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:

* OT: Obama's Birth Certificate - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d1aaeba15e393e31?hl=en
* Hey Arlan, where are your photos? - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2b0b8721f86b8173?hl=en
* Just what is a photograph - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ae5b8bcd68d37760?hl=en
* 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo
corrections) - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/541401c3b2747095?hl=en
* Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11 - 5 messages, 5
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3fc2177d18a4204e?hl=en
* Virus? USB 500GB external hard disk is now "raw format" - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c035c135ff7b2122?hl=en
* OT Re: Which free software could acquire 48 bits color depth pictures from a
scanner ? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a04fec022c17778?hl=en
* Overpriced P&S's aimed at the idiot class - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/720ac8e6cfa7eebc?hl=en
* ATTN: Resident-Troll ASSAR, a.k.a. Stephen Bishop, here's your picture... -
2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4822a6759d4659f0?hl=en
* See the reaction to Dpreview slagging a Canon product - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0b3fb6e5d3c7fb4d?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Obama's Birth Certificate
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d1aaeba15e393e31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 8:46 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

HEMI-Powered <none@none.sn> wrote:
>tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> The "fuss" was created by the tinfoil hat brigade who claimed
>> that Obama was not born in Hawaii. The State of Hawaii saw no
>> reason to publicly release an official copy of his birth
>> certificate showing that he was. They evidently did confirm,
>> to the proper authorities, that the certificate was on file
>> but declined to release it publicly.
>
>Had there been a true legal challenge, then the candidate would
>have to submit proof of citizenship. I would remind you, however,
>that Hawaii was NOT a state when Obama was born.

And neither was Panama.

>> There is no valid reason for a state to release private
>> information publicly. Especially in a case where only the
>> loonies have an interest.
>
>No, but the candidate WOULD have to release any relevent
>information in order to clear their name both to the law and to the
>voters,

Obviously not.

> but none was or is required here of EITHER former
>candidate.

Then you must be wrong.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 8:48 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Allen <not@here.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On 25 Nov 2008 14:29:57 GMT, That80sGuy <clark@griswold.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In message news:5ohIMRU78$KJFAKH@phaedsys.demon.co.uk, Chris H
>>> <chris@phaedsys.org> done wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <492be9bf$0$28625$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>, BÔwser
>>>> <b0wser@h0me.c0m> writes
>>>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:qMWM1MPkYtKJFArk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>> In message <Xns9B605DEDFC3D6ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI-Powered
>>>>>> <none@none.sn> writes
>>>>>>> Evad Remlu added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550
>>>>>>> Totally assinine! A territory of the United States or anything
>>>>>>> legally like one ARE considered to be "American soil" for the
>>>>>>> purposes of deciding on natural born citizenship. While I am not
>>>>>>> exctly happy with the president-elect, he DOES meet the
>>>>>>> Constitutional test for both native born American and age. So did
>>>>>>> John McCain who was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
>>>>>> Panama ain't the USA? It's Panama
>>>>> McCain was born on a US base, which is considered US soil wherever it
>>>>> is. His citizenship is without question.
>>>> Quite. I assume that born on a US base would make him a US citizen
>>>> regardless of parentage?
>>> No. US base + military father = US "natural born" citizen.
>>
>> No. "Parent", not "father" and "US citizen" not "military". If the
>> mother is a US citizen, and the father is not, the child is still a US
>> citizen. The parent need not be in the military. Military bases
>> employ civilian workers.
>>
>> Do you ever get anything right?
>>
>I thought at first that "That80sGuy" was a reference, for some reason,
>the the 1980s. However, I think we now have conclusive evidence to show
>that it is a reference to his IQ. And Chevy Chase should sue.

It's why the term "rightard" was invented.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 8:53 am
From: That80sGuy

In message news:492c2c61$0$2810$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) done wrote:

> Allen <not@here.com> wrote:
>>tony cooper wrote:
>>> On 25 Nov 2008 14:29:57 GMT, That80sGuy <clark@griswold.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message news:5ohIMRU78$KJFAKH@phaedsys.demon.co.uk, Chris H
>>>> <chris@phaedsys.org> done wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <492be9bf$0$28625$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
>>>>> BÔwser <b0wser@h0me.c0m> writes
>>>>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:qMWM1MPkYtKJFArk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>>> In message <Xns9B605DEDFC3D6ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>,
>>>>>>> HEMI-Powered <none@none.sn> writes
>>>>>>>> Evad Remlu added these comments in the current discussion du
>>>>>>>> jour ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550
>>>>>>>> Totally assinine! A territory of the United States or anything
>>>>>>>> legally like one ARE considered to be "American soil" for the
>>>>>>>> purposes of deciding on natural born citizenship. While I am not
>>>>>>>> exctly happy with the president-elect, he DOES meet the
>>>>>>>> Constitutional test for both native born American and age. So
>>>>>>>> did John McCain who was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
>>>>>>> Panama ain't the USA? It's Panama
>>>>>> McCain was born on a US base, which is considered US soil wherever
>>>>>> it is. His citizenship is without question.
>>>>> Quite. I assume that born on a US base would make him a US citizen
>>>>> regardless of parentage?
>>>> No. US base + military father = US "natural born" citizen.
>>>
>>> No. "Parent", not "father" and "US citizen" not "military". If the
>>> mother is a US citizen, and the father is not, the child is still a
>>> US citizen. The parent need not be in the military. Military bases
>>> employ civilian workers.
>>>
>>> Do you ever get anything right?
>>>
>>I thought at first that "That80sGuy" was a reference, for some reason,
>>the the 1980s. However, I think we now have conclusive evidence to show
>>that it is a reference to his IQ. And Chevy Chase should sue.
>
> It's why the term "rightard" was invented.

Yes, because some people know their arguments are meritless, they had to
resort to first-grade-level namecalling.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 10:07 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

That80sGuy <clark@griswold.com> wrote:
>In message news:492c2c61$0$2810$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
>rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) done wrote:
>
>> Allen <not@here.com> wrote:
>>>tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On 25 Nov 2008 14:29:57 GMT, That80sGuy <clark@griswold.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message news:5ohIMRU78$KJFAKH@phaedsys.demon.co.uk, Chris H
>>>>> <chris@phaedsys.org> done wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <492be9bf$0$28625$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
>>>>>> BÔwser <b0wser@h0me.c0m> writes
>>>>>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:qMWM1MPkYtKJFArk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>>>> In message <Xns9B605DEDFC3D6ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>,
>>>>>>>> HEMI-Powered <none@none.sn> writes
>>>>>>>>> Evad Remlu added these comments in the current discussion du
>>>>>>>>> jour ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550
>>>>>>>>> Totally assinine! A territory of the United States or anything
>>>>>>>>> legally like one ARE considered to be "American soil" for the
>>>>>>>>> purposes of deciding on natural born citizenship. While I am not
>>>>>>>>> exctly happy with the president-elect, he DOES meet the
>>>>>>>>> Constitutional test for both native born American and age. So
>>>>>>>>> did John McCain who was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
>>>>>>>> Panama ain't the USA? It's Panama
>>>>>>> McCain was born on a US base, which is considered US soil wherever
>>>>>>> it is. His citizenship is without question.
>>>>>> Quite. I assume that born on a US base would make him a US citizen
>>>>>> regardless of parentage?
>>>>> No. US base + military father = US "natural born" citizen.
>>>>
>>>> No. "Parent", not "father" and "US citizen" not "military". If the
>>>> mother is a US citizen, and the father is not, the child is still a
>>>> US citizen. The parent need not be in the military. Military bases
>>>> employ civilian workers.
>>>>
>>>> Do you ever get anything right?
>>>>
>>>I thought at first that "That80sGuy" was a reference, for some reason,
>>>the the 1980s. However, I think we now have conclusive evidence to show
>>>that it is a reference to his IQ. And Chevy Chase should sue.
>>
>> It's why the term "rightard" was invented.
>
>Yes, because some people know their arguments are meritless,

I especially liked the way you insisted that Obama flew to Hawaii to
deal with a lawsuit that didn't even involve him.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hey Arlan, where are your photos?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2b0b8721f86b8173?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 8:48 am
From: JC Dill

werner-banner wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:44:30 -0800, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For instance, Annie Leibovitz doesn't have a personal website but you
>> can find plenty of examples of her work on the Vanity Fair website.
>
> Rag published photos? Okay, if that's your idea of all "pros". :-)

That's not my idea of "all pros" - it was an example of "a pro" who
doesn't have a personal website, but still has examples of her photos
available online.

Put it another way - name me a pro photographer you know or know of that
has NO photos online. IMHO, any such "pro" is extremely unlikely to be
a real pro photographer and much more likely to be a wanna be. There's
a remote possibility that a real pro photographer exists who has no work
online, but I'd want to see someone post an example case to prove it.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 10:21 am
From: dan_carpenter

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:48:45 -0800, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>werner-banner wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:44:30 -0800, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For instance, Annie Leibovitz doesn't have a personal website but you
>>> can find plenty of examples of her work on the Vanity Fair website.
>>
>> Rag published photos? Okay, if that's your idea of all "pros". :-)
>
>That's not my idea of "all pros" - it was an example of "a pro" who
>doesn't have a personal website, but still has examples of her photos
>available online.
>
>Put it another way - name me a pro photographer you know or know of that
>has NO photos online. IMHO, any such "pro" is extremely unlikely to be
>a real pro photographer and much more likely to be a wanna be. There's
>a remote possibility that a real pro photographer exists who has no work
>online, but I'd want to see someone post an example case to prove it.
>
>jc
>
>

What? You want someone else to do all the work for you to prove your own point
for you? You're more stupid than anyone thought.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 11:23 am
From: JC Dill

dan_carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:48:45 -0800, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> werner-banner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:44:30 -0800, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For instance, Annie Leibovitz doesn't have a personal website but you
>>>> can find plenty of examples of her work on the Vanity Fair website.
>>> Rag published photos? Okay, if that's your idea of all "pros". :-)
>> That's not my idea of "all pros" - it was an example of "a pro" who
>> doesn't have a personal website, but still has examples of her photos
>> available online.
>>
>> Put it another way - name me a pro photographer you know or know of that
>> has NO photos online. IMHO, any such "pro" is extremely unlikely to be
>> a real pro photographer and much more likely to be a wanna be. There's
>> a remote possibility that a real pro photographer exists who has no work
>> online, but I'd want to see someone post an example case to prove it.
>>
> What? You want someone else to do all the work for you to prove your own point
> for you? You're more stupid than anyone thought.

MY point is that pro photographers show at least SOME of their work
online. I've given examples - both a well respected pro photographer
who shows his work on his own website, and a photographer whose work is
available online on a site run by her primary employer. Your claim is
that some pro photographers don't show their work online. It's YOUR job
to do the work to prove YOUR point. If you don't understand that then
you are the stupid one.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 8:52 am
From: "ChrisM"

In message
cae98668-f46a-4921-a6c1-1d2b9cf9ef93@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea what
> a photograph was. You shone light on a negative, developed it, put in
> in an enlarger, shone light on a piece of light-sensitive paper, and
> developed that. When you got done you had a photograph. You could
> add elements, dodge, burn, screw with chemicals or make lithos; but in
> the end it all came down to shining light on a piece of paper and
> getting a print.
>
> Last week I was working on a silhouette. I took a (digital) picture
> of the person, copied it and used two copies of the same image -- one
> mirror image of the other -- so they were facing each other. I
> printed the faces in "white" and the space between them in black. I
> then used an exacto knife to cut away the white areas leaving me with
> just the black area. The profile of the faces were preserved in the
> cut-line.
>
> I tried calling what I had left "a photograph" but I in effect, it was
> more of a negative of the original image. The only think I really had
> left was a representation of what I had NOT photographed, not what I
> had photographed. The other thing that I pondered was the fact that
> the image was not represented in "b&w" or in some tonality but the
> image was represented physically as to whether there was paper there
> or not.
>
> I all made me start thinking "is this a photograph or not". Just what
> is a photograph in the age of digital printing. How is a digital
> image any different than a really pretty Excel document. How much can
> you manipulate a "photo" before it becomes something else -- and when
> it becomes something else, what does it become?

Have you been smoking something...??

:-)

Seriously though, some interesting points raised!

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 10:19 am
From: "Frank Arthur"

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:cae98668-f46a-4921-a6c1-1d2b9cf9ef93@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea
> what
> a photograph was. You shone light on a negative, developed it, put
> in
> in an enlarger, shone light on a piece of light-sensitive paper, and
> developed that. When you got done you had a photograph. You could
> add elements, dodge, burn, screw with chemicals or make lithos; but
> in
> the end it all came down to shining light on a piece of paper and
> getting a print.
>
> Last week I was working on a silhouette. I took a (digital) picture
> of the person, copied it and used two copies of the same image --
> one
> mirror image of the other -- so they were facing each other. I
> printed the faces in "white" and the space between them in black. I
> then used an exacto knife to cut away the white areas leaving me
> with
> just the black area. The profile of the faces were preserved in the
> cut-line.
>
> I tried calling what I had left "a photograph" but I in effect, it
> was
> more of a negative of the original image. The only think I really
> had
> left was a representation of what I had NOT photographed, not what I
> had photographed. The other thing that I pondered was the fact that
> the image was not represented in "b&w" or in some tonality but the
> image was represented physically as to whether there was paper there
> or not.
>
> I all made me start thinking "is this a photograph or not". Just
> what
> is a photograph in the age of digital printing. How is a digital
> image any different than a really pretty Excel document. How much
> can
> you manipulate a "photo" before it becomes something else -- and
> when
> it becomes something else, what does it become?

As soon as I decipher "What is art" I'll get back to you on "What is a
photograph". In the meantime I will continue with my joy of working
with images as long as my eyes continue to receive light.

Frank

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 10:45 am
From: "Frank Arthur"

In the old days? Depending on how old the days.
Did you start with a piece of clear glass and coat it with a silver
salt mixture imbedded in gelatin? Or did you put a roll of Kodachrome
positive slide film in your camera which was processed by Kodak and
arrived at your door as positive color images mounted in cardboard?
If you developed your own B&W negatives did you ever deliberately heat
the film to cause reticulation and get strange effects? Or exposed the
film part way through developing to make solarized images. Weren't
these all "photographs"?

It seems the two elements needed for photography are "images" and
"light".
All and everything we are now doing today with Digital work is dealing
with "images" and "light". Whether the light is being formed throught
the lens onto a sensor or images manipulated using a scanner. Whether
the images are printed with an Inkjet or viewed on a monitor they
require light to get to your eyes in order to see them. They are all
"photography".

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 8:52 am
From: Jer Chilster

On 25 Nov 2008 16:33:49 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Calvin Orwell <corwell@trollopposer.org> wrote:
>>On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:14:47 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No p&s camera has optics made with
>>>the precision of a professional lab instrument. If they did ...
>>
>>.... then they would show slight signs of image degradation as the aperture is
>>reduced from largest to smallest. That's called "diffraction-limited". You can't
>>get better than that on any optics. Seems to me that that's been observed on
>>most P&S glass.
>
>You're confused. Degradation due do diffraction can happen even with
>sub-par optics. It's not an effect that prevents other optical
>distortions.

Please go educate yourself with some 1st-year physics and optics courses. If you
can make it that far.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 9:08 am
From: Stuffed Crust

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Calvin Orwell <corwell@trollopposer.org> wrote:
> Remember that, "diffraction-limited" = "BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE OPTICS".

A perfect turd... is still a turd.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 10:06 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Jer Chilster <jerchilster@domainnumbereight.net> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Calvin Orwell <corwell@trollopposer.org> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:14:47 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No p&s camera has optics made with
>>>>the precision of a professional lab instrument. If they did ...
>>>
>>>.... then they would show slight signs of image degradation as the aperture is
>>>reduced from largest to smallest. That's called "diffraction-limited". You can't
>>>get better than that on any optics. Seems to me that that's been observed on
>>>most P&S glass.
>>
>>You're confused. Degradation due do diffraction can happen even with
>>sub-par optics. It's not an effect that prevents other optical
>>distortions.
>
>Please go educate yourself with some 1st-year physics and optics courses.

Take your own advice, moron.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 10:15 am
From: larry kindal

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:08:27 +0000 (UTC), Stuffed Crust
<pizza@spam.fucktheusers.org> wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Calvin Orwell <corwell@trollopposer.org> wrote:
>> Remember that, "diffraction-limited" = "BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE OPTICS".
>
>A perfect turd... is still a turd.
>
> - Solomon

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. See this side-by-side
comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done, you will spend 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: 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 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 8:57 am
From: Stuffed Crust

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems PlacerJohan <pjoahn@antispam.com> wrote:
> Certainly not from within any distance where they can be heard from a
> block away snapping off pictures.

...or you can use a P&S and be heard two blocks off by the whine of the
focus and zoom motors. Whatever.

> You must be a pretty poor shopper if you don't realize the many more
> advantages over a DSLR.

A (compact) P&S camera has exactly one undisputable advantage over a
DSLR -- size/weight. But then a tiny P&S camera has very few of the
"25" advantages you so thoughtfully regurgitate so often. Indeed, is
there any one camera out there that hits all, or even 2/3rds of that
list?

> Oh yes, you're so intelligent that you'll be using a camera for
> surveillance in war conditions where the noise from your camera will
> get you killed. You are SO intelligent.

It's more intelligent to conduct surveillence at the greatest
distance possible.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 8:58 am
From: Avery Marlin

On 25 Nov 2008 16:28:16 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>In message <f9hmi49rntfc2fh9a6npvcahnd97eh7quh@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:03:31 -0600, PetePalance
>>><petepalance@spamblocker.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:12:38 -0500, Stephen Bishop
>>>><nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If you are truly an award-winning photographer, I would think you
>>>>>would have posted images that were more in line with your abilities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You don't read anything that you reply to, do you, just like all
>>>>usenet-trolls.
>>>>:-)
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you just recently post a quote from someone that said exactly why real
>>>>pros don't post their marketable photography online? Is your memory also
>>>>hindered by your drastic lack of intellect? Must be. Those are some seriously
>>>>disabling qualities that you're displaying about yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>You keep repeating that lie, and you keep clipping text. But don't
>>>worry, the FBI is very good at forensics when it comes to someone
>>>making online threats.
>>
>>The FBI has no jurisdiction other than mainland USA.
>
> Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc., the world's largest
> social-networking Web site, won an order requiring the owner of a
> Canadian-based site to pay $873.3 million for illegally using
> Facebook users'log-in information to send spam.
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aTYkRQR_Lifo&refer=us

Dear Resident-Troll,

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

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

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

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

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 10:11 am
From: Mitch_Prestor

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:36:32 -0600, LindermanGrant
<glinderman@somewhereincyberland.org> wrote:

>On 22 Nov 2008 20:37:23 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>ShawnParks <sparks@privatemailonly.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
>>>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
>>>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
>>>
>>>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
>>>on that page, I count, on average:
>>>
>>>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
>>>
>>>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
>>>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
>>
>>The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
>>zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
>
>Great!
>
>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
>How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
>extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
>resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.
>
>So?
>
>How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
>missed-shots to beat that camera?
>
>You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?

Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
about if I do it....

Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x, an extra expense of ~$600 for an
18-200mm gives you 28mm-320mm, we're still missing the 320mm-560mm range. We're
in for $675+$600=$1275 (camera + upgrade lens) so far. Is it still worth the
expense for lenses that may not beat the detail recorded by the $340 P&S? How
much more for the 320mm-560mm reach of similar or better quality?

We'll need a 200mm-350mm. Hmm... best I can come up with in a search is the
200-400, with an average price of $5,250.

So now we're at $6,525 to possibly match or slightly beat the performance of a
$340 P&S camera. Let's not forget that we might miss some very very important
shots with having to change lenses in time.

We've also added 115.5 oz. for the 200-400mm one, that's an extra 7.22 lbs. Add
in another 19.8 oz. for the 18-200mm one, that's an extra 1.24 lbs. Add in the
weight of the camera, 18.5 oz. (1.16 lbs.) and we're hauling 9.62 lbs. around,
for many miles a day (when you're a pro).

The $340 SX10 is 1.32 lbs. with lens.

Nope, sorry, can't see it. I can't see how a POSSIBLE slight increase in image
detail for $6,525 and 10 lbs. of gear in any way competes with $340 and 1.3 lbs.
of gear. Plus the missed shots from changing lenses, cleaning sensors, poor
low-temperature performance, etc. etc. etc.

The DSLR kit-glass already lost greatly to the P&S glass, I doubt the more
expensive glass will resolve more than 4x's the amount of detail needed to win.
Even if it did, the weight and cost already threw the DSLR out the window and
onto the concrete below. (Let us not forget the 25-point list too, personally I
couldn't live with that obnoxious shutter noise and all those focal-plane
shutter limitations, to name but 2 of the 100's of reasons.)

If this doesn't prove that "a fool and his money are soon parted," I don't know
what else would.

It was interesting to do that. I knew it was going to make any comparable DSLR
look bad, but not THAT bad! No wonder none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys
wanted to answer, remaining so silent or continually red-herring evasive. All
that crates-of-eggs omelet on their face was preventing them from answering.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 10:17 am
From: cass-barrington

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:57:12 +0000 (UTC), Stuffed Crust
<pizza@spam.fucktheusers.org> wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems PlacerJohan <pjoahn@antispam.com> wrote:
>> Certainly not from within any distance where they can be heard from a
>> block away snapping off pictures.
>
>...or you can use a P&S and be heard two blocks off by the whine of the
>focus and zoom motors. Whatever.
>
>> You must be a pretty poor shopper if you don't realize the many more
>> advantages over a DSLR.
>
>A (compact) P&S camera has exactly one undisputable advantage over a
>DSLR -- size/weight. But then a tiny P&S camera has very few of the
>"25" advantages you so thoughtfully regurgitate so often. Indeed, is
>there any one camera out there that hits all, or even 2/3rds of that
>list?
>
>> Oh yes, you're so intelligent that you'll be using a camera for
>> surveillance in war conditions where the noise from your camera will
>> get you killed. You are SO intelligent.
>
>It's more intelligent to conduct surveillence at the greatest
>distance possible.
>
> - Solomon

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

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

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

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 10:44 am
From: "Deep Reset"

"FredHernandez" <fhernandez@removetoreply.net> wrote in message
news:drrli49ahdul6h495ut12g9opjnaa06ti5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:13:11 -0000, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"LeroyGriffon" <lgriffon@nospamdoman.com> wrote in message
>>news:26qli4l3g4he3cnh40gubka56l57b03mj9@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:41:53 -0000, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"ArnieSonol" <arniesonol@trollstoppers.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:4hpli4hud3fccq2u2t9n2pu9ffdj2ukm6u@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:31:59 -0000, "Deep Reset"
>>>>> <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Vance_Garnet" <vancegarnet@antitrolls.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:bholi4t4b5c5dhfbvcil8oq2raa4334j5j@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:15:44 -0800, Jürgen Exner
>>>>>>> <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>PetePalance <petepalance@spamblocker.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:12:38 -0500, Stephen Bishop
>>>>>>>>><nospamplease@now.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If you are truly an award-winning photographer, I would think you
>>>>>>>>>>would have posted images that were more in line with your
>>>>>>>>>>abilities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You don't read anything that you reply to, do you, just like all
>>>>>>>>>usenet-trolls.
>>>>>>>>>:-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Didn't you just recently post a quote from someone that said
>>>>>>>>>exactly
>>>>>>>>>why
>>>>>>>>>real
>>>>>>>>>pros don't post their marketable photography online? Is your memory
>>>>>>>>>also
>>>>>>>>>hindered by your drastic lack of intellect? Must be. Those are some
>>>>>>>>>seriously
>>>>>>>>>disabling qualities that you're displaying about yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why do you steal from Douglas BW?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Using his words without proper attribution and pretending they are
>>>>>>>>your
>>>>>>>>own constitutes plagiarism and maybe copyright infringement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>jue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>>>>>>< 20-odd KB elided.>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wow! I *never* saw that one coming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you must have wanted that posted again if you predicted that it
>>>>> would
>>>>> happen with each of your replies. Trolls are like that, yes they are.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy to oblige:
>>>>
>>>><crap elided again>
>>>>
>>>>Completely on-topic now, a couple of questions:
>>>>
>>>>Does it make you feel good?
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>>
>>>>TIA
>>>>
>>>>Deep.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Resident-Troll,
>><Snip, again>
>>
>>The Turing Test describes a test of intelligence, where the participants
>>engage in discourse remotely, via an anonymous interface.
>>Each participant tries to appear human.
>>Based on this troll's repetitive cut-and-paste responses, it fails the
>>Turing Test.
>>Miserably.
>>
>>Deep.
>
> Insanity: Doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
>

Single-celled organism: Producing the same response to differing stimulii.

Deep.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Virus? USB 500GB external hard disk is now "raw format"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c035c135ff7b2122?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 9:10 am
From: Johnw

ralph was thinking very hard :
> Here is where I am.
> The controller is good and the disk itself has not crashed.
> So I created a systemrecoverycd boot cd which can freely recover all
> photographs regardless of the fat32 tables.
> The dd took 7 hours but now I have a duplicate disk to work with (keeping
> the original pristine).
> I'm looking up the photo-recovery feature of the latest systemrecoverycd.

Thanks Ralph, good luck.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 9:41 am
From: ralph

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:10:42 +0900, Johnw wrote:
>> I'm looking up the photo-recovery feature of the latest systemrecoverycd.
>
> Thanks Ralph, good luck.

Thanks for the encouragement. It's not done yet but I haven't given up
either. The new PhotoRec freeware seems perfect for recovering lost
photographs and MP3 files (of which I had many on that lost disk).
http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec

The dd command after booting to the systemrecoverycd I used was:

% tail /var/log/messages (which told me sdb was the 500MB & sdc was 1TB)
% date
% dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/sdc bs=4096k; date

The result, 7 hours later, was a copy of the original disk sdb
119235 records in
119235 records out
500107862016 bytes (500 GB) copied, 25203.6s, 19 MB/s

I am not sure what to do with the systemrecoverycd but I noticed it still
thinks the sdc is 1 terabyte (which surprised me as everyone said it would
"look" like 500 megabytes at this time).

If all my attempts to salvage the file allocation tables fail (I'm really
not sure how to proceed at this point as I do not know Linux), I can at
least run the new photo recovery cd program which saves lost photos and MP3
files (and many other formats) even from a dead disk
http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/File_Formats_Recovered_By_PhotoRec

So the summary is that I have a copy of my original disk but don't know
what to do next. Am looking.

==============================================================================
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 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 9:27 am
From: Steve

On 25 Nov 2008 16:31:29 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>On 25 Nov 2008 06:18:26 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:06:19 -0600, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html
>>>>
>>>>You don't even need to do multiple steps of processing to see why
>>>>sinc/lanczon interpolation is better. The following is an example of
>>>
>>>Nobody cares.
>>
>>Anyone who does any kind of photo editing that involves interpolation,
>>such as resize or rotate by other than cardinal angles, does or should
>>care.
>
>Because ...?

Why don't you take a look at the photos and comment yourself on why
one should care about the type of interpolation used to
rescale/resize. Here they are again:

First, a 100% crop of a small area:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3055500937/sizes/o/

Next, a single resize by Nikon PicturePerfect.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3056337614/sizes/o/

And finally a single resize by XnView using sinc/lanczos interpolator:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_random_shots/3055500557/sizes/o/

Now you tell me if you can see a difference in the two resized
pictures and which one looks better to you, and why. Which one would
you rather show to other people? And if you can't see any difference,
tell me that as well.

>>By saying you don't care, either you don't edit your photos,
>
>Your obsession only reveals you to be a nut.

Your indifference only reveals you to be a hack.

Steve

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Overpriced P&S's aimed at the idiot class
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/720ac8e6cfa7eebc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 9:51 am
From: Rich

Just look at this review comment on the "highly regarded" Canon G10.
It is always the same! They could carbon-copy P&S reviews and simply
re-post them, why write a new one. Meantime, you'd have to have a
brain tumour if you plunk down $400 on something like this.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/page24.asp

# Price is very high considering other cameras in its class and low
end DSLRs.
# Some noise visible even at ISO 80, Noise Reduction effects start to
creep in and smear detail from about ISO 200
# ISO 800 and 1600, though improved from the G9, are still so noisy
(and soft) they're almost pointless, ISO 3200 very low resolution and
complete waste of time

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ATTN: Resident-Troll ASSAR, a.k.a. Stephen Bishop, here's your picture..
.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4822a6759d4659f0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 10:05 am
From: CarltonFlint

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:10:09 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:

>
>In one breath you say there's no reason for you to hoard when someone
>else can be making good use if it out there somewhere. And in the
>next breath you say you don't want to reveal what cameras meet your
>requirements because that would make the few remaining in circulation
>difficult to obtain. Conflict.

Not true. They just don't realize that they are hoarding it for me, because they
may not realize what kind of camera they have. In the hands of a professional
they excel. In the hands of an amateur, they'll be putting it aside and buying a
better camera next year to see again if there's any talent-button on the newer
one. And so on and so on. My favorite cameras safely stashed away in some fool's
safe possession.

>
>You can doubt it all you want, but it's not true. Better glass would
>blow away the SX10 P&S as you can see from thousands of examples taken
>with Canon DSLR's and high quality glass. The improvement in image
>quality won't be as noticeable for some images where there's no
>dynamics. But in other, more demanding situations, the quality
>increase of a good DSLR with high quaility glass over any P&S in
>existance is astounding.

I've yet to see any "astounding" in any DSLR photography that can't be similarly
accomplished with an excellent P&S, in the hands of a pro.

>
>You don't even need L-Glass to beat any P&S. Something like the Nikon
>18-200 gives you a good enough zoom range to avoid "missing the shot"
>while giving much higher quality images than P&S superzooms.
>

Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
about if I do it....

Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x, that extra expense of ~$600 for
the 18-200mm gives you 28mm-320mm, we're still missing the 320mm-560mm range.
We're in for $675+$600=$1275 (camera + upgrade lens) so far. Is it still worth
the expense for lenses that may not beat the detail recorded by the $340 P&S?
How much more for the 320mm-560mm reach of similar or better quality?

We'll need a 200mm-350mm. Hmm... best I can come up with in a search is the
200-400, with an average price of $5,250.

The $340 SX10 is 1.32 lbs. with lens.

Nope, sorry, can't see it. I can't see how a POSSIBLE slight increase in image
detail for $6,525 and 10lbs of gear in any way competes with $340 and 1.3 lbs.
of gear. Plus the missed shots from changing lenses, cleaning sensors, poor
low-temperature performance, etc. etc. etc.

The DSLR kit-glass already lost greatly to the P&S glass, I doubt the more
expensive glass will resolve more than 4x's the amount of detail needed to win.
Even if it did, the weight and cost already threw the DSLR out the window and
onto the concrete below. (Let us not forget the 25point list too, I couldn't
live with that obnoxious shutter noise and all those focal-plane shutter
limitations, to name but 2 of the 100's of reasons.)

If this doesn't prove that "A fool and his money are soon parted," I don't know
what else would.

>>
>>My two most favorite P&Ss are by no means the only ones (and would be difficult
>>to find if you did want them). Nor are some of the best all from Canon. A few
>>are, but not all. Panasonic and others have some excellent new contenders in the
>>race. A few of them outdoing the new Canon P&Ss.
>
>But any not from Canon would not run CHDK, which eliminates many of
>the points you keep posting. So we already know your P&S is from
>Canon.

It only eliminates 3 points. That leaves 22 others to which most all other P&S
cameras qualify, a few points only applying to super-zoom models. I could have
listed 100 advantage points but I thought 25 would be enough. Want me to
increase that list that's used to reply to trolls? Let me know.

One of them is from Canon (I own quite a few, have two favorites that go on
treks). Who could pass up the ability to run CHDK? That opens up so many new
doors in photography, you can't even begin to imagine. If you've used CHDK since
the very first raw-only hack the new creative photography possibilities that
come to you are astounding, after you've climbed the (somewhat) steep learning
curve. Although, it didn't seem steep to me, but seems to be for others. I guess
because I used it as it grew from its primordial bytes.

>
>>Do some research, buy a few cameras, you just might end up realizing what I've
>>come to know--the blind-leading-blind DSLR-fanboys have been wrong all along.
>
>I have done a lot of research. I have yet to find a single P&S that
>can match the image quality of a good DSLR with good glass. That's
>why I'm asking for your help. I'd love to find one.
>
>Steve

Sorry, I'm all out of time. I would have answered but as you saw above, I spent
quite a bit of time doing my own research. :)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 10:23 am
From: Gabe Larsen

______________________
| |
| Please ignore all |
| the morons who call |
/| /| | smarter people |
||__|| |"trolls", due to their|
/ O O\__ | own insecurities. |
/ \ | Thank-you. |
/ \ \|______________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

==============================================================================
TOPIC: See the reaction to Dpreview slagging a Canon product
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0b3fb6e5d3c7fb4d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 25 2008 11:21 am
From: RichA

Just look at the acrimony caused by Dpreview calling a new Canon
product less than "highly recommended." The canonfans have gone mad.
It appears (finally) that Dpreview is now treating Canon like every
other company. Maybe the Canon gravy-train to them dried up? Maybe
they got tired of being told they show favoritism to Canon? Maybe
Canon products have taken a quality downturn relative to the
competition? Whatever the reason, the poor, poor Canon lovers
are....sad.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1010

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

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