Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Just what is a photograph
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ae5b8bcd68d37760?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 7:07 am
From: "J. Clarke"

David wrote:
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:cae98668-f46a-4921-a6c1-1d2b9cf9ef93@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea
>> what
>> a photograph was. You shone light on a negative, developed it, put
>> in in an enlarger, shone light on a piece of light-sensitive paper,
>> and developed that. When you got done you had a photograph. You
>> could add elements, dodge, burn, screw with chemicals or make
>> lithos; but in the end it all came down to shining light on a piece
>> of paper and getting a print.
>>
>> Last week I was working on a silhouette. I took a (digital)
>> picture
>> of the person, copied it and used two copies of the same image --
>> one
>> mirror image of the other -- so they were facing each other. I
>> printed the faces in "white" and the space between them in black.
>> I
>> then used an exacto knife to cut away the white areas leaving me
>> with
>> just the black area. The profile of the faces were preserved in
>> the
>> cut-line.
>>
>> I tried calling what I had left "a photograph" but I in effect, it
>> was more of a negative of the original image. The only think I
>> really had left was a representation of what I had NOT
>> photographed,
>> not what I had photographed. The other thing that I pondered was
>> the fact that the image was not represented in "b&w" or in some
>> tonality but the image was represented physically as to whether
>> there was paper there or not.
>>
>> I all made me start thinking "is this a photograph or not". Just
>> what is a photograph in the age of digital printing. How is a
>> digital image any different than a really pretty Excel document.
>> How much can you manipulate a "photo" before it becomes something
>> else -- and when it becomes something else, what does it become?
>
> Very nice. I think today the term photograph is mis-understood and
> mis-used, especially in digital. As far as im concerned if someone
> uses programs such as photomatix to produce what is basically a
> computer generated 'image' from a photograph. The final image is
> definately not a photo. Why trust a program like this which is like
> a
> photograph mangle!
>
> As soon as a photograph becomes unrealistic by using 'cheats' in
> Photoshop such as basically anything which cannot be done in a
> darkroom then again that photo becomes an digitally generated
> 'image.
>
> A photograph should be pure with absolutely the minimum necessary
> manipulation.
>
> Again its all about opinions.
>
> Last year a very badly and over manipulated 'image' won a local
> photography competition. After protesting against this, this years
> criteria has been tightened, but where do we draw a line. This is
> something i've often scratched my head over in disappointment. I
> remember another 'photography' competition where the winning entry
> was a 'image' which used a variety of complex photoshop techniques
> to
> get the final image, my arguement is that the winner was not a
> photograph but a digially generated and 'unreal' never happened
> scene. There is a huge difference and I wish photography was kept
> seperate from digially generated images from programs like photoshop
> and its huge array of wizadry pixel generators.

That ship has sailed, hit an iceberg, and sunk.

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

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 7:39 am
From: shiva das

In article <ggon4n$l15$1@news.motzarella.org>,
"Celcius" <celcius38@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Be the judge of this one. We walked part of the way to Compostela (250 km)
> this Fall. Back at home, we looked at our photos and my wife loved one
> particularly, because it showed the immensity of the plain and the route we
> had to follow. My wife was the closest person we could see on that dirt
> road. I was the one who took the photo. (Canon A650). She said it was too
> bad that I wasn't in the photo. After all, I was there... She wanted to blow
> up the photo and have it laminated. So I took my wife and myself "out" of 2
> other photos where we were dressed the same way and pasted us in the one
> where she appeared very small at the forefront. I added our shadows and
> Voilà! The final photo was cropped at 1920 x 1200 for our desktop.
> Take a look at the "before and after":
> http://picasaweb.google.fr/cosmar38/Alterations#
> Is this a photograph? I think so. Had someone else taken the photo, it would
> have been this way. We were both walking, she in front, and the scene was
> exactly as taken. Of course, I tell those who look at it that it was
> tricked. ;-)

You don't have to tell anyone -- it is quite obvious:

-There are three different sun angles corresponding to the three
original images

-The sun angle of the figure on the right is almost 180 degrees from the
angles of the landscape, shadows, and figure on the left. This is most
obvious in the hats and shirtsleeves -- the brightest and most prominent
parts of the image

-The perspective of the figures do not match each other or the landscape

-The shadow images are identical and neither matches the figure

-The walking stick does not cast a shadow

-The figure shadows float over the existing shadow pattern on the road
instead of blending with them, as the adjacent grass shadows do

-Both figures float over the road without appearing to contact, due to
the perspective differences and alignment problems with the feet

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:05 am
From: "Peter"

"Roy G" <roy.gibson1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:4fTXk.4431$Cb.3748@newsfe18.ams2...
>
> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:492ff856$0$31198$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ggosc3$te$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:492fe9cb$0$31214$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>> "mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:ggoe4o$b3d$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Those of us who think that a grossly altered image is no longer a
>>>>> photograph do not object to a certain amount of adjustment. It is only
>>>>> when excessive manipulation causes major changes in content and
>>>>> appearance
>>>>> that it is no longer a photograph.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it that the "anything goes" brigade often chooses to ignore the
>>>>> above qualifications which have been stated often enough?
>
> Because what you state above is only your opinion. It is in no way a
> "Rule" or "Law of Nature".
>
> The rest of us believe that the amount of manipulation applied, or not, is
> of no relevance whatsoever to the end product being a Photograph.
>
> If you care to read the rules of the Photographic Society of America,
> (PSA), or Photographic Alliance of Great Britain, (PAGB), regarding
> photographic competitions I think you will find that there are no
> restrictions on processing or manipulation in any of the general
> categories.
>
> If those august bodies have no objections what gives you the right to
> object when someone does not conform to your narrow qualifications.
>

Just a minor point. Somehow in your snipping you have me saying something I
never said. In fact, my posting was probably in agreement with you.

--
Peter

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:12 am
From: tony cooper

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:39:50 -0500, shiva das <siva@diwali.in> wrote:

>In article <ggon4n$l15$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> "Celcius" <celcius38@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Be the judge of this one. We walked part of the way to Compostela (250 km)
>> this Fall. Back at home, we looked at our photos and my wife loved one
>> particularly, because it showed the immensity of the plain and the route we
>> had to follow. My wife was the closest person we could see on that dirt
>> road. I was the one who took the photo. (Canon A650). She said it was too
>> bad that I wasn't in the photo. After all, I was there... She wanted to blow
>> up the photo and have it laminated. So I took my wife and myself "out" of 2
>> other photos where we were dressed the same way and pasted us in the one
>> where she appeared very small at the forefront. I added our shadows and
>> Voilà! The final photo was cropped at 1920 x 1200 for our desktop.
>> Take a look at the "before and after":
>> http://picasaweb.google.fr/cosmar38/Alterations#
>> Is this a photograph? I think so. Had someone else taken the photo, it would
>> have been this way. We were both walking, she in front, and the scene was
>> exactly as taken. Of course, I tell those who look at it that it was
>> tricked. ;-)
>
>You don't have to tell anyone -- it is quite obvious:

Oh, c'mon. If that photo was on a website or in an album along with
several other photos taken on that trek, 99% of the viewers would not
notice a thing. The Photoshopping is *not* obvious until you start
examining the details. Then, only the viewers who have some knowledge
of Photoshopping and photography would be able to spot the points you
have listed.

Photoshopped images that are "quite obvious" to "anyone" are the
photos where the scene is improbable in itself...a photograph of an
ordinary person being embraced by a well-known celebrity, for example.

If Celcius had done this composite and omitted the walker's shadows
entirely the 99% would drop, but not drastically. A single image
might be scrutinized, but not an image in a series where the image
fits in with the series in appropriateness of scene.

>-There are three different sun angles corresponding to the three
>original images
>
>-The sun angle of the figure on the right is almost 180 degrees from the
>angles of the landscape, shadows, and figure on the left. This is most
>obvious in the hats and shirtsleeves -- the brightest and most prominent
>parts of the image
>
>-The perspective of the figures do not match each other or the landscape
>
>-The shadow images are identical and neither matches the figure
>
>-The walking stick does not cast a shadow
>
>-The figure shadows float over the existing shadow pattern on the road
>instead of blending with them, as the adjacent grass shadows do
>
>-Both figures float over the road without appearing to contact, due to
>the perspective differences and alignment problems with the feet

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:25 am
From: "Peter"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5nvvi4hsd5vsv84658mak1an85quns4n4p@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:33:22 -0500, "Peter"
> <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:6pjui4l3ppasdg58su8pqca7lp9sj43q12@4ax.com...
>>
>>> The members of the camera club travel quite a bit and seem to meet
>>> camera club members from several other places. It can be a problem
>>> having the same judges each month, so they work out "guest" judge
>>> exchanges. We've had judges from several different countries, states,
>>> and towns. Since it's a digital-only competition, it works out fine.
>>>
>>> You really get a different perspective with a fresh set of judges.
>>> The "house" judges get too predictable.
>>>
>>
>>Do they give you a critique, or just a score?
>
> Both. Some judge's critiques are better than other's.
>
> The problem with a large club and a lot of entries is that each must
> be critiqued. Some entries really can't support a critique other than
> "It's an uninteresting subject that was poorly photographed". It's a
> social club too, though, so the judges have to come with something
> good about it.
>

We have about 65 members who may submit up to three images in each category.
So I empathize. It's hard to get judges who manage to keep their comments
interesting and pertinent, without insulting the maker.

I entered a slide that the judge thought was slightly fuzzy. He shared a
technique for shooting fish in an aquarium. The only problem was that the
technique did not apply to shots taken on a wreck 40' below the surface. The
judge became defense when I called this to his attention.

There is one club that enters the same image in all competitions just to
show beginners that judging is subjective. (The judges are not aware of
which shot it is.)

--
Peter

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:11 am
From: "Peter"

"shiva das" <siva@diwali.in> wrote in message
news:siva-DD2B76.10394928112008@news.isp.giganews.com...

>
> -The sun angle of the figure on the right is almost 180 degrees from the
> angles of the landscape, shadows, and figure on the left. This is most
> obvious in the hats and shirtsleeves -- the brightest and most prominent
> parts of the image
>

What he should have done was reverse the image on the right then we would
see the face and the sun would have been in the correct position. <G>

--
Peter

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:31 am
From: Pat

On Nov 27, 8:55 am, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
> On 2008-11-27 04:15:42 -0800, "Celcius" <celciu...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Savageduck" <savaged...@savage.net> wrote in message
> >news:2008112521161950073-savageduck@savagenet...
> >> On 2008-11-25 19:49:46 -0800, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> said:
>
> >>> On Nov 25, 10:37 pm, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 2008-11-25 08:13:44 -0800, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> said:
>
> >>>>> Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea what
> >>>>> a photograph was.
>
> >>>> If you have darkroom experience you should understand the fundementals
> >>>> of a "photograph" apply as much to a tintype, a daguerrotype, glass
> >>>> plate, celluloid film stock, CCD,or CMOS or what ever else might come
> >>>> along. It is the manipulation of light (photons "photo" as it were)
> >>>> through a lens or lens system (perhaps a pin hole) to be rendered as an
> >>>> image. A veritible lightdrawing or photograph.
>
> >>>> Technically because color visualization is a function of light, you
> >>>> might even say an oil painting is a photograph. Even today artists and
> >>>> journalists will use modern methods, as the great masters did to
> >>>> produce their art and record historic events. only now that is
> >>>> supplemented digitally.
>
> >>> It would seem like an overly broad definition if it includes both
> >>> paintings and photocopies as photographs.
>
> >> Just an extreme argument. Certainly it is ridiculous to call paintings
> >> etchings etc. photographs.
>
> > I'm not so sure about this.
> > Certain paintings are so **exact in reproducing forms and colour** that
> > they are deemed to be "photographs".
> > Painting is usually seen as what I would call for lack of a better
> > word, "interpretative". The artist either creates a mood (not
> > necessarily reproducing the scene) or an "impression" or a statement...
> > In the last case (and there are others), one needs to know more about
> > the artist to be able to decipher / understand / appreciate the art
> > work.
> > In the field of painting, exact reproduction is deemed to be a
> > "photograph" and is not appreciated.
> > Cheers,
> > Marcel
>
> I think you and I are on the same side in this debate. Following this
> part of the thread my initial extreme argument was based not so much on
> photo-realism, but the manipulation for light required by physics to
> produce an image. The quality of each of the materials and mixed tints,
> chalks, pastels, watercolor, oil or acrylics to absorb different
> wavelengths of light to demonstrate to the human eye a color is a
> function of light. Given that, the extreme argument could call all
> paintings "light drawings" or "photographs."
>
> There are certainly artists, some of the Dutch Masters come to mind who
> have produce works which have been described as "photo-real" by those
> aware of photography as we know it. I doubt if any of their
> contemporaries described those works in photographic terms, they were
> just in awe of thier artistic skill to create an illusion of realism.
> Check Van Eyck, Vermeer, Van Wittel and to some extent Rembrant. I
> still think it might be a little silly to actually call these works
> "photographs."
>
> So to depart from the extreme argument, I think it is safe to say a
> "photograph" is an image, produced by a lens system onto whatever the
> medium might be. That would include drawings and paintings produced
> with the aid of a Camera Obscura.
>
> To say the original subject should be represented, true to life,
> without manipulation to be called a photograph, is an unrealistic
> fantasy given the distortion imparted by most lenses. This relates to
> DOF, bokeh, vignetting, pincussion, barrel and other distortions
> imparted to the recording medium long before any post processing or
> manipulating is even thought of. Ultimately they are all expresions of
> the artist-photographer. Try creating a perfect architectural
> photograph and discover the problems photographers and lens
> manufacturers have had to deal with since day one.
>
> Photography is an art-science.
>
> So they are all photographs.
>
> "duck

I've never quite understood the fascination with realistically
representing an image -- especially when you consider that it isn't
really possible. You are not seeing an object, you are seeing light
bouncing off an object. So, as mentioned, colors are manipulated by
nature. Shine a red light on a blue object and you get black(-ish),
not blue or even red. But then again, a "blue object" is also
subjective because under red light, it's not blue -- it's only blue
under certain conditions.

Faithful reproduction reminds me of two things. First there are the
Kodak picture spots at Disney where you can stand, point the camera in
the direction they tell you to, and take a picture just like they want
you to. It's very nice but 10,000 people already did it. So what's
the big deal. Yes it's a photo, but so what? Then there's the Golden
Gate bridge. Same thing. There are 2 or 3 "stock" shots of it. So
what.

In either case, its better to do something else -- add some
interpretation or something interesting to the scene.

I'll take this one step farther into the realm of wedding photography
-- the bane of photography. The difference between a wedding
photographer and a good wedding photographer is a wedding photographer
takes pictures of what happens. A good wedding photographer makes
things happen -- things that would not happen otherwise.

Remembering that there are a lot of variables out there -- from light
to your brain processing things -- it might be safe to say that a
photograph may be the way you think something looked However, a
"good" photograph is how things should have looked.

I wonder why it is that I'm been doing something like photography (by
most people's opinions, it's not photography) for a long time compared
to most people. I started with film and a darkroom WAY before anyone
ever thought of digital but I have one of the widest definitions of
photography. As I said in the OP, I just did something that's far,
far removed from what most people do -- a silhouette that is cut from
the paper. I'm trying to figure out if that's a photograph. That's
where the shape is the image and there is no tonality. That pushes
beyond PS, but interestingly I could have done the same thing in my
darkroom and it probably would have been easier because Litho
internegs are easy to make.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:50 am
From: "mianileng"

"Roy G" <roy.gibson1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:4fTXk.4431$Cb.3748@newsfe18.ams2...
>
> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:492ff856$0$31198$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ggosc3$te$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:492fe9cb$0$31214$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>> "mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:ggoe4o$b3d$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Those of us who think that a grossly altered image is no
>>>>> longer a
>>>>> photograph do not object to a certain amount of adjustment.
>>>>> It is only
>>>>> when excessive manipulation causes major changes in content
>>>>> and appearance
>>>>> that it is no longer a photograph.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it that the "anything goes" brigade often chooses to
>>>>> ignore the
>>>>> above qualifications which have been stated often enough?
>
> Because what you state above is only your opinion. It is in no
> way a "Rule" or "Law of Nature".
>
> The rest of us believe that the amount of manipulation applied,
> or not, is of no relevance whatsoever to the end product being
> a Photograph.
>
> If you care to read the rules of the Photographic Society of
> America, (PSA), or Photographic Alliance of Great Britain,
> (PAGB), regarding photographic competitions I think you will
> find that there are no restrictions on processing or
> manipulation in any of the general categories.
>
> If those august bodies have no objections what gives you the
> right to object when someone does not conform to your narrow
> qualifications.
>
>
I don't know if you're deliberately misinterpreting my words or
just dense. Yes, my opinions are my own. It is shared by many
others, but the point is not whether we are in the minority or
the majority, or whether we are an authority.

When I said "Why is it that the "anything goes" brigade often
chooses to ignore the above qualifications which have been stated
often enough?", the question was *not* about why some people
don't agree with me.

The question is this: when those who accept severely manipulated
images as photos argue their case, they often cite in-camera
processing and minor corrections as manipulations, and then
extrapolate that argument to include ANY amount of manipulation.
They ignore the distinction we make between minor correction and
major manipulation. They ignore analogies made in an attempt to
clarify our views. They may not accept our opinions, but they
should at least recognise and respond to those points of
distinction in their argument. That's how an intelligent
discussion should go. *That* was what my rhetorical question was
about.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 9:17 am
From: "Peter"

"mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ggp7hh$oq2$1@news.motzarella.org...
>

>
> When I said "Why is it that the "anything goes" brigade often chooses to
> ignore the above qualifications which have been stated often enough?", the
> question was *not* about why some people don't agree with me.
>
> The question is this: when those who accept severely manipulated images as
> photos argue their case, they often cite in-camera processing and minor
> corrections as manipulations, and then extrapolate that argument to
> include ANY amount of manipulation. They ignore the distinction we make
> between minor correction and major manipulation. They ignore analogies
> made in an attempt to clarify our views. They may not accept our opinions,
> but they should at least recognise and respond to those points of
> distinction in their argument. That's how an intelligent discussion should
> go. *That* was what my rhetorical question was about.

When you use a term like "the anything goes brigade," there is a clear
pejorative intent directed at those who share an opinion that is not yours.
Do you really expect a clear response to a pejorative attack.

For clarity, I repeat my [unanswered] question to you: Except for
documentary photography why is this not a distinction without a difference.

--
Peter

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 9:23 am
From: tony cooper

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:25:23 -0500, "Peter"
<peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:5nvvi4hsd5vsv84658mak1an85quns4n4p@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:33:22 -0500, "Peter"
>> <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:6pjui4l3ppasdg58su8pqca7lp9sj43q12@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> The members of the camera club travel quite a bit and seem to meet
>>>> camera club members from several other places. It can be a problem
>>>> having the same judges each month, so they work out "guest" judge
>>>> exchanges. We've had judges from several different countries, states,
>>>> and towns. Since it's a digital-only competition, it works out fine.
>>>>
>>>> You really get a different perspective with a fresh set of judges.
>>>> The "house" judges get too predictable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do they give you a critique, or just a score?
>>
>> Both. Some judge's critiques are better than other's.
>>
>> The problem with a large club and a lot of entries is that each must
>> be critiqued. Some entries really can't support a critique other than
>> "It's an uninteresting subject that was poorly photographed". It's a
>> social club too, though, so the judges have to come with something
>> good about it.
>>
>
>
>We have about 65 members who may submit up to three images in each category.
>So I empathize. It's hard to get judges who manage to keep their comments
>interesting and pertinent, without insulting the maker.

We are allowed one entry in color and one entry in black and white,
and can submit in each category. There was a category for prints, but
they've dropped that. All entries are now submitted by email. Still,
the competition nights run two hours of critiques.

Print competition was getting out of hand. Only a very small number
entered that group because you had to either have extensive equipment
at home or be able to pay big bucks for outside processing. I never
saw an 8 x 10 or smaller entered; they were all huge, matted,
blow-ups. No print-it-out-on-your-$150 Epson-stuff.

We also have "A" and a "B" levels. "A"s are professional
photographers and winners of three or more monthly competitions.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Front Element Condition
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b4401f966324a621?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:15 am
From: Allen

Gabe McDonnel wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:06:47 -0800, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> I ran across this demonstration (three images) the other day. It's pretty
>> good. And succinct.
>>
>> http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches
>
> In astronomy it's not uncommon to fix a mirror that has a bad scratch or chip by
> covering it over or filling it in with flat-black pigment. The images are again
> good as new. There is one famous case of a large diameter research telescope
> mirror that was shot at a few times with a gun (disgruntled employee, if I
> recall), causing huge chinks and conchoidal fractures in it. They filled in the
> large holes, painted them black, and the telescope still had most of its
> original quality. As long as the lenses' curvatures hold their integrity, you
> can get by with quite a bit of defects.
>
<snip>
That was at the MacDonald Observatory in the Davis Mountains in the Big
Bend area of Texas. The biggest problem they have now is not bullet
holes, but smog from Mexican factories. When it was built in 1935 or
thereabouts, the atmosphere out there was crystal clear about 355 days
per year, but, alas, no more. Incidentally, that scope (82 inch
diameter) is no longer their primary instrument but it is still quite
useful.
Allen

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wedding Photographers Love The BatWing!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/80cc441d1cf17d95?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:27 am
From: George Kerby

On 11/27/08 7:43 PM, in article fviui455bolkpcao023ib99567tb497v25@4ax.com,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:18:58 -0500, "Larry Thong"
> <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>> I did get a better picture that day, though:
>>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>>
>> LOL! You did good, but you need to start using your grid lines to get that
>> horizon level as that nice looking Deere is going down hill.
>
> I did two versions before the crop. In one I straightened the horizon
> and in this one I didn't. (Photoshop has a tool to straighten) I
> liked this one better. I kinda like the imbalance. I wanted all of
> that magnolia tree.
Not to mention that the tree would be 'leaning' if you did...

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:33 am
From: tony cooper

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:49:15 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I did get a better picture that day, though:
>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/tractor.jpg
>
>Could you post that at full "10" quality. The fine texture seems a bit
>screwy. Did you unsharp mask it in PS after re-sizing?
>

Something suddenly struck me about the sharpening comment. I have
been trying various photo hosts. Since I'm using free hosts, there
are often limits on the number and frequency of uploads and on storage
space so I'm currently using several. I find that FileAve is easy to
use, allows nice, large images, and doesn't show ads on the linked
image page.

Earlier today I was putting together a series on JAlbum (photographs
of my grandchildren to be viewed by relatives) and noticed that JAlbum
sharpens photos unless you tick a box that tells them not to. I
noticed this because one of the photos came out very obviously
over-sharpened on the JAlbum site, but not after I ticked the box and
started over.

It's possible that FileAve incorporates this unwanted sharpening step.
Their site doesn't say or provide an opt-out choice.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:49 am
From: Paul Furman

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Jack@nova.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:00:00 -0500, Alan Browne
>>>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Larry Thong wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>> You need to loosen up, Son.
>>>>>>> You need to stop gilding shit with gold.
>>>>>> Why? It works so good and produces superior images, just ask Mark. At
>>>>>> least I wasn't dumb enough to buy a Sony with shitty glass.
>>>>> Let's see ... a900 with 24 Mpix FF behind a CZ 135 f/1.8,
>>>>>
>>>>> or Minolta 80-200 f/2.8G,
>>>>>
>>>>> or Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro, other fast CZ's...
>>>>>
>>>>> No Nikon comes remotely close at present, but I'm sure they'll catch up
>>>>> one day.
>>>> Catch up to what? The number of pixels? That's not really that important, dude.
>>>> What's important is that Nikon has Sony (and Minolta) beat every which way that
>>>> actually counts, such as image quality and low noise, and overall camera
>>>> quality. The D90 has better ISO performance than the big Sony, and probably
>>>> makes better images, at 1/3 the price!
>>> Since the number of pixels isn't really that important, I'm sure
>>> you're speaking of comparing the Sony images with the Nikon ones when
>>> the Sony images have been noise reduced and scaled down to the size of
>>> the Nikon images. That's one of the useful but less remarked things
>>> you can do with a large number of pixels -- trade them down in size to
>>> get better noise performance in situations where noise matters.
>>>
>>> So where did you find this interesting comparison which found that at
>>> comparable image sizes the D90 high ISO noise was better?
>
>> Better than you'd expect from DX, surprising DR:
>> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/205|0/(appareil2)/265|0/(appareil3)/202|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Sony/(brand3)/Nikon
>
> That shows a slight advantage to the Nikon, but I can't find anything
> in the descrpiptions of test methodology on that and other web pages
> there to suggest that they're comparing image noise rather than the
> more usual (and much more easily done) pixel noise. If that is what
> they're doing, then that test strongly suggests that at the image
> level the Sony would be superior.

They apparently reduce the larger MP cameras to even that out... I'm not
exactly sure: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3fc2177d18a4204e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:34 am
From: John McWilliams

Stephen Bishop wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:53:19 -0800, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> P.Garnet <pgarnet@antispam.org> wrote:
>>> Do YOU think that expensive lenses are put into cheap cameras?
>>>
>>>> You do realize that I hope. You will someday, if you ever
>>> Spare us the bullshit, idiot. You obviously don't have any
>>> intelligent response.
>> Say, aren't you the same guy who posts ascii signs admonishing others to
>> not feed the troll?
>
> Say, aren't you the guy who patrols usenet and unwittingly defends
> trolls by criticizing those who refute them?

We are dealing with a virulent pest, not a troll, esp. not a Troll. A
good Troll is a beautiful thing, but they've left the building long ago.
>
> If you don't want to see trolls being fed, stay out of the zoo during
> feeding hours. :-)

Well, you *could* stop throwing the slop to the hog! Not that you post
hogwash, but refutation simply doesn't work.
And, yeah, I may as well begin k-fing the the threads.

--
john mcwilliams

"Baldrick, you wouldn't recognize a subtle plan if it painted itself
purple and danced naked on top of a harpsichord singing 'Subtle Plans
Are Here Again'."
-- Blackadder

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:44 am
From: Gerald Cohen

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:34:17 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>Stephen Bishop wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:53:19 -0800, John McWilliams
>> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> P.Garnet <pgarnet@antispam.org> wrote:
>>>> Do YOU think that expensive lenses are put into cheap cameras?
>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that I hope. You will someday, if you ever
>>>> Spare us the bullshit, idiot. You obviously don't have any
>>>> intelligent response.
>>> Say, aren't you the same guy who posts ascii signs admonishing others to
>>> not feed the troll?
>>
>> Say, aren't you the guy who patrols usenet and unwittingly defends
>> trolls by criticizing those who refute them?
>
>We are dealing with a virulent pest, not a troll, esp. not a Troll. A
>good Troll is a beautiful thing, but they've left the building long ago.
>>
>> If you don't want to see trolls being fed, stay out of the zoo during
>> feeding hours. :-)
>
>Well, you *could* stop throwing the slop to the hog! Not that you post
>hogwash, but refutation simply doesn't work.
>And, yeah, I may as well begin k-fing the the threads.

Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) 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
usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests
prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See
this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera
that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR
camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that SX10 camera with DSLR
glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over
$6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the
extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those
longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR
investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S 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 15 pounds
of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only
1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality
comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the
massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit +
accessory lenses 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 pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to
pass slowly 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 at longer focal-lengths
allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using
normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done 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. (To clarify for
DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order
to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly.
When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your
highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user
is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image;
turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)

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!" If they just
throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day,
after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with
something that they never had in the first place--talent. 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.
They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come
included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll
never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along.
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. It also reveals the harsh reality that
all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's
difficult for them to face the truth.

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: P&S in all their glory
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1ef0ee428ae15bd6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:40 am
From: Steve

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:42:48 GMT, Paul Heslop
<paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>see, so easy to spot.

Ever since I limited the messages I automatically download to less
than 320 lines, I don't have to bother spotting him anymore. I can
always just hit enter to manually download one if I know it's not from
the P&S troll.

Steve

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:52 am
From: AllenTorksen

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:40:52 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:

>
>On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:42:48 GMT, Paul Heslop
><paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>see, so easy to spot.
>
>Ever since I limited the messages I automatically download to less
>than 320 lines, I don't have to bother spotting him anymore. I can
>always just hit enter to manually download one if I know it's not from
>the P&S troll.
>
>Steve

Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) 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."

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:52 am
From: Paul Heslop

Steve wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:42:48 GMT, Paul Heslop
> <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >see, so easy to spot.
>
> Ever since I limited the messages I automatically download to less
> than 320 lines, I don't have to bother spotting him anymore. I can
> always just hit enter to manually download one if I know it's not from
> the P&S troll.
>
> Steve

I don't think my old nutscrape will allow that rule, or much of any
really. Not that it matters as it stands out a mile as soon as you see
the length of the post.

I don't know if the numty thinks a noob would bother to read all that
stuff but it's pretty much pathetic as far as trolling goes.

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

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 8:57 am
From: CH_Barstow

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:52:38 GMT, Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:42:48 GMT, Paul Heslop
>> <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >see, so easy to spot.
>>
>> Ever since I limited the messages I automatically download to less
>> than 320 lines, I don't have to bother spotting him anymore. I can
>> always just hit enter to manually download one if I know it's not from
>> the P&S troll.
>>
>> Steve
>
>I don't think my old nutscrape will allow that rule, or much of any
>really. Not that it matters as it stands out a mile as soon as you see
>the length of the post.
>
>I don't know if the numty thinks a noob would bother to read all that
>stuff but it's pretty much pathetic as far as trolling goes.
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:40:52 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:

Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) 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."

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 9:41 am
From: Savageduck

On 2008-11-27 18:26:02 -0800, "Toby" <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jpp> said:

> Yes, I like to see an example of a a two-pixel masterpiece. I guess if
> you're a "real pro" you could do the same with one pixel, or even no
> pixels: just hang a giant piece of virgin printing paper on the wall
> with a good title, like "Blizzard of the Century!"
>
> That'll wow the masses...
>
> Toby

OK!
Since we will never see anything The P&S Bandit might have produced, I
give you the Masterpiece 2PIXELS http://snipr.com/6wqlo-nnah5d

For an interpretation of 1 pixel, remove the pixel of your choice to
create your own art work. Mine is 2PIXELS.

By the way, both pixels were extracted from an original image file
produced by a DSLR.

'duck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: FUCK OFF aus.photo!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/da925152c89cb7fe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 9:05 am
From: John McWilliams

Noons wrote:
> Nom

f-o noons

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 9:16 am
From: John McWilliams

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:19:57 -0500, Dave Cohen wrote:
>
>> How come I see the text quoted above, but this is the only thread - that
>> is I don't see a post from Pete D, just the quote. This happens from
>> time to time. My news server is motzarella. Dave Cohen
>
>
> It's cheesed.

Ta Dum! /rimshot/!!

Pretty darn good for a Friday following T-giving.

[aus.photo removed.]

--
john mcwilliams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: |GG| cheapest way to transfer film negatives to digital photos?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/13c3fd0900223df7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 9:11 am
From: Paul Furman

albert.mills@googlemail.com wrote:
> H I have about 200 film negatives. What's the cheapest way to transfer
> them to digital photos? Wall green/CVS charges like 8 dollars for a cd
> of 24 I think.

That is super cheap, 200 negatives for $67. Maybe not the best but you
won't find cheaper or easier if those numbers are right. It would be
very tedious work to scan yourself.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Handholding the 600/4 Nikkor!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/119ddc99fb219e7b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 28 2008 9:12 am
From: nospam

In article <6pa0dkF6745bU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Interesting article. He makes some comments in it which make it clear
> that he's deliberately being controversial, presumably to bump up
> traffic to his web pages, rather like the old scientific paper trick
> of including an obvious error in your paper to bump up the citation
> number.

he admits on his about page he makes up stuff and that nothing on his
web site should be taken seriously.

<http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>

I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article
more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly
stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat
this entire site as a work of fiction.

...

The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply
make up out of thin air, as does The Onion.

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

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 28, 2008

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, November 28, 2008

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic