Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Quick question ??? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/69dda4b17aed3a75?hl=en
* OT Re: Which free software could acquire 48 bits color depth pictures from a
scanner ? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a04fec022c17778?hl=en
* Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11 - 6 messages, 5
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3fc2177d18a4204e?hl=en
* can't access printer's memory card from windows explorer - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e2a2a68acf5d33ab?hl=en
* Help with auto focus - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c83641ebccbc5d0f?hl=en
* Black and White - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2fe1e7db1fe2db03?hl=en
* Nikon D700x another Nikon upgrade? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b661268290174a96?hl=en
* Is there software out there to manipulate quantization tables or spoof
another camera? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/26aaa5b3361dadb0?hl=en
* 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo
corrections) - 8 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/541401c3b2747095?hl=en

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:00 am
From: baxter-G

On 20 Nov 2008 17:38:08 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>How many P&S cameras have f1.4 lenses?

How many talented photographers really need one?

How many DSLRs have an excellent 1248mm f/3.5 lens? (as exists on one of my P&S
cameras) How many wildlife photographers could really use one?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:02 am
From: "Deep Reset"

"baxter-G" <baxterg@myprivatedomain.org> wrote in message
news:i69bi4166ci9de6sk7vfk2scjihlgad3m7@4ax.com...
> On 20 Nov 2008 17:38:08 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>How many P&S cameras have f1.4 lenses?
>
> How many talented photographers really need one?
>
> How many DSLRs have an excellent 1248mm f/3.5 lens? (as exists on one of
> my P&S
> cameras) How many wildlife photographers could really use one?

1248/3.5 = 356mm (that's what "f/3.5" means, in case you didn't know).
(fourteen inches across for the metrically-challenged)
That's a mighty big front element.
Care to explain?

Deep.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:25 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

baxter-G <baxterg@myprivatedomain.org> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>How many P&S cameras have f1.4 lenses?
>
>How many talented photographers really need one?

Evasion.

But I'll note that professional photographers almost universally use
dSLRs and not P&S cameras.

>How many DSLRs have an excellent 1248mm f/3.5 lens?

Any.

> (as exists on one of my P&S
>cameras)

You're either a liar or stupid.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Re: Which free software could acquire 48 bits color depth pictures
from a scanner ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a04fec022c17778?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:06 am
From: Jessie Smith

On 20 Nov 2008 17:35:20 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Wyatt Alsworth <wyattalsworth@insertdomainhere.com> wrote:
>>On 19 Nov 2008 18:50:57 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Walt-Kasner <wkasner@kasner.com> wrote:
>>>>On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
>>>>>people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.
>>>>
>>>>Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.
>>>
>>>Or you're a liar who doesn't even use Photoshop professionally.
>>>
>>>>Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....
>>>>
>>>>http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html
>>>
>>>Outdated, artificial, and irrelevant.
>>>
>>>Which you'd know if you were educated.
>>
>>I guess your electricity is useless too, that's been around for ages now.
>
>Electricity hasn't changed in the last decade, idiot. Software has.

Oh exalted purveyor of the most up-to-date of information. Please grace us all
with a web-page that shows a resampling algorithm, with controlled-test proof,
that surpasses the currently most powerful Resampling God - which we all call
"Lanczos-8". Until you show me that your false-god is more powerful, you are
nothing but an uneducated resident-troll and deserve no further replies from
anyone.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:24 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Jessie Smith <jessiesmith@whataddressgoeshere.org> wrote:
>On 20 Nov 2008 17:35:20 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Wyatt Alsworth <wyattalsworth@insertdomainhere.com> wrote:
>>>On 19 Nov 2008 18:50:57 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Walt-Kasner <wkasner@kasner.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
>>>>>>people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.
>>>>
>>>>Or you're a liar who doesn't even use Photoshop professionally.
>>>>
>>>>>Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html
>>>>
>>>>Outdated, artificial, and irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>Which you'd know if you were educated.
>>>
>>>I guess your electricity is useless too, that's been around for ages now.
>>
>>Electricity hasn't changed in the last decade, idiot. Software has.
>
>Oh exalted purveyor of the most up-to-date of information. Please grace us all
>with a web-page that shows a resampling algorithm, with controlled-test proof,
>that surpasses the currently most powerful Resampling God - which we all call
>"Lanczos-8".

Easy. Combine all of the resamples into one.

Oh, but that's too hard for you to understand. You think that people
NEED to rotate an image100 time, one degree at a time, instead of
just doing a single rotation. In fact, I bet you're even stupid
enough to believe that people NEED to do 100 one degree rotations.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

==============================================================================
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 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:11 am
From: Donald Rippley

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:08:28 -0800 (PST), frank <dhssresearcher@netscape.net>
wrote:

>On Nov 20, 4:58 am, Tod Burnstein <tburnst...@repliesnotwanted.org>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> >Sherry Miller wrote:
>> >> Morey Staffer wrote:
>>
>> >>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res...
>>
>> >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
>> >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
>> >> for their budget line of DSLR's.
>>
>> >That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
>> >as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
>> >that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.
>>
>> >Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.
>>
>> I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
>> enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) to beat the images from that camera.
>>
>> 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
>> extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
>> much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?
>>
>> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
>> bother to carry them with you that is.
>>
>> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
>> up.
>>
>> What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
>> ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
>> similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.
>>
>> Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.
>
>Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
>with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
>optics.

Can't even do the math eh? Figured as much.

There's one other little important tidbit that only amateur trolls wouldn't
know, or be able to keep in their itty minds, "Content trumps quality -- EVERY
TIME."

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:35 am
From: ParkerGrant

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:51:48 -0600, ParkerGrant <parkergrant@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

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:21 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:58:34 -0600, Tod Burnstein
<tburnstein@repliesnotwanted.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Sherry Miller wrote:
>>> Morey Staffer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
>>> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
>>> for their budget line of DSLR's.
>>
>>That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
>>as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
>>that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.
>>
>>Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.
>
>I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
>enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) to beat the images from that camera.
>
>2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
>extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
>much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?
>
>Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
>bother to carry them with you that is.
>
>Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
>up.
>
>What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
>ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
>similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.
>
>Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.

So a high-end superzoom camera can outperform the cheapest Canon kit
lens at 100% magnification under some conditions? No suprises there.
Do the same test with a better entry-level dslr like the Nikon D40 and
a decent mid-range Nikkor lens.

Hmmm... Let's see your images that show your abilities to create
actual photographs with that camera without the pixel peeping
nonsense.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:23 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:15:41 -0600, Patrick Jorgens
<pjorgens@domainmoved.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:59:16 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:23:18 -0600, Morey Staffer
>><moreystafffer@pickdomainofyourchoice.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>>
>>Shows me that if you don't mind crappy pictures even in daylight, you
>>can get a P&S or a Rebel XSi with a cheap lens. Now, if you want to
>>see some of the differences in capability of the *camera* vs. the
>>lens, from the exact same review see:
>>
>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/noise.shtml
>>
>>Steve
>
>So finds someone who doesn't have the talent to use anything lower than ISO1600.
>
>Advertised how much more crippled you are. :-)

Let's see your pictures to see how much talent you have at any ISO.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:28 am
From: "Pete D"

"Donald Rippley" <drippley@donaldsdomain.org> wrote in message
news:0t9bi4174dvt2l0153lbpc7qunnc3eju6h@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:08:28 -0800 (PST), frank
> <dhssresearcher@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 20, 4:58 am, Tod Burnstein <tburnst...@repliesnotwanted.org>
>>wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >Sherry Miller wrote:
>>> >> Morey Staffer wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res...
>>>
>>> >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this
>>> >> shows
>>> >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
>>> >> lens
>>> >> for their budget line of DSLR's.
>>>
>>> >That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as
>>> >bad
>>> >as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
>>> >that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.
>>>
>>> >Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.
>>>
>>> I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR
>>> with
>>> enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) to beat the images from that camera.
>>>
>>> 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug
>>> around at an
>>> extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for
>>> $5000? How
>>> much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?
>>>
>>> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you
>>> even
>>> bother to carry them with you that is.
>>>
>>> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you
>>> add it
>>> up.
>>>
>>> What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S
>>> could
>>> ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've
>>> seen many
>>> similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.
>>>
>>> Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.
>>
>>Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
>>with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
>>optics.
>
> Can't even do the math eh? Figured as much.
>
> There's one other little important tidbit that only amateur trolls
> wouldn't
> know, or be able to keep in their itty minds, "Content trumps quality --
> EVERY
> TIME."
>

Silly girl, how sad for you.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:45 am
From: frank

On Nov 20, 12:11 pm, Donald Rippley <dripp...@donaldsdomain.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:08:28 -0800 (PST), frank <dhssresearc...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 20, 4:58 am, Tod Burnstein <tburnst...@repliesnotwanted.org>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> >Sherry Miller wrote:
> >> >> Morey Staffer wrote:
>
> >> >>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res...
>
> >> >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
> >> >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
> >> >> for their budget line of DSLR's.
>
> >> >That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
> >> >as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
> >> >that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.
>
> >> >Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.
>
> >> I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
> >> enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) to beat the images from that camera.
>
> >> 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
> >> extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
> >> much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?
>
> >> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
> >> bother to carry them with you that is.
>
> >> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
> >> up.
>
> >> What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
> >> ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
> >> similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.
>
> >> Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.
>
> >Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
> >with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
> >optics.
>
> Can't even do the math eh? Figured as much.
>
> There's one other little important tidbit that only amateur trolls wouldn't
> know, or be able to keep in their itty minds, "Content trumps quality -- EVERY
> TIME."

No, I've done more math than you can ever dream of in your life. More
photography also. How about a few thousand rolls of 35mm a year. Not
to mention digital.

And no, I don't post on line.

Wanker.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: can't access printer's memory card from windows explorer
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e2a2a68acf5d33ab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:18 am
From: Alex

On Nov 19, 8:11 am, Matt Ion <soundy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 10:23 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Alex wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>> I am using an EPSON DX7450 all-in-one printer which is connected via
> >>> USB cable to my wireless router. My router is connected to my pc via
> >>> a
> >>> LAN cable and also to the cable modem. My laptop connects to the
> >>> internet and the printer wirelessly via the router. Printing and
> >>> internet works fine on pc as well as laptop. When I insert my
> >>> digital
> >>> camera's memory card into the printer's slot, normally I should be
> >>> able to access this memory card through my pc's "windows explorer"
> >>> where it should say "removable media". However, my memory card
> >>> doesn't
> >>> show up. Printing pictures from the memory card by using the
> >>> printer's
> >>> buttons works too but I can't access the memory card folders in
> >>> windows.
> >>> How can I access the contents of my memory card in windows xp home's
> >>> "my computer" ?
> >>> Thanks in advance for the help.
> >> A USB port on a wireless router requires that the designer make
> >> assumptions about what is to be connected to it. Obviously this one
> >> wasn't designed to deal with anything but a printer.
>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> --John
> >> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> > Thanks John, that seems straightforward. What if I connect my printer
> > via USB to my pc i.s.o. the router? I know all printer functions will
> > work from my pc in that case but will my laptop - which connects
> > wirelessly to the router - still be able to communicate with my
> > printer?
>
> That should solve all your problems, and yes, your laptop will still be
> able to see the printer, but you'll have to perform a couple extra
> steps... namely, sharing the printer from your desktop, and then
> connecting the laptop to that share.

If I connect my printer to my pc, I assume my pc has to be on even
though I'm printing from my laptop, or not?

To share the printer from my desktop, is it simply by going to
"control panel - printers and faxes" then right-click on the printer
icon and select properties, "share" tab and select the option to share
the printer with a share name such as for example EPSON and that's it?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Help with auto focus
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c83641ebccbc5d0f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:19 am
From: "SS"

My Canon Powershot A70 has just suddenly stopped focusing. I have checked it
is on auto and that macro is not on.
The view screen is also out of focus.and also if I take video clips.I am not
aware of dropping it etc. and batteries are ok.
If I focus at say 3 feet and (still holding button half in) then at
something much further away the auto focus does not kick in.
It would appear that the auto focus is the culprit, but how to sort?

Any ideas?
thanks

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Black and White
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2fe1e7db1fe2db03?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:20 am
From: George Faust

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:17:29 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:42:30 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>[]
>>> My own use of monochrome has been mainly for night shots, where the
>>> very mixed lighting sources can result in some very odd colour
>>> balance. Using monochrome adds mood and reduces the visibility of
>>> noise.
>>
>> This may sound heretical to some, but I've used it successfully with
>> some failed color shots. Failed in the sense that the shot lacks the
>> impact that I thought it would have when I took it. Converting that
>> shot to black and white, though, can provide that impact. There are
>> some situations where really blowing out the whites *adds* to the
>> image.
>
>It makes the image stand out from the crowd!
>
>David

Reduced dynamic range has its merits, when used effectively. Something that few
on this newsgroup will ever comprehend.

Quick other-end of the spectrum example. How irritating it can be to keep
getting details in the shadows of a much needed silhouette. How I hate that at
times with the larger dynamic range of digital. Heavy-handed editing is the only
solution.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D700x another Nikon upgrade?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b661268290174a96?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:13 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Ken Hart1 wrote:
> "Shiva Das" <shivadas@kashmir-hindu.org> wrote in message
> news:K9adnYmGUsUbZ7nUnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@bway.net...
>> In article <yrydnX8LWNGzS7nUnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Shiva Das wrote:
>>>> In article <s2u8i4t4lcvnim9gsnf5i4ji8n07n3igi2@4ax.com>,
>>>> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:12:59 -0500, Shiva Das
>>>>> <shivadas@kashmir-hindu.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <rhd8i4lpebmguc91da8eullahl3092no3g@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A good pro will use the right tool for
>>>>>>> the job, which could be either depending on the job.
>>>>>> This is the correct answer to _every_ "which is better...",
>>>>>> "which is best...", "is Nykon better than Cannen..." question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The right tool for the right job, and how well does it fit your
>>>>>> hands.
>>>>>> No one wants to hear these answers though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But for general purpose all around shooting if you could only
>>>>>>> have one
>>>>>>> camera and had to make a choice between the D3 and 1DsMkII
>>>>>> Oh dear, I'm afraid I'd have to give up photography if faced
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> choice. Neither one of those cameras is compatible with this
>>>>>> new-fangled
>>>>>> stuff called "film" that I use :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> You should consider using dry glass plates. I find they are much
>>>>> more convenient than the wet collodion process I have been using
>>>>> up till now.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I have a dry-plate camera which I use as a convenient
>>>> point 'n' shoot since it takes so little time and expense
>>>> compared
>>>> to my "pro"
>>>> Daguerreotype setup... It's also a nice break from breathing
>>>> mercury fumes all day.
>>>
>>> How maddening!
>>>
>>> You can save a bit of weight, though, by using rigid but thin
>>> sheets of plexiglass instead of glass for the plates. You do coat
>>> your own, no?
>>
>> Luxury! We used to DREAM of using Plexiglas ["Perspex" to our
>> British, Ozzie, and Kiwi friends]! My mum and dad used to make us
>> get up at four o'clock in the morning and steal panes of glass from
>> the mill, then coat them before the sun came up, before sending us
>> to school barefoot with nowt but two lumps of coal for lunch.
>>
>> And you try telling kids today ...
>
> This parrot is dead. If you hadn't nailed his feet to the perch,
> he'd
> be pushing up daisies.

Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down,
it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak,
and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is there software out there to manipulate quantization tables or spoof
another camera?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/26aaa5b3361dadb0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:32 am
From: billo

On Nov 20, 10:53 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <2b08bfae-1ab2-41f5-87b4-b18d8d1b4...@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> billo <ven...@billoblog.com> wrote:
> > I just bought a new Nikon D90 camera -- the first higher-end consumer
> > camera I've ever had. A friend of mine was telling me that every
> > picture I took can be traced back not only to my camera, but to
> > roughly when I took it -- not on the date and time in the EXIF data,
> > but a shutter count that acts like an odometer. He said folk could
> > trace it back to my camera, at least to the model, by looking at jpeg
> > quantization tables that are model specific.
>
> all cameras will save the date/time that the photo was taken and some
> cameras even embed the serial number of the camera (i don't know if the
> d90 does that). while it's easy to determine that a d90 took the
> photo, it's not so easy to trace it back to you specifically.
>
> > While I guess there's no big issue with someone tracing a photo of my
> > cat I post on my website back to my camera, there's something about
> > the libertarian side of me that just doesn't like the idea.
>
> > Does anybody know of software (as always, preferably open source) that
> > will spoof the quantization tables so that doesn't look like my D90? I
> > guess I'm looking for the photography equivalent of macchanger
> > software...
>
> there are various utilities to strip the exif data entirely.

Yeah, I know I can strip the EXIF data. I want to spoof another
camera, though -- for instance make it look like it was from a
Canon....

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:38 am
From: billo

On Nov 20, 12:28 pm, "jaf" <jaf.h...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Mr. Bill,
> This news group is monitored by the Precrime Force of The United States Department of Justice.
> You are obviously planning to commit a crime and document it with your camera.
> Report to your local constabulary for persecution.
> Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
>
> John
>
> "billo" <ven...@billoblog.com> wrote in messagenews:2b08bfae-1ab2-41f5-87b4-b18d8d1b4cdc@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >I just bought a new Nikon D90 camera -- the first higher-end consumer
> > camera I've ever had. A friend of mine was telling me that every
> > picture I took can be traced back not only to my camera, but to
> > roughly when I took it -- not on the date and time in the EXIF data,
> > but a shutter count that acts like an odometer. He said folk could
> > trace it back to my camera, at least to the model, by looking at jpeg
> > quantization tables that are model specific.
>
> > While I guess there's no big issue with someone tracing a photo of my
> > cat I post on my website back to my camera, there's something about
> > the libertarian side of me that just doesn't like the idea.
>
> > Does anybody know of software (as always, preferably open source) that
> > will spoof the quantization tables so that doesn't look like my D90? I
> > guess I'm looking for the photography equivalent of macchanger
> > software...
>
> > Thanks!

Heh. Not a problem. I trust my government and know that they would
never make any mistake about anything. I truly value the vision of
our leadership and support them in all of there efforts. Honest. I'm
the American version of the Chinese version of Andy Rooney! (see:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/china_s_andy_rooney_has_some ).

==============================================================================
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 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:52 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 20 Nov 2008 17:39:15 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>Hogwash.
>>
>>There are just five reasons why dslrs are superior, and each of them
>>trump your 25 reasons.
>
>"Hammers are superior to screwdrivers. Here's why."

Ah, but what you can do with the combination of a hammer and a
screwdriver is more than the sum of the tasks you can do individually
with either!

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:57 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:48:11 -0600, KenKenseth
<mailnotwanted@mydomain.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:08:22 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Hell, you may even see electronic shutters
>>although those compromise image quality so maybe not. But if they can
>>figure out how to do them without compromising image quality, then why
>>not?
>
>Where on earth did you get this nonsense?
>
>They already have them in P&S cameras that don't compromise anything in image
>quality. High-speed full-frame captures up to 1/40,000 of a second without any
>scanned bands of the sensor being read off the chip, as used to exist in all
>DSLR electronics. See this photo for DSLR sensor readout technology at work
>with high-speed objects.
>
>http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//b/b3/Sensor_readout_anomaly.jpg
>
>It's not bad enough that focal-plane shutters have their own image-distorting
>problems, but many of their sensors have this problem too.
>
>The curved bars are the propeller being slowly scanned electronically in
>horizontal banks across the sensor. That doesn't happen in any P&S cameras (that
>I know of).
>
>You people invent the silliest things to perpetuate on the net. No doubt due to
>your experiences with the lame electronic architecture and hardware of your
>DSLRs. You need to get out more and get away from that ancient camera design.
>
>I wonder what other technology you're going to steal from P&S cameras to try to
>make your DSLRs fully functional one day.
>

Why do you invent a different name for yourself each time you post
here?

You're happy with your little P&S, so just leave it at that. The fact
that other people do better work than you do with their better dslrs
shouldn't threaten you.

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:00 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:07:43 -0600, Glenn-Franken
<gfranken@youmustbekidding.org> wrote:

>On 5 Nov 2008 20:34:02 -0600, "Toby" <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>Camera companies are not stupid.
>
>No, but typical amateur-photographer consumers, are.
>
>Camera companies are all too willing to provide what those people will buy. Even
>better if the camera company can produce something for $10 and sell it for $1000
>dollars. As in the case of most DSLRs and all their required accessories. They
>could sell any DSLR glass, L-Glass included, for under $100 a shot. But you? Not
>knowing a thing, gleefully hand out your dough, just for the social-prestige of
>promoting an antiquated technology. And attempting, but failing, to look like a
>"Pro".
>
>Ain't this fun.

So seriously, whatever your name really is, where do you get this
whacky idea that the only people who buy dslr cameras are clueless
amateurs who don't know which end of the camera points where?

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:01 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:59:29 -0600, frank nolen
<fnolen@youwantthiswhy.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:29:33 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:07:43 -0600, Glenn-Franken
>><gfranken@youmustbekidding.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5 Nov 2008 20:34:02 -0600, "Toby" <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Camera companies are not stupid.
>>>
>>>No, but typical amateur-photographer consumers, are.
>>>
>>>Camera companies are all too willing to provide what those people will buy. Even
>>>better if the camera company can produce something for $10 and sell it for $1000
>>>dollars. As in the case of most DSLRs and all their required accessories. They
>>>could sell any DSLR glass, L-Glass included, for under $100 a shot. But you? Not
>>>knowing a thing, gleefully hand out your dough, just for the social-prestige of
>>>promoting an antiquated technology. And attempting, but failing, to look like a
>>>"Pro".
>>>
>>>Ain't this fun.
>>
>>FINALLY you admit that real pros use DSLRs.
>>
>>Ain't this fun.
>
>Yes, watching you make an even bigger fool of yourself is always fun.
>
>How you misread any of the above to admit(?) that real professionals all use
>DSLRs, is beyond me. It's an observation about those who are so stupid as to
>think they need a DSLR to be a "Pro" and throwing away exorbitant amounts of
>money in their attempts to do so.
>
>C'mon steve, are you reading usenet through your coke-bottle-bottom glasses
>again, and then just hitting the reply button, typing anything, and hoping it
>will make sense to someone other than you? No, wait. I've got it figured out.
>You are hoping someone will try to explain your ideas to you so they will
>finally make sense to you. That's it, isn't it.
>
>Stick your fingers in your ears and hum a tune, then you also don't have to
>actually take in any audio information while you sit there imagining what you
>want to see.
>
>I'm beginning to understand now why there's so little worthwhile photography in
>the world. With people as unperceptive as the "Steves" displaying an interest in
>photography how can any of them know when and where to click a shutter-button at
>the right time, let alone anything else.

OK, lets see examples of your worthwhile photography.

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:07 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:06:05 -0600, Jim Hurst <jhurst@ispwithheld.org>
wrote:

>On 8 Nov 2008 04:43:02 -0600, "Toby" <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:pighash-4664BE.00052708112008@news.isp.giganews.com...
>>> Their are quality P&S such as Leica Digital Rangefinders. There are
>>> lousy DSLR lenses such as the Olympus Zuiko 14-45 and 18-180. Good P&S
>>> are cheaper, smaller and lighter than good DSLR's because the sensor is
>>> smaller and hence the lens is smaller and much easier to make.
>>>
>>> According to early reviews, the new Canon G10 appears to be better than
>>> some of the poorer DSLRs. A DSLR only makes sense if you are using more
>>> than one lens. For those not needing specialized lenses, and wanting
>>> light weight compact models, the best P&S fit the bill nicely.
>>>
>>> The DSLR is still the workhorse camera for a person that wants a system
>>> camera, but for the typical amateur, they are no longer the only game in
>>> town.
>>
>>There are decent P&S cameras, such as the new Lumix and the G-10, as well as
>>the larger fixed-lens models with OVF. Our troll is correct, that some of
>>those fixed lens P&Ss such as those from Olympus, have a zoom range that
>>ends with the 35mm equivalent of a 500+mm lens at an aperture of around f/5.
>>Some even have resolutions equal to low-mid range DSLRs. The major fly in
>>the ointment is the noisiness of those tiny sensors: The Canon starts to
>>seriously fall apart at ISO 400 and the Panasonic, while a bit better, is
>>hardly in the class of a decent DSLR. It's simply physics. Nor are those
>>extreme zoom lenses of the quality of a good DSLR lens.
>>
>>But all told, these P&Ss are quite respectable for casual shooting: and
>>considering the performace to size and price, they are really pretty
>>astounding.
>>
>>There are apparently some possible advances on the horizon in terms of
>>sensors, and it is concievable that within five years P&Ss will essentially
>>match today's DSLRs in image quality (though not in handling or versatility
>>or lens quality achievable with interchangeables).
>>
>>Of course by that time larger-sensor cameras will be that much farther ahead
>>as well.
>>
>>Toby
>>
>
>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.

Ummm... insulting people while repeating the same irrelevant points
does not make them true. Let's see your pictures that prove what you
believe really holds water.

>
>
>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."

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:08 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:22:16 -0600, Nathan Browne <nbrowne@kodak.org>
wrote:

>On 8 Nov 2008 09:07:01 -0600, "Toby" <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>
>>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3qhRk.4408$W06.3960@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> Stephen Henning wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to early reviews, the new Canon G10 appears to be better than
>>>> some of the poorer DSLRs. A DSLR only makes sense if you are using more
>>>> than one lens. For those not needing specialized lenses, and wanting
>>>> light weight compact models, the best P&S fit the bill nicely.
>>>
>>> You're forgetting about auto-focus lag and low-light performance. These
>>> are issues that P&S users complain about endlessly, because these problems
>>> didn't exist when they were using P&S film cameras.
>>
>>Apparently the lens on the G10 is quite good. However the high (even medium)
>>ISO performance is abominable. Resolution at low ISO is like a medium-grade
>>DSLR--not bad. But like all P&Ss it is much too menu-driven for my
>>tastes--no way to quickly change exposure comp on a dial, or shutter
>>speed/aperture combo in program mode. And the lack of an optical viewfinder
>>is a fatal flaw IMO, especially in bright conditions. I hate having to rely
>>on flaky AF and there is no good way to focus manually quickly.
>>
>>Still and all, for a pocket cam, it's great (in sunlight).
>>
>>Toby
>>
>>Toby
>>
>
>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.

Is there an echo in here??

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:13 am
From: marty-sedgeworth

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:57:15 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:48:11 -0600, KenKenseth
><mailnotwanted@mydomain.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:08:22 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hell, you may even see electronic shutters
>>>although those compromise image quality so maybe not. But if they can
>>>figure out how to do them without compromising image quality, then why
>>>not?
>>
>>Where on earth did you get this nonsense?
>>
>>They already have them in P&S cameras that don't compromise anything in image
>>quality. High-speed full-frame captures up to 1/40,000 of a second without any
>>scanned bands of the sensor being read off the chip, as used to exist in all
>>DSLR electronics. See this photo for DSLR sensor readout technology at work
>>with high-speed objects.
>>
>>http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//b/b3/Sensor_readout_anomaly.jpg
>>
>>It's not bad enough that focal-plane shutters have their own image-distorting
>>problems, but many of their sensors have this problem too.
>>
>>The curved bars are the propeller being slowly scanned electronically in
>>horizontal banks across the sensor. That doesn't happen in any P&S cameras (that
>>I know of).
>>
>>You people invent the silliest things to perpetuate on the net. No doubt due to
>>your experiences with the lame electronic architecture and hardware of your
>>DSLRs. You need to get out more and get away from that ancient camera design.
>>
>>I wonder what other technology you're going to steal from P&S cameras to try to
>>make your DSLRs fully functional one day.
>>
>
>Why do you invent a different name for yourself each time you post
>here?
>
>You're happy with your little P&S, so just leave it at that. The fact
>that other people do better work than you do with their better dslrs
>shouldn't threaten you.
>
>

Better work with their "better" dslrs? LOL. Okay, you keep believing that if you
want. But then why are you and they threatened by a pro using a P&S camera for
all their pro needs? Because it reveals something to them, and YOU, that they
can never possess nor buy. It's called "Talent". Ever hear of it? Try it
sometime. It'll save you tons of money and from having to carry backbreaking,
publicly annoying, last-century technology equipment as well as expand your
photographic possibilities and creativity. You'll never know this though, you
are like all the others that are convinced that you can buy "talent in a box".

Btw: "Threatening" has nothing behind the reason I do it. But you've already
proved you're not very bright.

Now to address your troll's off-topic portion of your post:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:01:16 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:

>
>Why don't you just use your real name and stay with it?
>

Good grief, the parade of resident-trolls never ends.

1. Because it drives resident-trolls up the wall and they're too amazingly
stupid to figure out why anyone would do it, even when just told why, so they
keep asking why.

2. Resident-trolls reveal themselves more rapidly so I know which ones they are
and then know to never take anything that they post seriously. They live on the
net with no real experiences, photographic or otherwise. Then I laugh when they
try to give advice to anyone. With luck, others might see how this works and
also realize who the resident-trolls are from the trolls having quickly outted
themselves.

3. I don't like promoting mindless followers. Let insecure need-to-be leaders
fall into that trap. They too are stupid enough.

4. To prove to others that your name is meaningless. What knowledge and wisdom
that you can convey is what matters. The ego of a public identity is of no real
use in life. The need for that is reserved for the terminally insecure.

5. I don't need any support from others to voice and back-up my opinions. The
moment that I find some mindless idiot applauding what I say from one day to the
next it's time to change names.

6. What good is a real name online. Are you coming for dinner? You'll bring the
wrong wine anyway. Just stay away because you're nothing but a fucking idiot.
You've already proved that. I don't allow idiots into my personal life. They're
for you to have as "friends". You deserve them, I don't.

7. If I didn't make this entertaining for myself I couldn't stand to be here
trying to help those that might deserve the help. The resident-trolls like
yourself make this tedious enough. It's not much, but the entertainment quotient
of watching resident-trolls, like you, freak out and jump around helps offset
the drawbacks. It's fun knowing how much of their day they waste trying to hunt
down everyone's names, sort them out, and make their meaningless screen-name
lists that only reveals their emotional and psychiatric problems.

8. I'm not so insecure that I need your recognition nor the recognition of
anyone. In fact if I got continual recognition from an idiot like you I'd
probably want to kill myself for having any connection at all with something as
amazingly stupid as you.

9. Posers can be crafty, it's their only life. They have perfected the art of
deception, self-deception, and being a useless psychotic pretender. It's all
they have in life. It's fun to take away their only reason for being. With luck
they'll finally put that oft-considered suicide option higher on their "What to
do today..." list.

10. Why do just one thing? With this technique I can not only help others but
amuse myself and kill 10 resident-usenet-trolls with one stone. Win win win, all
around.

11. I like typing lists at 130wpm and wasting 4.37 minutes of my time each day.
Because, after all, in the sage advice of Willy Wonka, "A little nonsense now
and then is relished by the wisest of men."

12. And sarcasm, when used judiciously I like sarcasm.

Now copy this post, convert it to a raster-graphic file (GIF format suggested to
conserve file-space), load it into your photo editor, flip it on its vertical
axis--once, print it up, use a staple-gun to affix the resulting print-out to
your upper-lip, then go look in the mirror. Repeat whenever you feel the need to
ask again.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 11:27 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:

>>>Hogwash.
>>>
>>>There are just five reasons why dslrs are superior, and each of them
>>>trump your 25 reasons.
>>
>>"Hammers are superior to screwdrivers. Here's why."
>
>Ah, but what you can do with the combination of a hammer and a
>screwdriver is more than the sum of the tasks you can do individually
>with either!

No argument from me. I've carried my camera bag up to the top of
Mt. Lassen. I know that a good P&S can be nice to have.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

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

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