesn't. LOL

Wait til you find out the huge errors everyone found in DxO's tests. No wonder
their software is crap too.

LOL

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:52 am
From: Pako Temms

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:41:01 GMT, Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>He also thinks that it is hard to spot his posts with the name
>changing, but the size of his post makes it so easy, I don't even have
>to look to see it's the same drivel.

Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:

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."

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 11:24 am
From: Paul Heslop

Paul Heslop wrote:
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Bishop wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:23:05 GMT, Paul Heslop
> > > <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >michaelk@fromCardiff.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention, he wants recognition,
> > > >> respect even. As far as I can see he is doing spectacularly well in drawing
> > > >> out responses from loads of people. He does seem to be good at what he is
> > > >> doing. Why don't lots of us admit that he's good and politely ask him to
> > > >> move on? There is;nt much point in him staying here if we all agree he 's a
> > > >> pretty good troll. There are 1000's of other groups he might feel challenged
> > > >> by. In fact, we could even ask him to drop us a line in a few months
> > > >> directing us to the newsgroup he is currently dominating, that would be a
> > > >> REAL buzz for him.
> > > >
> > > >but by posting this you've given him more attention. :O)
> > >
> > > We are doing the world a service by keeping him off the streets at
> > > night.
> >
> > or in the day
>
> He also thinks that it is hard to spot his posts with the name
> changing, but the size of his post makes it so easy, I don't even have
> to look to see it's the same drivel.
>
ah, the proof of the pudding.

--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hey! P&S adherents, new DSLRs down to below $400
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c130091974ea5af?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 7:50 am
From: Dave Cohen

Alfred Molon wrote:
> Sure, talk to my wife and see if you can convince her to give up her
> stylish little camera for one of those big DSLR monsters. She will laugh
> at you.

And hopefully, unlike us she isn't dopey enough to be reading this silly
nonsense in the first place.
Obviously there is a market for both (many probably own both). A ng is a
vehicle for discussing problems, we don't need unsolicited advice,
particularly when accompanied by undisguised disdain for our choices by
people unwilling to be honest about who they are.
Dave Cohen

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 8:53 am
From: steve cartwright

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:01:46 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> Many people I know had to really think hard a few years back, because they
>> had to plunk down $1200 or more to buy an "entry level" DSLR. But they did
>> it for quality. Now, the price is under $500 so the cost argument is dead.
>> That leave LAZINESS.
>
>The number one reason that people don't buy D-SLRs is not laziness, or
>cost, or that they don't understand that the photo quality will be much
>bettter. It's that they're not willing to carry around such a large
>camera. Maybe that's what you meant by being lazy, maybe not.
>
>The number one reason that most people upgrade from a P&S to a D-SLR is
>not image quality (that's #2) it's auto-focus/shutter lag.

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.

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."

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 10:15 am
From: "Pete D"

"mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gg6861$smd$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "RichA" <obama@haslittletime.com> wrote in message
> news:CvadnfDlU5J4j7vUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> But not with chromatically-aberrated superzooms, and dog-slow focus I'm
>> afraid. You might actually have to get out of your wheelchair or off
>> your front porch and get closer to something.
>>
>>
> How do I get closer to the moon?
>

Standing on a chair can help.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 11:39 am
From: RandyChase

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:35:13 +0530, "mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>"RichA" <obama@haslittletime.com> wrote in message
>news:CvadnfDlU5J4j7vUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> But not with chromatically-aberrated superzooms, and dog-slow focus I'm
>> afraid. You might actually have to get out of your wheelchair or off your
>> front porch and get closer to something.
>>
>>
>How do I get closer to the moon?
>

If your latitude is north of the Tropic of Cancer: wait for the moon to reach
the zenith while it also coincides with the peak of its perigee during the
Winter Solstice and its orbital inclination to the ecliptic is also most
northerly. Doing so while in a high-altitude aircraft or weather-balloon will
also slightly decrease your distance. Or move to the equatorial-belt regions and
wait for the moon to reach the zenith during its perigee. Which provides for
much greater chance of getting closer than if further north than the Tropic of
Cancer, or further south than the Tropic of Capricorn.

The closer the moon is to the zenith (the point in the sky vertically above you)
during its perigee (when the moon is closest to the earth), the closer you'll
be. Northern and southern inhabitants must wait for the moon's orbital
inclination and its orbit along the ecliptic to coincide with their latitude to
allow for the moon's passage closest to their zenith. Those living in the
equatorial-belt of earth are not as greatly encumbered by those extra required
alignments.

Or join one of the many countries' space programs and train to be an
astro/cosmonaut. Hope to get on a waiting list for any upcoming lunar excursion.
Increase your chances by rallying local governments to support your wishes to
get closer to the moon.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ...A picture of Obama!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d32693fa44f22641?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 10:06 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

...Here you can see a picture of Obama!

http://www.picato.net/Member/?MemberID=82

(Taken with my all-time favourite Nytech, www.nytech.de )

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 11:25 am
From: Paul Heslop

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
>
> ...Here you can see a picture of Obama!
>
> http://www.picato.net/Member/?MemberID=82
>
> (Taken with my all-time favourite Nytech, www.nytech.de )

wow, a picture of Obama? That's so hard to find :O)

--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats Canon DSLR
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3fc2177d18a4204e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 11:27 am
From: Rich

On Nov 20, 9:04 pm, Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:35:26 -0600, ParkerGrant
>
> <parkergr...@hiddenfromspam.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:51:48 -0600, ParkerGrant <parkergr...@hiddenfromspam.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/3046389190_e8899ef47f_o.jpg
>
> >Sorry, bad link. Try again:
>
> >http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/3046478954_f20aed5157_o.jpg
>
> Ok, that link worked. Unfortunately, even at that low magnification
> the purple fringing is terrible. That's typical of many p&s cameras.

Dpreview could use a standard review for all P&S's:
-Coloured fringing at the edge of the field.
-Difficult achieving good focus on the long end.
-Focus response and shutter response slow.
-High noise at any ISO beyond 200 with noticeable, detail-killing
noise reduction beyond 800.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Quick question ???
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/69dda4b17aed3a75?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 21 2008 11:45 am
From: "Deep Reset"

"Merrel-J-Linder" <mjlinder@youcanthaveit.org> wrote in message
news:hflbi45qs9lqf40t4s15aspmteimts9a1e@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:14:12 -0000, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Now, do you know what the word "exists" means?
>
> While the teleconverter is attached, then it does indeed "exist". Do you
> have a
> problem with basic english? Or do you just like to find the most obscure
> of
> loopholes in people's words to practice your troll-exercises for the day?
> Trying
> to save-face are you? Didn't work. Try again.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

We really have put our sense of humour on standby, haven't we?

The 1248mm lens f/3.5 does not exist, except, perhaps in your mind.
It doesn't exist on *any* of your P&S cameras.
Indeed, it doesn't.
("Say, is that a P&S in your pocket, or are you just *very* glad to see
me?")

You must use flash photography a lot, because I can't imagine there's much
light where your head is.

Deep.

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

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

Friday, November 21, 2008

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, November 21, 2008

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic