Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 10 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Full review available now Re: Panasonic G1 - some AF numbers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/380eee98b6f748d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:18 am
From: Steve

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:20:22 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <72psh4d8p478ea95q2rcstqg5jopg819ai@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> I'm only going by what the reviewer said. He said there is EVF lag.
>> It can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
>> doing anything except when you take a picture and maybe when it does
>> the depth of time preview.
>
>In other words you don't know and are just guessing.

Lol,... You need a course in reading comprehension. Again, the EVF
lag can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
doing anything during except when it snaps a picture. So yes, I do
know and I'm not just guessing.

>> I'll bet there is visible lag in the EVF. It may be small with fast
>> shutter time, but it's there. It's there on every single EVF and live
>> view LCD I've ever seen and yes, it's worse with a slower shutter.
>>
>> If you actually stopped to think for a minute you'd realize there has
>> to be lag. All the things needed to read the photons off the sensor,
>> process them into an image, rescale that image for the LCD or EVF and
>> display the image on the LCD or EVF takes time. Slowing down the
>> shutter speed only makes it take more time.
>
>I have checked it and didn't see any noticeable lag at the shorter
>exposure time. There might be a very small lag which however isn't
>noticeable and has no impact for practical purposes. Don't forget that
>human reaction times are a bit longer than 10ms.

I'm sure it has no impact for your practical purposes. That's because
you don't use a P&S for the same type of photography that many people
use a DSLR for. I.e., tracking and shooting fast changing motion like
sports.

Steve

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:39 am
From: Steve

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:38:55 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <9rtsh4p1cltckmjntfnvcm4per3qa4if19@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> However, you're a complete idiot if you think that
>> matters in terms of resolution.
>
>Hmmm... I'm sure the 800x600 G1 EVF has a better image than another
>800x600 EVF where the individual colour dots are spatially separate.

Which is exactly what I said. No space between color dots will make
an equivalent resolution display look better. But it will NOT resolve
any more detail. So it makes no difference in terms of resolution. It
just looks nicer, which is... well, nice.

>
>> But like I said, the resolution may be good enough, but that isn't the
>> main reason this EVF is disappointing. There's also very poor quality
>> in high contrast scenes, with all shadow details completely lost.
>
>Even if that is the case, it does not really matter because you use the
>EVF for framing and focus, not to evaluate if the image was exposed
>properly. For that you can use either the main LCD, otherwise the
>histogram will give you a very precise idea about exposure.

It could be tough to focus and frame certain things you might want to
take a picture of if all of the shadow detail is blank. Things that
have an extremely bright but small subject that you want properly
exposed but still would like to see it in relation to it's
surroundings. The surroundings would be lost.

>> Temporal lag in the displayed image from real time.
>
>Should be a non-issue for practical purposes, given that it should be
>well below 100ms. But it is impossible to debate about this without
>actually having used the camera, so I don't really understand why you
>bring up this matter considering that you don't have sufficient
>information.

I bring it up because it's an issue for fast action shooting.
Something that I do frequently. For instance, I take pictures at
airshows. It would be very difficult to get a shot like this:

http://www.airshowbuzz.com/files/photo/gallery/photos/orig_14538_5e346.JPG

if you have an EVF lag of 100ms or even half that. You'd have to
leave it to luck and maybe go to 50 airshows before you got one at the
instant the planes cross.

>> And most
>> importantly, no EVF view during continuous shooting. Only single
>> captured shots.
>
>As I wrote use the main LCD. By the way, I perhaps use the continuos
>shooting function of my camera on moving scenes 0.000...% of the time.

On the G1, the main LCD also blanks out during continuous shooting.
Obviously, if you don't use burst shooting on moving subject it's not
an issue for you. So go ahead and get one. But I do. So it's a deal
breaker.

>> that last one is a deal breaker.
>>
>> Most of the time you want to
>> use continuous shooting, you're also trying to track a fast moving
>> subject.
>
>You do? Perhaps then you should get a DSLR with a lightning fast AF,
>such as the Nikon D3 for instance. The G1 with its not so lightning fast
>AF is not for you, and it is also not a camera for sports photographers.
>But for most of us who need a general purpose camera and appreciate good
>optical charachteristics and portability (size/weight) the G1 is an
>interesting candidate.

Exactly. However, it looks like the G1 is trying to market itself as
a DSLR replacement. Especially since it costs so much. So it
obviously begs comparison with DSLRs. And one of the areas it falls
short in this comparison is with action shooting.

Steve

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:52 am
From: Steve

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:26:44 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <e5qsh41t17epng5bbeeqelj410cm3dfv3o@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> It is dissapointing and not just because the 800x600 resolution is
>> noticably poor compared to a good OVF. It may be good enough for an
>> EVF, but that's the point. Other reasons besides 1) resolution it's
>> disappointing include 2) very poor quality in high contrast scenes,
>> with all shadow details completely lost. 3) temporal lag in the
>> displayed image from real time 4) no EVF view during continuous
>> shooting. Only single captured shots.
>
>With its 800x600 screen the G1 EVF is actually a huge improvement
>compared to previous EVFs which have 320x240 screens. The reviewer
>himself writes:
>"The electronic viewfinder is particularly impressive, easily the
>clearest EVF we've seen."

I agree it's impressive as far as EVFs go.

>Don't forget that lots of DSLR OVFs are not that good either. The OVF of

Agree with that also. I was just at Best Buy and there was a Canon
Rebel XSi sitting right next to a Nikon D90. The difference was
amazinig. The D90 was so much better.

>> IMHO, that last one is a deal breaker. Most of the time you want to
>> use continuous shooting, you're also trying to track a fast moving
>> subject. Showing single captured images a few times a second and time
>> late from real time would make properly tracking a fast moving subject
>> almost impossible.
>
>Then use the LCD if you want to do continuos shooting.

Can't do that either.

>> Most non-DSLR's have a mechanical shutter?
>
>That is the case with all non-DLSRs I have used so far (Olympus C1400,
>C2000, C4040, C5050, C8080, Sony R1). Even the tiny Olympus mju 700 of
>my wife has a mechanical shutter. Not aware of many non-DSLRs with
>electronic shutters
>
>> Don't let our resident P&S
>> troll see you say that. The assertion was that the G1 was silent when
>> shooting. It's not. It may be quieter than a DSLR, but even with
>> DSLRs, some are much quieter than others. My D200 isn't all that
>> loud.
>
>It is silent enough for practical purposes. I don't have the G1 so can't
>tell you exactly how silent its shutter is, but I have a Sony R1 which
>has a sensor of approx. the same size of the G1 and therefore also a

A Sony R1 is a huge camera in P&S terms. It's about as much a P&S as
a small DSLR in auto mode. I certainly can't fit one in my pocket so
I can carry it around all the time. If you're coming from an R1 and
that's what you're comparing it to, I'm sure the G1 could seem very
attractive.

Steve

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 8:24 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <t5qth4h5jobgce8nh3vh236sscu7ncgpnm@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>
> Exactly. However, it looks like the G1 is trying to market itself as
> a DSLR replacement. Especially since it costs so much. So it
> obviously begs comparison with DSLRs. And one of the areas it falls
> short in this comparison is with action shooting.

It's a DSLR replacement for certain purposes and these do not include
fast action. For that you need a fast AF which at the moment is only
available with phase AF systems. Sports photographers won't sell their
D3 to buy a G1.

Regarding the price you need to wait a little bit because the camera is
new.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 8:30 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <9ppth4phtlodkkcg00cdie145ud0ht9277@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:20:22 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <72psh4d8p478ea95q2rcstqg5jopg819ai@4ax.com>, Steve says...
> >>
> >> I'm only going by what the reviewer said. He said there is EVF lag.
> >> It can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
> >> doing anything except when you take a picture and maybe when it does
> >> the depth of time preview.
> >
> >In other words you don't know and are just guessing.
>
> Lol,... You need a course in reading comprehension. Again, the EVF
> lag can't be due to the shutter because the shutter is not actively
> doing anything during except when it snaps a picture. So yes, I do
> know and I'm not just guessing.

Perhaps you need some course in reading comprehension. The statement was
made that the lag in the EVF is proportional to the exposure time (what
you refer to as "shutter speed"). You said that this is not the case.
But the reality is that you have nothing on which to base your claim.

> >> I'll bet there is visible lag in the EVF. It may be small with fast
> >> shutter time, but it's there. It's there on every single EVF and live
> >> view LCD I've ever seen and yes, it's worse with a slower shutter.
> >>
> >> If you actually stopped to think for a minute you'd realize there has
> >> to be lag. All the things needed to read the photons off the sensor,
> >> process them into an image, rescale that image for the LCD or EVF and
> >> display the image on the LCD or EVF takes time. Slowing down the
> >> shutter speed only makes it take more time.
> >
> >I have checked it and didn't see any noticeable lag at the shorter
> >exposure time. There might be a very small lag which however isn't
> >noticeable and has no impact for practical purposes. Don't forget that
> >human reaction times are a bit longer than 10ms.
>
> I'm sure it has no impact for your practical purposes. That's because
> you don't use a P&S for the same type of photography that many people
> use a DSLR for. I.e., tracking and shooting fast changing motion like
> sports.

Let's say it has no impact for anybody who doesn't care about a 10ms or
so delay.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

==============================================================================
TOPIC: people who have used CHDK
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/451b60dcef8ca366?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:19 am
From: SMS

Alan Browne wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> As Pete points out, let's see some full samples that show the advantage.
>>
>> To show an advantage would require some sort of side by side
>> comparison, with and without it. That's not going to happen.
>
> Why not? Somebody must be enthusiastic enough about it to show the
> advantages.

Do you think that a live histogram is ever useful in improving your shots?

Do you think that being able to control the shutter speed is ever useful?

Do you think that knowing your battery level to a finer degree would
ever help you avoid missing a shot?

Do you think that shooting in RAW mode is ever advantageous?

These are not things that you can easily quantify in a side by side
comparison.

I find CHDK useful on occasion. It won't fix the inherent issues with a
P&S, the auto-focus/shutter lag is still slow, the dynamic range is
still poorer, and the noise is still higher. But it _does_ have its uses.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:47 am
From: SMS

Steve wrote:

> That probably depends on the type of batteries and the camera and
> maybe the version you've loaded. When I installed CHDK on mine, I
> didn't have to change anything it reads 100% with freshly charged NiMH
> batteries.

It's possible that they set the voltage too low in that case, You want
to set the top voltage in the Advanced Menu > OSD Parameters > Battery
Parameters to the level where freshly charged batteries are at 99% (or
where the percentage indicator changes from 100% to 99% shortly after
the batteries are installed. If it's staying at 100% for very long then
the high voltage setting is too low. It's hard to gauge NiMH batteries
because they have such a flat discharge curve, unlike Li-Ion which have
a pretty linear discharge curve.

For my camera, they probably looked at the voltage, not under load, of a
fully charged Li-Ion battery, and made that the default setting. In
reality they need to look at the voltage under load for each camera with
a fully charged battery, and set that at the top voltage, and look at
where the camera shuts down and set that as the low voltage. It's
different for every camera, and it's a lot of work because you'd have to
run some wires out of the camera to be able to do this. It's no big
deal, no one expects these guys to be experts on battery technology.

You can also do it empirically by putting a fully charged battery into
the camera, then changing the top voltage setting to where the
percentage indicator falls from 100% to 99%. That's how I did it.
Figuring out the proper bottom setting is a bit more of a pain, but it
can be done.

Since each version of CHDK is used in a variety of cameras, you can't
expect the writers, all volunteers, to go into such detail. I just
wanted to make sure people that use CHDK understand that there is some
work to do to customize it to their camera.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:53 am
From: SMS

Steve wrote:

> Of course, my DSLR does all of those things out of the box... RGBY
> histograms, blinking blown highlights and shadows, intervalometer,
> saving RAW data, detailed battery status, etc. etc. But it's cool to
> get those features in a P&S even though Canon left them out when they
> could have easily included them.

That's how I feel about CHDK. It gives me a lot of the features that are
built into the D-SLR, suff that's often useful.

I guess I don't really blame Canon (and every other manufacturer) for
not including this stuff on P&S models but putting it into D-SLRs. It's
a totally different market. They figured that anyone wanting these
features is also concerned about low noise, wide dynamic range, low
shutter lag, etc., things that you can't get on a P&S no matter how
fully featured the firmware.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:54 am
From: Steve

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:09:57 -0600, GonzalasSmith
<gsmith@anywhereanyplace.com> wrote:

>Chalk up one more advantage to using and promoting CHDK, it PROVES who is and is
>not a virtual-photographer troll on usenet. :-)
>
>LOL

With our resident P&S troll promoting CHDK, it's plainly obvious that
it does NOT do that.

Steve

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:58 am
From: DustinAppleby

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:47:43 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>Since each version of CHDK is used in a variety of cameras, you can't
>expect the writers, all volunteers, to go into such detail. I just
>wanted to make sure people that use CHDK understand that there is some
>work to do to customize it to their camera.

Actually, they understand WAY more than you ever will. Each version of CHDK is
tailored specifically for that camera model, even down to the firmware version.
See previous replies to your virtual-photographer's insanity that fully exposes
you for the total fraud that you are.

Another reason to love CHDK, it has now proved that SMS doesn't even know how to
charge his batteries (does he even have any?). LOL

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 8:01 am
From: MSM

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:53:10 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>
>> Of course, my DSLR does all of those things out of the box... RGBY
>> histograms, blinking blown highlights and shadows, intervalometer,
>> saving RAW data, detailed battery status, etc. etc. But it's cool to
>> get those features in a P&S even though Canon left them out when they
>> could have easily included them.
>
>That's how I feel about CHDK. It gives me a lot of the features that are
>built into the D-SLR, suff that's often useful.
>
>I guess I don't really blame Canon (and every other manufacturer) for
>not including this stuff on P&S models but putting it into D-SLRs. It's
>a totally different market. They figured that anyone wanting these
>features is also concerned about low noise, wide dynamic range, low
>shutter lag, etc., things that you can't get on a P&S no matter how
>fully featured the firmware.

Dear Resident-Troll,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Response to P&S reasons list
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a54d4f54a92e6ebf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:22 am
From:

In the meantime, I'll just go play in those newsgroups where I'd lose my home if
anyone found out what I was doing there ....

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 8:29 am
From: old.salt@cmaaccess.com

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:22:05 -0600, <old.saIt@cmaaccess.com> wrote:

>In the meantime, I'll just go play in those newsgroups where I'd lose my home if
>anyone found out what I was doing there ....

Proof a forger can NOT change the X-Abuse Fields in the
header.
--
I hope you like my photos at www.myspace.com/osalt
If you would like to buy one, e-mail me, prints up
to 30x20 inches.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Printer (and laptop) preferences?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bf598c8109289ef5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:24 am
From: ray

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:22:38 -0600, Longfellow wrote:

> On 2008-11-14, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe that a complete rewrite of GIMP is underway that will remove
>> that limitation - I've not checked on it progress recently.
>
> That would be GEGL (General Graphics Libraries). It was going to be a
> code replacement some versions back but never got up to speed for that
> purpose. The major reason for the project, as I recall, was to increase
> word length (color depth?) for GNU graphic software. Dunno about ray
> tracing apps, though.
>
> Checking just now reveals that some GEGL functionality is included in
> the latest Gimp, but not the increased word length capability. That
> includes float as a type, of course. OTOH, Cineprint had word length as
> type float, which enabled CMYK functionality, IIRC. I did some alpha
> testing of some of those changes a while back and still have the code
> itself, though it'll have to be recompiled for the new libraries...
>
> Problem is that both the Gimp and its spin-offs rely too heavily on
> scripting for most users, and even coders get tired of having to edit
> scripts all the time (or at least I do). So Photoshop might just be
> worth hassling with Microsoft bloatware, especially as it looks like I
> might be doing some continuous work (instead of incidental, that is...)
>
> Longfellow

Other options: run photoshop on Linux via Wine; install your MS as a
virtual machine inside your Linux install with VirtualBox.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Red
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/79eeb5c2feb0566f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:25 am
From: "Me"

"RichA" <obama@haslittletime.com> wrote in message
news:SuKdnfK-ZdvtxoPUnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Eric Miller" <miller_nospam_eric@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:mo5Tk.65088$De7.37697@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> More info about the new RED DSLR
>>> http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/11/thoughts-on-the-red-annoucement-from-a-red-one-user.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens
>>
>> I want the Epic 617; 261 megapixels, 16 bit AD conversion, 13+ stop
>> dynamic range and all at 25 frames per second. That should fill my hard
>> drive pretty quickly.
>>
>> Of course, according to some, it's just not possible . . .
>
> Hasselblad, Phase, Leaf, etc. I wonder who is actually fabricating that
> CCD?
>
It's FartwareT, like vapourware, but smells... I haven't found anyone who
is making a image sensor that large. It's likely going to be an array of
sensors that the firmware ignores the seams.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 8:18 am
From: Paul Furman

Me Here wrote:
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:7k1ph4t8olt2of49ntehr679dvb020kts5@4ax.com...
>> More info about the new RED DSLR
>> http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/11/thoughts-on-the-red-annoucement-from-a-red-one-user.html
>>
>>
> Not a dSLR, it has an EVF or a monitor. By the time it's set-up for photos
> the body will be arount USD $20K, for a 25 mp FF non-dSLR.
>
> Hmmmm, a year until delivery, USD $12,000 for a 24 mp non-dSLR body in
> either Nikon or Canon mount. Note that does NOT include the EVF, it's just
> the sensor module. But add the EVF ($3K) the battery ($450), the CF Module
> ($500) to the recorder and the I/O module (no price found)
>
> So for about USD $20K you have a big bulky 24x36mm 24 megapixel with no
> lens. The unti is around the size of a Mamiya RZ67, and looks cumbersome to
> use.
>
> AND IT IS NOT A dSLR!

Yeah but it's a 1080p EVF and a big budget Hollywood cinema camera too.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 8:20 am
From: Paul Furman

Eric Miller wrote:
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> More info about the new RED DSLR
>> http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/11/thoughts-on-the-red-annoucement-from-a-red-one-user.html
>
> I want the Epic 617; 261 megapixels, 16 bit AD conversion, 13+ stop
> dynamic range and all at 25 frames per second. That should fill my hard
> drive pretty quickly.

Looks like you can get a hard drive that mounts on the camera.

> Of course, according to some, it's just not possible . . .
>
> Eric Miller
> www.dyesscreek.com

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D700x expected announcement date Dec 20
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b661268290174a96?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:27 am
From: "Me Here"

"RichA" <obama@haslittletime.com> wrote in message
news:mIidnXgLJvrnwYPUnZ2dnUVZ8omdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Nikon needs to step up more. 40 megapixels on a 45mm sensor.
>
Why, then they would have to get a new lens system.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:36 am
From: Alan Browne

Me Here wrote:
> "RichA" <obama@haslittletime.com> wrote in message
> news:mIidnXgLJvrnwYPUnZ2dnUVZ8omdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Nikon needs to step up more. 40 megapixels on a 45mm sensor.
>>
> Why, then they would have to get a new lens system.

Lucrative that. And as a by-product you make lenses for the Hassy's
(which use Fujinon lenses); Mamiya's, Leaf's, Phase One, Leica S2, ... etc.

I don't see Nikon doing this, but you never know...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Buying cameras at Walmart
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e04833c6e0317451?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:31 am
From: "Me Here"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8qush4dhti01ipfnunkgtc5jghqrir7t55@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:59:19 -0800 (PST), AlanRRT@aol.com wrote:
>
Stuff about Wal-Mart selling seconds from Pentax deleted ...
>
> If Wal-Mart is selling a Pentax K20D that is of inferior quality to a
> K20D that is sold by a dedicated camera store, that would indicate
> that Pentax was willing to jeopardize their reputation by
> manufacturing an inferior model. That would make me distrust Pentax.
> Wal-Mart might be the one asking, but it would be Pentax the one that
> was doing.
>
Pentax sells their seconds rebadged under the name Nikon ;)

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:32 am
From: SMS

tony cooper wrote:

> If it's a Pentax K20D, it would be my assumption that it's the same
> camera as sold in any camera store.

Wal-Mart is more expensive than the reputable NYC stores, by $5-80. We
won't even talk about sales tax!

Pentax K20D 14.6MP Digital DSLR - Body Only
Wal-Mart: $829
Buydig: $749

Pentax K20D 14.6MP Digital SLR Camera w/ 18-55mm Lens Value Bundle -
Includes Pentax Sling Bag and 2GB SD Card
Wal-Mart: $899
Buydig: $894 (4GB card, not 2GB) Kit is $869, Case is $25

Pentax K20D 14.6MP Digital SLR Camera Dual Lens Kit with 18-55mm and
50-200mm Lenses
Wal-Mart: $1119
Buydig: $1054 [(4GB card) Kit is $869, 50-200mm lens is $185]

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:41 am
From: MoronSpotter

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 06:58:17 -0800, old.salt@cmaaccess.com wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:17:04 -0600, MoronSpotter
><moronspotter@spotters.com> wrote:
>
>>Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
>>
>>Done.
>>
>>LOL
>
> Your spam is filtered from AIOE get over it.

Dear Resident-Troll,

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

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

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

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Blow-out correction
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/335bd6c868a220ad?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:46 am
From: Alan Browne

tony cooper wrote:

> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken in Savannah, Georgia.
> I live in Orlando, Florida. Mapquest says that's over a 4 hour drive,
> but Mapquest doesn't factor in restroom and meal stops.
>
> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken with a Nikon P2
> because I was too lazy to walk back to the car and get my D40 out of
> the trunk. P2s don't shoot raw.

> As explained in other posts, I use Photoshop v 7.0 and don't own CS3.

What makes you think I read the other posts? I read and reply in
posting order.

I guess your take from this should be:

1. When in high DR, it pays to under expose. Blown highlights are gone;
underexposure can be raised, if at the expense of some noise.

2. When in high DR, it pays to shoot raw and under expose. More of 1
above. Dump the P2. Keep your D40 (relatively small) handy.

3. When shooting something worth shooting it pays to use the right
camera and technique (see 1 and 2 above).

As to PS 7, I don't know if it can do the same functions, that is up to
you to find out. I just suggested the means to do so and that AFAIK the
result will not be terribly pleasing.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 8:23 am
From: tony cooper

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:46:43 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken in Savannah, Georgia.
>> I live in Orlando, Florida. Mapquest says that's over a 4 hour drive,
>> but Mapquest doesn't factor in restroom and meal stops.
>>
>> As explained in other posts, the shot was taken with a Nikon P2
>> because I was too lazy to walk back to the car and get my D40 out of
>> the trunk. P2s don't shoot raw.
>
>> As explained in other posts, I use Photoshop v 7.0 and don't own CS3.
>
>What makes you think I read the other posts? I read and reply in
>posting order.

I assume you do, and probably rightly so. It's unlikely that you just
randomly select a post to read and not read others. It is likely that
you might skip posts entered by known trolls, though.

>I guess your take from this should be:
>
>1. When in high DR, it pays to under expose. Blown highlights are gone;
>underexposure can be raised, if at the expense of some noise.
>
>2. When in high DR, it pays to shoot raw and under expose. More of 1
>above. Dump the P2. Keep your D40 (relatively small) handy.
>
>3. When shooting something worth shooting it pays to use the right
>camera and technique (see 1 and 2 above).
>

No, Alan, my take is that I think I have an interesting problem of
blown highlights in a photograph that might otherwise be interesting.
Not great, but interesting. That take prompts me to offer the image
for discussion.

My take is also that some people enjoy figuring out how to bolt the
barn door after the horse is gone by using Photoshop. I can't imagine
that there's any active photographer in this group who hasn't taken an
image thinking at the time that he's done it right, and finding out
later that there's a problem in the photo. I can't imagine that
there's any active photographer in this group who has not been in the
position of seeing an interesting scene but not having the right
equipment with him at the time. It happens.

My take is that some will read this and participate in the discussion
with helpful suggestions, some who will read this and would rather go
do battle with the resident trolls, and some who will read this and
make useless suggestions like "dump the P2" and "use the right
equipment".

What do you want out of this newsgroup, Alan? Endless discussions
about P&S capabilities, a series of character attacks on the other
posters, a bigoted commentary about homosexuals, or more dreary
side-taking on Nikon vs Canon?

Or, would you rather have a discussion about an actual digital image
that didn't work out right and what can be done about it? If this is
your choice, provide meaningful commentary or go on to what interests
you.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - The story of SMS, Steven M Scharf/Dr Sumner C. Roberts..
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/63eb5d15579b0077?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 7:58 am
From: SMS

tony cooper wrote:

> We watched the launch tonight from here in Orlando. We'd gone out to
> dinner, and watched it from a parking lot. Just a blaze of fiery
> light in the sky, but impressive nonetheless.

When I lived in South Florida, we'd go out to the beach to watch the
night launches. You could still see it clearly from 200 miles away. Very
impressive.

Now go climb Mount Dora.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Setting moon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24febd32370922f9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 8:31 am
From: "mianileng"

A few days ago, when I was getting ready for bed around 4:00 am, I happened
to glance out the window and noticed the color of the setting moon. I
grabbed my camera but was too tired and sleepy to set up a tripod or try out
various manual exposure settings. So I shot handheld with spot-metering
at -1 EV.

I lost the EXIF data while cropping and making slight adjustments to
contrast and brightness in bitmap with Irfanview (no noise reduction). Here
they are:

Pana FZ30
Spot focus, Spot metering (-1EV)
ISO80
f/4.0, 1/80sec
420mm equiv.

Shooting handheld half-asleep at 1/80 sec at 420mm, in low light with a
noisy P&S through thick hazy atmosphere close to the horizon is a recipe for
disaster, and the result is no better than could be expected. But at least
the hue was captured quite faithfully. Just wanted to share:
http://tinyurl.com/59e2jq

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

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