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

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: storage/organize software
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ef5f736af64feee0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:22 am
From: Don Stauffer

jmeehan@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> Anyone have suggestions for software to organize

While I have a couple of programs that came bundled with image editing
packages, I keep going back to Windows Explorer. I find I get along fine
by making enough folders, and selecting the right image size option in
Explorer. And, the software does not automatically try to put my sound
and other files into one of the image folders when I plug something into
a USB port :-(

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did this group die or something?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/da925152c89cb7fe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:39 am
From: John McWilliams

Noons wrote:
<< Snipped bits out >>

hint, hint, if you must reply.

> What's your point?

To be annoying. Surely you can relate to that!

--
lsmft

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 7:59 am
From: Arthur Coles

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:39:07 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>Noons wrote:
><< Snipped bits out >>
>
>hint, hint, if you must reply.
>
>> What's your point?
>
>To be annoying. Surely you can relate to that!

Dear Resident-Troll,

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

1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) 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 telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one
bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens
increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality
teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also
added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's
slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG
output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those
finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's
processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the
net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera
(downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any
in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more
powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture
achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs
suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters
work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular
fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for
far less cost. 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
usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests
prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See
this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera
that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR
camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with
DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over
$6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the
extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those
longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR
investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a
DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc.
The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds
of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only
1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality
comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the
massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit +
accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit
would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large
tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger
DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some
of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent
results.

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths
allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using
normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any
image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on
the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that
can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for
DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order
to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly.
When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your
highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user
is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image;
turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which Would You Choose?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d369aea4a9682967?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:08 am
From: ray

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:13:53 +0000, measekite wrote:

> Luminous Landscape is having a contest. The winner can choose between a
> Nikon D90 vs a Canon XSI.
>
> I did look at both of them. I like the look and feel and controls of
> the Canon but the Nikon is a model sort of between the Canon XSI and the
> Canon 50D and it costs more.

Whichever has the highest retail value - so I could sell it and get a Sony
Alpha.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Your input requested
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/dbf4dca4d7d63a86?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:09 am
From: ray

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:51:01 -0500, tony cooper wrote:

> I've been trying to settle on a photo host, and I'd appreciate your
> input on which host - of the ones I've tried - displays the image the
> best.
>
> I took a photograph today ( courthouse.jpg) that I have uploaded to
> three photo hosts. The image is straight out-of-the-camera and has not
> been cropped, adjusted, manipulated, sharpened, etc. Out of the camera,
> the image is 2000 x 3008. The three hosts do not require that the image
> be resized to upload, but each scales it to their size.
>
> The same photo is at:
>
> Picasa
> http://picasaweb.google.com/TonyCooper2130/Cassadaga?
authkey=vLiJ3Znc84Y#5275338900259041346
> scaled to 478 x 720
>
> and PhotoBucket
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/CourtHouse.jpg scaled
> to 531 x 800
>
> and FileAve
> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/CourtHouse.jpg scaled to 581 x 874
>
> I tried Photo.net, at Alan's suggestion, but found the site the
> absolutely slowest site that I've ever tried. They do require resizing
> to upload. I tried pBase before and wasn't that excited about it.
>
> This image was *not* chosen because of the aesthetic content. I just
> selected an image from today's batch that had some detail and some
> color.
>
> If you are tired of nothing but posts on the Power of the P&S and the
> gearhead discussions, maybe you'll take a minute and let me know if
> either of the above represents the image better than the others.

Assuming you have a room temperature IQ, why not a simple web host like
netfirms.com. Then you can set it up however you damned well please.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:29 am
From: tony cooper

On 3 Dec 2008 16:09:37 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:51:01 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I've been trying to settle on a photo host, and I'd appreciate your
>> input on which host - of the ones I've tried - displays the image the
>> best.
>>
>> I took a photograph today ( courthouse.jpg) that I have uploaded to
>> three photo hosts. The image is straight out-of-the-camera and has not
>> been cropped, adjusted, manipulated, sharpened, etc. Out of the camera,
>> the image is 2000 x 3008. The three hosts do not require that the image
>> be resized to upload, but each scales it to their size.
>>
>> The same photo is at:
>>
>> Picasa
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/TonyCooper2130/Cassadaga?
>authkey=vLiJ3Znc84Y#5275338900259041346
>> scaled to 478 x 720
>>
>> and PhotoBucket
>> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/CourtHouse.jpg scaled
>> to 531 x 800
>>
>> and FileAve
>> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/CourtHouse.jpg scaled to 581 x 874
>>
>> I tried Photo.net, at Alan's suggestion, but found the site the
>> absolutely slowest site that I've ever tried. They do require resizing
>> to upload. I tried pBase before and wasn't that excited about it.
>>
>> This image was *not* chosen because of the aesthetic content. I just
>> selected an image from today's batch that had some detail and some
>> color.
>>
>> If you are tired of nothing but posts on the Power of the P&S and the
>> gearhead discussions, maybe you'll take a minute and let me know if
>> either of the above represents the image better than the others.
>
>Assuming you have a room temperature IQ,

A cold front has moved into this area and it's in the high 60s in the
house today, so I think I can make the cut.

>why not a simple web host like
>netfirms.com. Then you can set it up however you damned well please.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 10:45 am
From: Paul Furman

Troy Piggins wrote:
> * tony cooper wrote :
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:00:20 +1000, Troy Piggins
>> <usenet-0812@piggo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 33 lines snipped |=---]
>>>> I've tried several others and don't consider them worth mentioning.
>>>>
>>>> I also use JAlbum - and like it a great deal - for send-to-the-family
>>>> galleries. (I have grandchildren) Not suitable for single images.
>>> Meant to mention to you, lately you've been posting links to
>>> images on fileave and I can't see them or it takes a ridiculous
>>> amount of time to open the page. I have given up even opening up
>>> any links to fileave since.
>> Strange. FileAve opens immediately for me. Instant. The reason I
>> gave up on photo.net was that images take forever to open or don't
>> open at all, yet Alan recommends it. I have no idea why these
>> problems occur.
>
> I assume it's a DNS and/or network thing. I'm in Aus. Pbase has
> been quite slow for me lately too. Only noticed it recently with
> the latest SI checking.

I haven't noticed this time but frequently see slow loads on pbase. I
believe it's an overloaded server problem at high traffic hours there's
a lot of server side scripting probing the database & formatting the
pages. I had a big problem with my own php run site and fixed it by
calling and asking them to move it to a less overloaded shared server.
After 8 years of paying them monthly, they owed me that <g>.

>> However, this is what I'm trying to learn by starting this thread.
>> I'd like to know what the viewer experiences. I don't think we can
>> take for granted what we see of our own stuff; we need the input of
>> others.
>
> Yeah, that's why I mentioned it. Thought you'd appreciate that
> sort of feedback.
>

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: e: 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 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:12 am
From: "Andrew Koenig"

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:npnZk.5816$pr6.2497@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...

> OK so you are saying that generally in the real world, you get the best
> performance at; f/11 on an FX DSLR, f/8 on full frame and f/4 on a P&S.
> How does that scale for comparison purposes? My matherator is tired :-)

I'm thinking that for most P&S cameras, the "f/4" is more like f/2.8, but it
depends on the camera; see below.

I'm saying something very subtly different from that, even though your
statement is usually correct in practice.

What I'm saying is that on an FX DSLR, stopping down past f/11 guarantees
that you will *never* get all the performance the sensor is capable of, even
if the lens is diffraction limited -- because at f/16, the diffraction limit
offers less resolution than the sensor.

So if you want to get that performance, you need to open up to f/11 or
wider, *and* you need a lens that's good enough to deliver sensor-limited
performance at whatever aperture you choose. Quite a few DSLR lenses can do
that at f/11 or f/8, and most of them have a harder time of doing it as you
open then up more because of aberrations.

> If we assume equal pixel count, it seems there is no difference on this
> basis alone, noise will be greater in the P&S but apart from that what you
> are saying is that both formats are only at their best at one aperture
> setting and that setting is where the diffraction meets the sensor
> resolution

Again, not quite.

I'm going to start using the phrase "critical aperture" to refer to the
aperture at which diffraction degrades resolution to match the sensor.

The math is easy: Critical aperture is 1.8 times the pixel pitch in microns.
(Well, approximately 1.8 -- when you're measuring blur, all measurements are
necessarily approximate)

If you stop down past critical aperture, diffraction limits your
performance. Other factors may limit it as well, but if they do, they do so
on top of the diffraction effect.

If you open up past critical aperture, something else limits your
performance -- either lens aberrations, or sensor resolution, or focus
inaccuracy, or subject or camera movement, or maybe something else.
Usually, lens aberrations get worse as you open up, so usually the best
performance is obtained at approximately the critical aperture.

> If true in practice (and it may be) this scenario still says that DSLRs
> can open up and get softer or stop down & get softer where P&S can only
> stop down & get softer. The tests show there is sharpness to be gained by
> opening up on many reasonable lenses but that's a separate discussion. I
> just want to be clear here that you aren't stating a case for better
> performance on P&S.

I am absolutely not stating a case for better performance on P&S.

I am saying that if you give me a camera, I can tell you how far you can
stop the lens down ON THAT CAMERA before the performance degrades ON THAT
CAMERA due to diffraction.

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:14 am
From: "Andrew Koenig"

"Cray Chesterton" <cchesterton@anyplaceanywhere.org> wrote in message
news:ke3cj4515fg7o23n2g2qr2far52bacrcnf@4ax.com...

> Correction: A lens that has diffraction-limited glass will always
> out-resolve a
> smaller sensor's photosites, but it does it best at widest apertures with
> less
> spreading of the edges of the light.

Correction: A lens that has diffraction-limited glass will NOT always
out-resolve a smaller sensor's photosites. If you stop the lens down past
the critical aperture, (approximately 1.8 times the pixel pitch in microns),
the Airy disk from a point will cover more than one photosite.

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:00 am
From: Davis-J

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:14:25 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote:

>"Cray Chesterton" <cchesterton@anyplaceanywhere.org> wrote in message
>news:ke3cj4515fg7o23n2g2qr2far52bacrcnf@4ax.com...
>
>> Correction: A lens that has diffraction-limited glass will always
>> out-resolve a
>> smaller sensor's photosites, but it does it best at widest apertures with
>> less
>> spreading of the edges of the light.
>
>Correction: A lens that has diffraction-limited glass will NOT always
>out-resolve a smaller sensor's photosites. If you stop the lens down past
>the critical aperture, (approximately 1.8 times the pixel pitch in microns),
>the Airy disk from a point will cover more than one photosite.
>

You don't know much about the properties of an airy-disk. Just because the
airy-disk extends beyond a set unit of measure, you have to remember that the
vast majority of luminance is still constrained within the central peak (in
diffraction-limited optics). The airy-disk is a sharp-peaked bell-curve. So if
an airy-disk extends 1.8 times the photosite-pitch, it could mean that 75% of
the airy-disk's light is still within that central photosite. This is why larger
diameter optics can resolve a smaller airy-disk. More of the
information/luminosity (in diffraction limited optics) is constrained to a
smaller central peak.

Unfortunately, no dSLR optics are diffraction-limited quality so they can't take
advantage of their larger diameters to accomplish this. The resulting images
formed by 2-6+ pixel details from any dSLR glass is enough proof alone that none
of them are diffraction-limited quality. If they were truly diffraction limited
then they could form even sharper images on a P&S sized sensor at all apertures.
That's never going to happen, they can't even resolve individual pixels on their
own larger sensors with larger photosites, and most certainly not at all
apertures. Stray from where the lens performs best at 2+ pixel resolution and it
quickly degrades either side of that f/stop = crap optics.

When diffraction limited optics are matched to the proper photosite sizes there
is no loss of resolution due to diffraction. There will be an overall loss of
contrast between pixel-sized details, but each pixel still contains valid
information with which a scene may be faithfully reconstructed. Contrast between
adjoining pixel-sized details can be recreated in editing if so needed. Any
simple Fourier-transform is capable of that. Putting that airy-disk diffraction
back where it belongs into its originating photosite. Aren't you aware that this
is how they "repaired" all images from the Hubble Telescope until they could get
corrective optics installed? Same difference. But unless you can get each
individual photosite to record valid information, no matter how low-contrast
from one to the next, then not even a Fourier-transform can help you get it back
into individual pixels again. E.g. the dSLR's 2-6+ pixel resolution from bad
glass means it can't faithfully reconstruct valid data any smaller than that
original 2-6+ pixel light-spread. You can't reconstruct data that wasn't
originally recorded/defined by the smallest available unit of measure.

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:05 am
From: ChadHolbrooks

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:12:01 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote:

>
>I am absolutely not stating a case for better performance on P&S.

That's obvious, because if you truly understood what you were trying to explain
you couldn't help but state a case for better performance from
diffraction-limited P&S glass vs. all non-diffraction-limited dSLR glass.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:14 am
From: "Andrew Koenig"

"Davis-J" <davisj@mailnotwanted.net> wrote in message
news:6ocdj4lj0f3r9pjipp7b50nkk7lt5fak99@4ax.com...

> When diffraction limited optics are matched to the proper photosite sizes
> there
> is no loss of resolution due to diffraction.

However, even in a perfect world this can only happen at a single aperture,
because the "proper photosite size" for a diffraction-limited lens changes
with the aperture.

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 10:21 am
From: Paul Furman

Andrew Koenig wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:npnZk.5816$pr6.2497@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
>> OK so you are saying that generally in the real world, you get the best
>> performance at; f/11 on an FX DSLR, f/8 on full frame and f/4 on a P&S.
>> How does that scale for comparison purposes? My matherator is tired :-)
>
> I'm thinking that for most P&S cameras, the "f/4" is more like f/2.8, but it
> depends on the camera; see below.
>
> I'm saying something very subtly different from that, even though your
> statement is usually correct in practice.
>
> What I'm saying is that on an FX DSLR, stopping down past f/11 guarantees
> that you will *never* get all the performance the sensor is capable of, even
> if the lens is diffraction limited -- because at f/16, the diffraction limit
> offers less resolution than the sensor.
>
> So if you want to get that performance, you need to open up to f/11 or
> wider, *and* you need a lens that's good enough to deliver sensor-limited
> performance at whatever aperture you choose. Quite a few DSLR lenses can do
> that at f/11 or f/8, and most of them have a harder time of doing it as you
> open then up more because of aberrations.
>
>> If we assume equal pixel count, it seems there is no difference on this
>> basis alone, noise will be greater in the P&S but apart from that what you
>> are saying is that both formats are only at their best at one aperture
>> setting and that setting is where the diffraction meets the sensor
>> resolution
>
> Again, not quite.
>
> I'm going to start using the phrase "critical aperture" to refer to the
> aperture at which diffraction degrades resolution to match the sensor.
>
> The math is easy: Critical aperture is 1.8 times the pixel pitch in microns.
> (Well, approximately 1.8 -- when you're measuring blur, all measurements are
> necessarily approximate)
>
> If you stop down past critical aperture, diffraction limits your
> performance. Other factors may limit it as well, but if they do, they do so
> on top of the diffraction effect.
>
> If you open up past critical aperture, something else limits your
> performance -- either lens aberrations, or sensor resolution, or focus
> inaccuracy, or subject or camera movement, or maybe something else.
> Usually, lens aberrations get worse as you open up, so usually the best
> performance is obtained at approximately the critical aperture.
>
>> If true in practice (and it may be) this scenario still says that DSLRs
>> can open up and get softer or stop down & get softer where P&S can only
>> stop down & get softer. The tests show there is sharpness to be gained by
>> opening up on many reasonable lenses but that's a separate discussion. I
>> just want to be clear here that you aren't stating a case for better
>> performance on P&S.
>
> I am absolutely not stating a case for better performance on P&S.
>
> I am saying that if you give me a camera, I can tell you how far you can
> stop the lens down ON THAT CAMERA before the performance degrades ON THAT
> CAMERA due to diffraction.

So where is this data coming from:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4_n15/page5.asp
That shows sharpness exceeding the sensor's "nyquist fqcy" at f/2.5 in
the center, and all the lenses tested do it below f/8.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 10:21 am
From: Paul Furman

wrote:
> Andrew Koenig wrote:
>> wrote
>>
>>> Correction: A lens that has diffraction-limited glass will always
>>> out-resolve a
>>> smaller sensor's photosites, but it does it best at widest apertures with
>>> less
>>> spreading of the edges of the light.
>> Correction: A lens that has diffraction-limited glass will NOT always
>> out-resolve a smaller sensor's photosites. If you stop the lens down past
>> the critical aperture, (approximately 1.8 times the pixel pitch in microns),
>> the Airy disk from a point will cover more than one photosite.
>
> You don't know much about the properties of an airy-disk. Just because the
> airy-disk extends beyond a set unit of measure, you have to remember that the
> vast majority of luminance is still constrained within the central peak (in
> diffraction-limited optics). The airy-disk is a sharp-peaked bell-curve. So if
> an airy-disk extends 1.8 times the photosite-pitch, it could mean that 75% of
> the airy-disk's light is still within that central photosite. This is why larger
> diameter optics can resolve a smaller airy-disk. More of the
> information/luminosity (in diffraction limited optics) is constrained to a
> smaller central peak.
>
> Unfortunately, no dSLR optics are diffraction-limited quality so they can't take
> advantage of their larger diameters to accomplish this. The resulting images
> formed by 2-6+ pixel details from any dSLR glass is enough proof alone that none
> of them are diffraction-limited quality. If they were truly diffraction limited
> then they could form even sharper images on a P&S sized sensor at all apertures.
> That's never going to happen, they can't even resolve individual pixels on their
> own larger sensors with larger photosites, and most certainly not at all
> apertures. Stray from where the lens performs best at 2+ pixel resolution and it
> quickly degrades either side of that f/stop = crap optics.
>
> When diffraction limited optics are matched to the proper photosite sizes there
> is no loss of resolution due to diffraction. There will be an overall loss of
> contrast between pixel-sized details, but each pixel still contains valid
> information with which a scene may be faithfully reconstructed. Contrast between
> adjoining pixel-sized details can be recreated in editing if so needed. Any
> simple Fourier-transform is capable of that.

You use Fourier-transform for pictorial photography? Sounds like an
astro thing for squeezing data from faint observations. You can't be
serious?

> Putting that airy-disk diffraction
> back where it belongs into its originating photosite. Aren't you aware that this
> is how they "repaired" all images from the Hubble Telescope until they could get
> corrective optics installed? Same difference. But unless you can get each
> individual photosite to record valid information, no matter how low-contrast
> from one to the next, then not even a Fourier-transform can help you get it back
> into individual pixels again. E.g. the dSLR's 2-6+ pixel resolution from bad
> glass means it can't faithfully reconstruct valid data any smaller than that
> original 2-6+ pixel light-spread. You can't reconstruct data that wasn't
> originally recorded/defined by the smallest available unit of measure.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 10:22 am
From: Paul Furman

wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:12:01 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> I am absolutely not stating a case for better performance on P&S.
>
> That's obvious, because if you truly understood what you were trying to explain
> you couldn't help but state a case for better performance from
> diffraction-limited P&S glass vs. all non-diffraction-limited dSLR glass.
>

Bullshit.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 10:22 am
From: Paul Furman

Paul Furman wrote:
> _________ wrote:
>
> A lens that has diffraction-limited glass will always out-resolve a
> smaller sensor's photosites,

No it won't. As soon as you stop down, diffraction strikes. There is
only one spot that's optimal, remember?

> but it does it best at widest apertures

The 2 stops from f/4 to f/8 are easily equivalent after you increase ISO
a bit to match exposure on the DSLR with matching DOF. Diffraction kicks
in at the same time with equal field of view & pixel count. The
difference is the DSLR can also turn the ISO way up and open the
aperture further to explore more opportunities. It can make good photos
under all sorts of conditions. Even the airy disc is potentially sharper
with that big absolute aperture if you can afford that glass <g>. There
is plenty of data showing lenses that perform well at apertures larger
than f/8.

> with less spreading of the edges of the light.
> The diffraction pattern does not contain the full percentage of
> information, just a smaller percentage of it.
> This only appears as a softening of details, not true loss of details
> on a photosite to photosite basis.

OK so in P&S cameras, with less 'spreading out', that means a smaller
aperture and smaller sensor there is less information gathered, but
that's still enough information, so don't worry, it can be usable under
good conditions. Have I interpreted that correctly? I thought you were
saying there was some advantage before, oh well.

"This only appears as a softening of details, not true loss of details"

Right? So there is a little bit left. Even after being stuck at noisy
low ISO with slow shutter speeds and tiny apertures gathering a faint
bit of light on a 20x zoom compromised on the ends. It does still make a
decent photo considering all that, if conditions are right. I think you
make a good point. Cell phones are getting better & better too, handy stuff.

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 10:47 am
From: "Andrew Koenig"

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:Q6AZk.8448$x%.4705@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...

>> I am saying that if you give me a camera, I can tell you how far you can
>> stop the lens down ON THAT CAMERA before the performance degrades ON THAT
>> CAMERA due to diffraction.

> So where is this data coming from:
> http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4_n15/page5.asp
> That shows sharpness exceeding the sensor's "nyquist fqcy" at f/2.5 in the
> center, and all the lenses tested do it below f/8.

I don't know where the data are coming from, but they do corroborate what
I've been saying.

Visit the page you cite and move the "aperture" slider at the bottom of the
graph. You will see that when you move that slider to f/11, the MTF-50 line
is just about equal to the Nyquist frequency. If you move the slider to
F/16, the MTF-50 line declines to a point below the Nyquist frequency. This
phenomenon is the image degradation due to diffraction that I've been
talking about.

Now...if you move the slider f/8, you will see that the line is higher than
the Nyquist frequency. That means that the sensor is what is limiting the
image resolution at that aperture. It even says so in the green writing
under the graph:

Whenever the measured numbers exceed this value [the Nyquist frequency],
this simply indicates that the lens out-resolves the sensor at that
point...

I am not making, and have never made, any claims about how a lens will
perform at apertures wider than what I've been calling the critical
aperture. All I'm saying is that if you stop a lens down beyonds the
critical aperture that corresponds to your sensor's pixel pitch, the
sensor's resolution will exceed what the lens is capable of providing.

As far as I can tell, the graph you've cited is consistent with this claim.

And I have no idea how they can tell that the lens is out-resolving the
sensor -- though in principle one could infer that from contrast
measurements at lower resolutions.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: When will AA lithium-ion replace NiMH in stores?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/85b8ebeb3c9950b2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:25 am
From: SMS

John Doe wrote:

> As if I should have included a disclaimer because a reply author is
> using the same legitimate ISP for posting to USENET.

LOL, isn't it just _incredible_ that two different people have AT&T DSL
_and_ post to the same Usenet group?! It just has to be some sort of a
conspiracy, I mean AT&T doesn't have very many DSL customers!

You're always going to have people on Usenet like ASAAR and Mark that
run around looking at headers and drawing incorrect conclusions, then
congratulating themselves on "proving" something that isn't true. Of
course you noticed that they never provide any actual on-topic information!

> Oh well. I've seen other posters who think they are King Protectors
> of the group, who had no idea what was really going on, like you
> and your obsessed friend, Don Quixote.

Your best advice--filters, i.e. from my filter log:

"Applied filter "caught@22.com" to message from ASAAR <caught@22.com> -
....."

"Applied filter "markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com" to message from Mark
Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> - ...."

At least they have the decency to not constantly spoof their e-mail IDs.
Filtering our P&S troll is a bit more complicated, but it's possible.

Anyway, I hope the information on the 14500 batteries helped.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:09 am
From: alex prost

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:25:11 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>John Doe wrote:
>
>> As if I should have included a disclaimer because a reply author is
>> using the same legitimate ISP for posting to USENET.
>
>LOL, isn't it just _incredible_ that two different people have AT&T DSL
>_and_ post to the same Usenet group?! It just has to be some sort of a
>conspiracy, I mean AT&T doesn't have very many DSL customers!
>
>You're always going to have people on Usenet like ASAAR and Mark that
>run around looking at headers and drawing incorrect conclusions, then
>congratulating themselves on "proving" something that isn't true. Of
>course you noticed that they never provide any actual on-topic information!
>
>> Oh well. I've seen other posters who think they are King Protectors
>> of the group, who had no idea what was really going on, like you
>> and your obsessed friend, Don Quixote.
>
>Your best advice--filters, i.e. from my filter log:
>
>"Applied filter "caught@22.com" to message from ASAAR <caught@22.com> -
>....."
>
>"Applied filter "markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com" to message from Mark
>Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> - ...."
>
>At least they have the decency to not constantly spoof their e-mail IDs.
>Filtering our P&S troll is a bit more complicated, but it's possible.
>
>Anyway, I hope the information on the 14500 batteries helped.

Dear Resident-Troll,

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

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

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

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Maha says "pulse charging eliminates the need for battery conditioning"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5ef72ee65c8a5412?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:25 am
From: SMS

John Doe wrote:
> Anybody know what they're talking about, or is it just marketing speak?
> Thanks.

It's just marketing speak.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:31 am
From: SMS

Atheist Chaplain wrote:

> from my limited understanding, conditioning is just pulsing (reversing
> polarity for a fraction of a second) but at lower voltages/amps. I know
> that when the local Tandy store was open here, you could take a "dead"
> NiCad in and for a nominal fee they would put it on their "Conditioner",
> if the battery failed to respond then no charge, I used this a few times
> to revive OEM batteries in various devices instead of having to spend a
> fortune replacing them.

Yes, with NiCads, they often got an internal short, which could be
cleared with a large current through the battery. Popular Electronics
had an article on NiCad "zapping" back in the 1970's. You basically just
discharged a large electrolytic capacitor through the battery. I've also
used a high amperage 12 volt power supply.

> I have no idea if "FLEX" pulsing is any different to the method we used
> which was to give a big hit to the battery, then pulse it, then give
> another big hit to the battery etc, this was typically cycled many times
> a second.

NiMH batteries don't suffer from the same crystalline bridges between
the plates as NiCads, which zapping destroys. The pulse charging is
something different.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:34 am
From: "Chuck Olson"

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:pymZk.12857$Ws1.4432@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> Anybody know what they're talking about, or is it just marketing speak?
> Thanks.
>
>
> http://www.mahaenergy.com/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=178
>> FLEX Pulse also makes traditional "battery conditioning & cycling"
>> unnecessary as the pulse eliminates the memory effect just by
>> charging the batteries.

A few years ago, I used a battery charger that came with the 4 AA cells in
a package - - great deal, I figured. But the cells seemed to lose capability
over a couple of weeks of use and recharging. I suspect this is what gave
rise to the idea of "memory effect", but to me it just looked like the
charger was doing a really crappy job.

Then I read about the MH-C401FS charger that used some sort of pulse
algorithm, and bought one. Man, that charger brought those AA cells back to
life! Whatever this thing did, it sure worked. And I've been using it
regularly ever since. Sure over a period of many months, AA cells still lose
capability and ultimately need replacing, but for the simple task of getting
the most energy charged up into the cells, their approach is extremely
effective.

I hooked up a chart recorder to monitor the current through a AA cell being
charged in the MH-C401FS charger, and found a lot of switching taking place
at first, then it settled down to a steady current, but interrupted
momentarily every few minutes, and that was all there was to it - - no
current reversal, and no super high peak currents - - just interruptions. So
there you have it. They found the key to doing a good job of charging
batteries - - worth the money, in my estimation.

Chuck, W6PKP

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 8:47 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)

In article <FuyZk.8439$x%.3219@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Atheist Chaplain wrote:
>
>> from my limited understanding, conditioning is just pulsing (reversing
>> polarity for a fraction of a second) but at lower voltages/amps. I know
>> that when the local Tandy store was open here, you could take a "dead"
>> NiCad in and for a nominal fee they would put it on their "Conditioner",
>> if the battery failed to respond then no charge, I used this a few times
>> to revive OEM batteries in various devices instead of having to spend a
>> fortune replacing them.
>
>Yes, with NiCads, they often got an internal short, which could be
>cleared with a large current through the battery. Popular Electronics
>had an article on NiCad "zapping" back in the 1970's. You basically just
>discharged a large electrolytic capacitor through the battery. I've also
>used a high amperage 12 volt power supply.
>
>> I have no idea if "FLEX" pulsing is any different to the method we used
>> which was to give a big hit to the battery, then pulse it, then give
>> another big hit to the battery etc, this was typically cycled many times
>> a second.
>
>NiMH batteries don't suffer from the same crystalline bridges between
>the plates as NiCads, which zapping destroys. The pulse charging is
>something different.

I have found a shorted NiMH cell. Reason unknown.

greg

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to easily create a photo gallery
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d741b35636929fb6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 9:08 am
From: contact.digicamsoft@gmail.com

Hi,

I'm the main author of the following (free) software (windows) and I'm
excited to speak about it :-)

The purpose of it is to easily create a web gallery.
If you're interested, check at the gallery demos and download the
freeware from here:
http://www.digicamsoft.com/softhttphotos.html

The software has four tabs on the top:
- Select Photos
- Touch Up
- Customize Template
- Publish To Web

How to create a web gallery in 3 clicks:
- From "Select Photos" tab, click the "add photos" icon (1st click)
- Select photos you want to put in your web gallery (you can use CTRL-
A)
- Your selection will show as thumbnails you can reorganize by drag'n
drop
- From "Publish To Web" tab (2nd click), click on "Write On Local
Drive" button (3rd click)

Voila! your web gallery is ready! it is generated into folder "My
Documents/httphotos"

It's woth a try to play with the "Customize Template" tab. Flash
templates are available here. But it's going to be some more clicks!

Hope this will be helpful!
Please leave comments,
Thanks!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: B&W
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c039d8e41a31a1ea?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 10:25 am
From: BÔwser

"TylerRights" <trights@spamfree.net> wrote in message
news:t83dj4563vha5pt9fsbnsq2g89bvdjrtsr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:28:41 -0500, BÔwser <b0wser@h0me.c0m> wrote:
>
>>By popular demand, the new mandate is B&W. While I'm sure that the posters
>>meant Black and White, I see no reason to restrict it to only black and
>>white photos. If you can come up with another interpretation of "B&W,"
>>please feel free to do so. Of course, if you want to submit three photos
>>that showcase what truly constitutes a successful black and white photo,
>>like composition, texture, and lighting, that's OK too. The shoot-in is
>>here:
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/shootin
>>
>>I'll update the Rulz pages sometime today or tomorrow, so be patient.
>>Lastly, the deadline for this mandate is January 4th, 2009. I went an
>>extra
>>week to allow people to recover from New Year's Eve. Please try to submit
>>your photos by 6PM Eastern Time (USA).
>>
>>Please limit your submissions to 300K each, three submissions per person.
>>
>>Fire at will!
>
> Just out of curiosity, what about duo-tones and other 2-color effects that
> came
> from historical B&W processing? Such as sepias, gold tone (chrysotype),
> cyanotype, polysulfides, kallitype, tetenal copper processing, etc. These
> were,
> after all, standard B&W methods.

Sounds OK to me...

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic