Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:36 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 27 Jan 2009 03:37:54 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>No, they keep shooting YOU down. You have rejected EVERY source
>>>except for Fox news. Your premise that the entire world is pushing
>>>anti-Israeli propaganda is patently absurd. It establishes you as
>>>being an irrational bigot.
>>
>>Funny you should say that, when I never quoted FOX news for anything.
>
>I didn't say that you did, bigot.
>
>>But it just illustrates your complete ignorance.
>>
>>You are just plain stupid.
>
>Because you reject any fact that doesn't justify your murderous
>hatred?

I don't know, Ray. Perhaps the answer is in the text you just clipped
away. You know, the text that proved that you are simply and clearly
ignorant about the part of the world you think you are an expert in?

Run away, little boy.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:37 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 27 Jan 2009 03:40:05 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:24:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 25 Jan 2009 03:43:31 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:37:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 18:09:14 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 08:37:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:15:08 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then you need to get a life and learn to do independent research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have. Including going to the ME. My parents have travelled in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Israel and Palestine. Your experience is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like you were more on a sight seeing tour than a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>finding mission as your thesis is ludicrous at best.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My "experience" is precisely this: I think that ALL/ANY sovereign
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nations have the RIGHT to defend themselves against unwarranted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attacks without resorting to bullshit arbitration by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>international community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>No you don't. You totally reject the Palestinian's right to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>anything of the sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The Palestinians are NOT a sovereign nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>How convenient doe you to make such an excuse.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Excuse? That's simply a fact that cannot be disputed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And WHY aren't they a nation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because Israel doesn't allow it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Israel is still illegally expanding settlements in the West Bank and
>>>>>>>refuses to withdraw.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is it illegal?
>>>>>
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
>>>>>
>>>>If you think wikipedia is a reliable source, you are a fool.
>>>
>>>Translation: Any source that isn't pro-Israel must be biased.
>>>But I notice no denial or refutaton from you.
>>
>>No translation needed. Virtually nobody considers Wikipedia to be a
>>trustworthy source.
>
> http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
> Attacking the Person
> (argumentum ad hominem)
>
> Definition:
>
> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument
> itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character,
> nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be
> pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome.
> Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the
> company he keeps.
> There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
>
> ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument
> attacks the person who made the assertion.
> ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the
> author points to the relationship between the person making the
> assertion and the person's circumstances.
> ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a
> person does not practise what he
> preaches.
>
>>>>>> They captured that land from Jordan during the
>>>>>>1967 Arab-Israeli war when they won that war of Arab aggression. They
>>>>>>have every right to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just like the nazis had every right to Poland.
>>>>
>>>>Poland never started multiple wars against Germany for the purpose of
>>>>removing them from Europe, knucklehead.
>>>
>>>And until the Zionists started using terrorism to drive out
>>>Palestinians, neither did the Arabs.
>>
>>Again, you are ignoring history,
>
>Evidence? What "history" do you believe is being ignored?

You tell me. You are the one who is clipping away text and changing
the context.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:39 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 27 Jan 2009 03:42:32 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:25:32 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 25 Jan 2009 03:46:16 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:39:43 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:49:22 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In message <497983dc$0$1622$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>>>>>>>><rfischer@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The West Bank was legally won in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. It is
>>>>>>>>>> just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>> Stephen Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So clearly you DID say that and you are just lying your ass off.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Given the amount of Israeli propaganda Stephen is pushing in just this
>>>>>>>>>news group it is clear he is employed full time to push propaganda.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's funny. The evidence would suggest that you are just a paid
>>>>>>>>shill for Hamas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>LOL! You're getting really desperate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No more desparate than he is for suggesting that I am working for the
>>>>>>Israelis.
>>>>>
>>>>>It sure looks like you are. All you do is spout Israeli propaganda
>>>>>and reject out-of-hand any fact which is damaging to Israeli
>>>>>interests. And we've seen how Israel is promoting propaganda.
>>>>
>>>>No different from what you are doing;
>>>
>>>And as usual the bigot just shifts the blame.
>>
>>Shifting blame? Blame for exactly what?
>
>Don't play stupid, bigot.

The difference between you and me is that you don't have to play at
it.

>
>> You are truly stupid.
>
>Don't blame me because you're too stupid to follow along.

Answer my questions Ray. You know, the ones you've clipped away
because you think the rest of the world is too stupid to notice you've
done that.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 4:18 am
From: "HEM-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>You're lying again, Jer.
>>
>>You have /no/ friends, Jewish or otherwise.
>>
>>You may /know/ some people, but it's doubtful if many speak to
>>you at all, and none would ever qualify as friends.
>>
>>Hell, even your own family doesn't speak to you more than is
>>absolutely necessary.
>>
>>Have you /ever/ in your life been honest about anything at all?
>>
>>I very much doubt it.
>
> I'm curious, what would Gaston do with himself if not for having
> someone like Hemi to harrass at every turn?
>
I pay no attion to irrascible misanthropes and their mordant bilge.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 4:27 am
From: Chris H

In message <3grtn4pgie73mpcpg682d1v6cjks1559is@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:00:31 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <ml8rn4pmnent3mro3rv8u4nhmhoj57hnu8@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>
>>>You have little understanding of the truth. Try harder, it won't
>>>strain your brain too much.
>>>
>>>If I was guilty of what you say, I would be using your tactics of
>>>clipping away what I wrote and claiming it doesn't exist. I don't do
>>>that, Ray. That's your gig. I happily leave what you quoted above
>>>and openly tell you what I meant. You just igore that because all you
>>>have is a childish "gotcha" instead of rational discussion.
>>>
>>>Run away, coward. Come back when you can discuss things like an
>>>adult.
>>
>>There was a fascinating program on TV last night about Mcarthy Stephen
>>uses exactly the same tactics and very similar language. You can spot
>>propaganda a mile off.
>
>But what else would you say, since you use what the TV feeds you as
>your main source of information about the world?

Now this just shows your Bias. You know nothing about me. The TV is not
my main source of information and neither are the newspapers.

My information comes from people I know in my former career and contacts
I have in the world if you looked at my company web site you would see
that we attend events like;

http://www.counterterrorexpo.com/

http://www.mae-show.com/
(military, defence and aerospace electronic systems)

http://www.dsei.co.uk
Defence Systems and Equipment International

From which you can deduce that we do a lot of business in the military,
defence area and have a lot of contacts in that area apart from my
military contacts. In fact I know people who have been in both Iraq
and Afghanistan in 2008

>Propaganda, indeed.

Yes it was about propaganda. It was the news reels of McCarthy speaking.
Damned by his own words and history.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Digital SLR recommendation please
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/230b550afc71360b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:54 am
From: Lorenzo Sandini

orion.osiris@virgin.net wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:43 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
> wrote:
>> orion.osi...@virgin.net wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 9:34 pm, snap...@mailinator.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:20:18 -0800 (PST), orion.osi...@virgin.net wrote:
>>>>> HI all,
>>>>> Can anyone make a recomendation of a decent digital SLR of around 500
>>>>> quid/euros which produces high quality, sharp prints and is feature
>>>>> rich but not overly complex to operate? I'm hoping to find something
>>>>> in the 12 Megapixel range ideally. I've tried reading reviews, but
>>>>> there's just TOO much choice out there and I need pointers for a
>>>>> shortlist of the best ones.
>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>> THanks.
>>>> Sony A350
>>> Thanks for the only genuine recommendation this thread has thus far
>>> produced. And thanks for not trying to be a third-rate, smart-arsed
>>> commedian.
>>> As for the rest of you, thanks for Fuck All.
>> I can only apologise for not curing your ignorance.
>>
>> BugBear
>
>
> Yes, well I remain ignorant, I'm afraid.
>
> I've got a nice long list of what NOT to buy and that's about all.
> Thanks to those who HAVE tried to help, though. No offence intended
> towards THEM.

Been happy with a Nikon D80, you can probably find a used one somewhere
(ebay, etc...)

But your question is like asking a recommendation for a car nowadays.
"Only requirements are a having steering wheel, ability to reverse,
rearview mirror in the center and decent stereo. Red paint is a plus."
Difficult to recommend something based on you criteria.

I hope you'll find what you're looking for :)

Lorenzo

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:57 am
From: sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:20:18 -0800 (PST), orion.osiris@virgin.net
wrote:

>HI all,
>
>Can anyone make a recomendation of a decent digital SLR of around 500
>quid/euros which produces high quality, sharp prints and is feature
>rich but not overly complex to operate? I'm hoping to find something
>in the 12 Megapixel range ideally. I've tried reading reviews, but
>there's just TOO much choice out there and I need pointers for a
>shortlist of the best ones.
>Any suggestions?
>THanks.

I have one recommendation. "Best" is subjective and my best
may well not be yours. There are a lot of factors that go into best
and others will likely cover many of them, but I would suggest there
is one factor that they will not be able to help you with.

Each of us have different size hands and a personal "feel" for
a camera. I suggest once you get down to that short list, be sure to
pick up and go through all the motions of taking photographs with your
possible choices. You may find that you just can't get your fingers
comfortable with camera A, but camera B just feels right. Likely what
ever brand you are now using will fell better.

To some extent you will adjust to your new camera, but there
are factors you will not adjust to. You hands are not going to grow
or shrink. So do try it out first!

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 6:23 am
From: orion.osiris@virgin.net

Thanks for that. Yes, I bought a JVC video camera a few months ago and
it's utterly brilliant; only spoiled by the fact that it's AWFULLY
fiddly to switch on and off. You have to have really tiny fingers. But
no model is ever going to be perfect. As for handling a few digital
SLRs, I have and regret to say they all nowadays feel like plasticy
crap with no build quality to speak of any more. I make a possible
exception for Leica but even *they* aren't what they used to be.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 7:01 am
From: Chris H

In message
<070cfd47-2b1b-4139-91cd-9c16ffddce9a@a39g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
orion.osiris@virgin.net writes
>HI all,
>
>Can anyone make a recomendation of a decent digital SLR of around 500
>quid/euros which produces high quality, sharp prints and is feature
>rich but not overly complex to operate? I'm hoping to find something
>in the 12 Megapixel range ideally. I've tried reading reviews, but
>there's just TOO much choice out there and I need pointers for a
>shortlist of the best ones.
>Any suggestions?
>THanks.

You won't go wrong with a Nikon or Canon and the kit lens.

Don't know about the Canons but a Nikon D40x should be a good starting
point.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 8:10 am
From: Jürgen Exner

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>Most entry level DSLRs with Kit lenses cannot focus
>close enough to fill the frame with objects smaller than 1.5 inches so
>macro is not their strong suit.

Agreed.

>Also, most kit lenses do not have more
>than about 5x zoom, so tele is not their strong suit either.

A common misconception. The zoom factor (5x) has nothing to do with tele
capabilities, e.g. the Nikkor 200-400mm has only a zoom factor of 2x,
but it is certainly a long tele lens.
With regards to kit lenses, well, they are "universal use" and that just
doesn't include long tele capabilities.

jue

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thank You Nikon For Raising The Prices!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e0dc382bb7bbdb83?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 4:05 am
From: "Larry Thong"

John McWilliams wrote:

>> It looks like it is going to be a great time to sell some of the
>> unwanted Nikkors I've been hoarding. This is better than Wall St.
>
> Anything's better than Wall Street this year.

Thank God Obama is in office. This is going to be a great year to buy.
2010 is when the market will spike.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 8:12 am
From: "Alan Smithee"

"Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:l86dncrhlvs1o-PUnZ2dnUVZ_rwAAAAA@supernews.com...

> It looks like it is going to be a great time to sell some of the unwanted
> Nikkors I've been hoarding. This is better than Wall St.

LOL. I was thinking the same thing a couple of days ago!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bad News For Nikon As Pros Turn Their Back To The D3x!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5193be07f153c126?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 4:04 am
From: "Larry Thong"

Annika1980 wrote:

> Let's ask Harry if he thinks that's a sharp pic:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24436504

LOL! That's cool!

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 4:04 am
From: "Larry Thong"

Focus wrote:

> Those are good. But why do you show some old D60 pictures? Haven't
> mastered the 5D MII yet? No shame in admitting that...

Considering he was six feet from the bird he could have gotten sharper
results with a pinhole lens. As for the 5D2, I'm sure he's capable of
mastering it. The problem he has right now is hitting a brick wall in the
area of lenses that will be able to resolve on it. The only way that camera
will work to its fullest for him is to upgrade to better glass and a faster
computer.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 8:13 am
From: DanP

On Jan 26, 8:34 pm, "Gemini" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6a2b656e-2a4a-4a33-994d-3d43816f0fd4@r34g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 25, 5:37 pm, "Larry Thong" <larry_th...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> >> It was bound to happen when Nikon releases a killer camera like this.
> >> Society just isn't ready for this beast.
>
> >> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Red_Back.jpg>
>
> > A little blurry ain't it? Did you shoot this one out of a moving car?
>
> Does Larry have a car too?
>
> G

not any more, he part exchanged it for that camera.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Your camera takes really nice pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c1f1ab7c703e40b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 4:19 am
From: Mike

On 24 Jan, 12:15, Neil Ellwood <cral.elllwo...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:24:46 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
> > Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> >http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>
> Re: subject line.
>
> My camera does not take nice pictures, I am in control of my camera, I
> take nice pictures.

Your fingers type really obvious statements. :D

p.s. are you a Rush fan?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Men-Gucci-Shoes-0012 Price:$55.00
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6fcff653a703c073?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 5:18 am
From: dfd

cnshoes007 Co.,Ltd is the WORLD'S LARGEST SUPPLIER OF FAMOUS BRAND'S
GOODS.
we are one of the leading company that wholesales and retail brand
products,
Weclome to be in cnshoes007.com, all of our products are exclusive(top
quality),
and we are an hoest and real companies offering such a wide variety of
Famous Brand Goods inc:

1)Brand Shoes:Nike Shox,AirMax,AirJordan,nike air force one,nike
dunk,nike
kobe,nike james,Nike sandle shoes and other brand shoes inc
Bape,Adidas,Puma,Gucci,
Timberland Prada,Lv,4us,Richmond,Ice cream,Diesel,Chanel
D&G,DSQUARED,etc.

2)Jeans of Diesel,Rock&Republic,Seven,red monkey,Evisu,lee,D&G,True
religion,bape,antik,
jack jones,armani,kepasa,apple,bbc,levi's,guess,cocobon
go,only,replay,on line,MNG,von dutch
and cocolulu.

3)Brand T-shirt :Polo,lacoste,burberry,boss,Tommy,BBC,Bape,Gucci,D
&G,A&F,Versach,marlbolo.

4)brand handbag with LV,
Chanel,Gucci,Fendi,Chole,hermes,Dior,coach,balenci aga. we also sell
world brand watches and caps and ipod nano.All our products are in
best quality with lowest price.
welcome to contact with us. www.cnshoes007.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Astrophotography w/ Digital SLR Sensor Sensitivity
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/461aff8fc0e80ac8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 5:31 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"T.Baxter" <tbaxter@spamfree.net> wrote in message
news:98lrn4l2fm1cd5po38paagr63nnp96g12o@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:41:41 -0000, "whisky-dave"
> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>

>>I used to take pictures of the nights sky, using HP3 & HP4 film....
>>A problem I first had was is that dust on the neg, print etc. or a star .
>>If you know your stars it's easier, but how do you tell noise from stars ?
>>especailly if you set the speed to 400/800 ISO which is the sort of film
>>speeds I
>>was setting when using film.
>>I'd like to do astrophotography again some day......
>>
>>
>
> You can do frame-stacking with many shorter exposures to eliminate all
> noise. Or frame-stacking with many longer exposures to eliminate all noise
> and also increase the number of stars captured to greatly dimmer
> magnitudes. The number of frames needed to eliminate all noise will be
> dependent on what ISO and noise level is in your particular camera. A P&S
> camera can easily surpass a few frames from a DSLR sensor when using lower
> ISOs with longer exposures and many more frames. Noise-free exposures of
> many hours can be obtained this way. "Registax" is very capable freeware
> for this purpose. http://www.astronomie.be/registax/ There are others.
>
> In lieu of that, with a single noisy frame, then you use a histogram
> adjustment to cut off all dim pixels at a known dark limit. You will lose
> some valid dim stars with this method but at least you won't be wrongly
> displaying noise as stars. Do this while having displayed alongside a same
> area sky-chart, using some excellent star-charting software like "Cartes
> du
> Ciel v3". Probably one of the best freeware programs you'll ever find.
> http://www.ap-i.net/skychart/index.php When using the free "SKY2000
> Master
> Star Catalog" data you will display stars to magnitude 9, which should be
> enough for most digital cameras when using single-frame images. If you use
> frame-stacking methods then get the additional "Tycho 2" star catalogs of
> 2.5 million stars of magnitude 9 to 12, and the "HST Guide-star Catalog"
> of
> 19 million stars to magnitude 15. You can obtain these from the older (and
> in some ways, better) Windows-only version of "Cartes du Ciel v2.76" at
> http://www.stargazing.net/astropc/download.html There are many free star
> catalogs available for this software. You can also get the free CD of the
> "USNO-SA 2.0 Astrometric Reference Catalog" with stars from magnitude 16
> to
> 19, another 15 million stars,
> http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/software/catalogs/usnosa2.html (Back-patting
> note: I compiled the first Tycho star-catalogs for this program.)
>
> [Note that the "HST Guide-star Catalog" is not 100% accurate, as some of
> the guide-stars listed in it for The Hubble Space Telescope are dust and
> artifacts from the original photographic plates that were used at the time
> of it being compiled. Even top-level science can suffer from the same
> problems that you'll face with your cameras. They've since revised that
> star catalog to remove most blatant errors but some might still remain.
> Don't feel too bad if your image has a dim star that might be noise, even
> scientists won't blame you too much. They occasionally do it themselves on
> far more important projects, until someone finds the error and bothers to
> correct it.]
>
> View the "Cartes du Ciel" star-chart with stars, nebulae, and galaxies
> displayed to a magnitude limit dimmer than your suspected dimmest stars in
> your photograph. Adjust your single-frame photograph's histogram to cut
> off
> all warm or noisy pixels that don't show known objects in the "Cartes du
> Ciel" star-chart. If the dimmest pixels in your image do not match the
> positions of a known star or galaxy in the chart then raise the
> photograph's histogram adjustment dark limit another notch until all
> that's
> left in your photo are known objects shown in the sky-chart. You can then
> use brightness & contrast or curves tool (better to retain relative
> brightnesses) to bring up those left-over valid star pixels to an
> acceptable display brightness. Much too will depend on your intended use
> for the photograph. If you want a denser star-field for artistic effect
> then what's the harm of leaving in some faint noise as stars? Unless one
> of
> your friends is an astronomer with a photographic memory nobody will be
> the
> wiser nor care. It might make for a better photograph for your intended
> purpose. That's up to you.
>
> Printing night-sky photographs is a whole other matter. The ink-bleed from
> most inkjet printers will inevitably fill in some of the dimmest stars in
> the field making them disappear when printed. You might have to increase
> the star sizes by using blurring methods and/or increase their brightness
> greatly to try to retain them in prints. There's no cut and dried method
> to
> accomplish this. You'll have to experiment with your particular printer,
> inks, and papers; as well as the amount of ink being laid down and your
> printer's dpi settings. You might even find dim stars disappear over a
> period of days in your prints as the ink pigments slowly migrate to fill
> in
> the lighter areas. Quite annoying to find this happen after you've spent
> hours adjusting and printing things, thinking you finally got it right.
>
> You might want to also get the "PGC/LEDA 2008 Galaxy Catalog", of another
> 1.7 million galaxies from http://x.astrogeek.org/software/cdc/catalog.php
> for "Cartes du Ciel" so you aren't cutting off noise which might be valid
> galaxies. Throw in a few of the nebulae catalogs too. Star and object
> catalogs for "Cartes du Ciel" are scattered all over the net. You might
> have to hunt some down. There's some more here http://www.schoenball.de/
> and here http://www.astroclub.biz/index.php?par1=11&par2=1&lang=rus for
> starters.
>
> I just found this "Cartes du Ciel v3" page listing the principle (but some
> being older) catalogs
> http://www.ap-i.net/skychart/en/documentation/installation_of_extra_catalogs
> They are now hosting them here
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=64092&package_id=208104&release_id=455946

cheers for all that, will be most useful when I get around ito it. :)
So Stored and archived.

Now if I just didn't live in London

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ACK800
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/377ecff5bc302b8e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 6:50 am
From: Mikie

Can someone help me please?
I have a new Canon - model A470

The manaul reads that the ACK800 Is the optional accessory for this
model!

Yet nowhere on the NET do I see the AC800 as compatible with the
A470! They all seem to list all the compatible cameras, but I never
see the A470 as one of them. Does anyone have a guaranteed : yes
compatible, or not compatible to the A 470?

Also, can you recommend a dependable after-market AC800? I saw one
for 19.00 with a 3 year warranty....but a warranty is only as good as
the company selling it.

A million thanks...
Mikie

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 7:59 am
From: DanP

On Jan 27, 2:50 pm, Mikie <mp...@msn.com> wrote:
> Can someone help me please?
> I have a new Canon - model A470
>
> The manaul reads that the ACK800 Is the optional accessory for this
> model!
>
> Yet nowhere on the NET do I see the AC800 as compatible with the
> A470! They all seem to list all the compatible cameras, but I never
> see the A470 as one of them. Does anyone have a guaranteed : yes
> compatible, or not compatible to the A 470?

AC_K_800. in your message you left the k out twice. probably you have
searched for ac800.

lots of vendors advertise it as compatible. ultimately the vendor can
guarantee.
so inquire before placing an order, send some emails and the first to
respond gets the sale.
the sellers on ebay are always quick to respond.

> Also, can you recommend a dependable after-market AC800? I saw one
> for 19.00 with a 3 year warranty....but a warranty is only as good as
> the company selling it.
>
> A million thanks...
> Mikie

==============================================================================
TOPIC: More questions from...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3688265b4e5b7bfa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 6:59 am
From: Mikie

I own a A470. The manual included is a minor waste of time.

I can READ the PDF manual using Adobe Acrobat 9. Hassle!

I can PRINT the PDF, but all186 pages is too expensive.

Is there anyway I can convert it to a TEXT FILE so I can save it to my
USB Drive??

Ever try CANON for technical Help...? LOL here means Lots OF LUCK, not
lots of laughs!

A million thanx!!!

Mikie

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 7:25 am
From: Keith nuttle

Mikie wrote:
> I own a A470. The manual included is a minor waste of time.
>
> I can READ the PDF manual using Adobe Acrobat 9. Hassle!
>
> I can PRINT the PDF, but all186 pages is too expensive.
>
> Is there anyway I can convert it to a TEXT FILE so I can save it to my
> USB Drive??
>
> Ever try CANON for technical Help...? LOL here means Lots OF LUCK, not
> lots of laughs!
>
> A million thanx!!!
>
> Mikie
>
If you have Adobe 9. you can try to save it as text, depending on the
security settings in the file it may or may not work.

If you have MS Office or a demo version as comes on a new computer you
may have MS Image Writer, if so print it to image write and then do an
OCR and copy the text to a new file.

Why do you find using the PDF file a hassle? The easiest would be to
copy the PDF file to the USB drive. (I assume this to be a flash, thumb,
etc drive.

Using the Adobe, there are so many ways to view a document. Have you
tried to reduce the zoom to a minimum and use the Loupe tool in adobe?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 7:43 am
From: DanP

On Jan 27, 2:59 pm, Mikie <mp...@msn.com> wrote:
> I own a A470. The manual included is a minor waste of time.
>
> I can READ the PDF manual using Adobe Acrobat 9. Hassle!
>
> I can PRINT the PDF, but all186 pages is too expensive.
>
> Is there anyway I can convert it to a TEXT FILE so I can save it to my
> USB Drive??
>
> Ever try CANON for technical Help...? LOL here means Lots OF LUCK, not
> lots of laughs!
>
> A million thanx!!!
>
> Mikie

sorry, no ideas mate to address your question directly.

some things to consider:
1.even if you strip the pdf file of images the resulting file will
have no meaning as it shows you icons on the dial or screen or where
to plug your usb cable. you get the idea
2.read skipping the bs for idiots and stop on things you need. it's ok
to skip, you can read it again later. it wont take a lot and chances
are you will never need to read the manual again, at most go straight
to what you have missed before and clarify. searching in pdf's is
easy.
3.if you are handy with computers later on make yourself a chdk sd
card. the chdk help file is in txt format an can be put in camera to
be read.

i own a canon sx100 is

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 7:53 am
From: DanP

On Jan 27, 3:25 pm, Keith nuttle <keith_nut...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Mikie wrote:
> > I own a A470. The manual included is a minor waste of time.
>
> > I can READ the PDF manual using Adobe Acrobat 9. Hassle!
>
> > I can PRINT the PDF, but all186 pages is too expensive.
>
> > Is there anyway I can convert it to a TEXT FILE so I can save it to my
> > USB Drive??
>
> > Ever try CANON for technical Help...? LOL here means Lots OF LUCK, not
> > lots of laughs!
>
> > A million thanx!!!
>
> > Mikie
>
> If you have Adobe 9. you can try to save it as text, depending on the
> security settings in the file it may or may not work.

i've dl the file and it is well secured. secure against users.

> If you have MS Office or a demo version as comes on a new computer you
> may have MS Image Writer, if so print it to image write and then do an
> OCR and copy the text to a new file.

can work but you have to be holding a gun to make me do it. tedious!

> Why do you find using the PDF file a hassle? The easiest would be to
> copy the PDF file to the USB drive. (I assume this to be a flash, thumb,
> etc drive.
>
> Using the Adobe, there are so many ways to view a document. Have you
> tried to reduce the zoom to a minimum and use the Loupe tool in adobe?

bingo! do that for every page, save the images and upload them to a
separate folder in the camera!
ermmm, better find a tool to print to jpg, 184 pages in that file.

google "print+to+jpg"

i am not endorsing any program.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Freeware to mix photos & music & video to create a DVD slide show
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/36fb5056ac2af2c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 8:08 am
From: TruthSquad@hope.com

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:59:56 -0800, Bill Wells
<hammer29@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:34:08 +0000, David Catterall wrote:
>
>> http://download.videohelp.com/tin2tin/index.html
>
>I'll try DVD GUI out.
>
>While Photo Slideshow Creator created a working DVD on the first try, it
>bombed out multiple times when I tried to add MOV files to the mix.

MOV was developed by Apple and one reason you are likely having
problems is you either don't have their Quick Time player on your
system or it isn't installed correctly or Photo slideshow Creator or
something else you're using isn't smart enough to find/link to the
required codec.

Since Quick Time is a free offering from Apple, you might wish to
install it and see if that resolves this annoyance. The technical
reason again boils down to licensing. Apple like Microsoft is playing
hard ball. There no longer allow small vendors to use their codecs,
necessary to open proprietary file types they developed. This is a
pigged headed move, but that's another issue. Microsoft drew a line in
the sand for their ASF and WMV file formats.

As I already suggested installing Apple's Quick Time normally gets you
around the problem for MOV files. Microsoft does the same thing with
their older and no longer supported ASF file type. Where in the past
many freeware applications like VirtualDub could open ASF file,
Microsoft threatened them with legal action so they no longer support
it.

Other file types might not be what they claim. Another common issue is
AVI, while it can be a true file type in it's native uncompressed
format and other variants is also can only serve as a "wrapper" with
some other true file type, typically DivX inside. Some applications
(typically freeware crap) are too dumb to read the file header which
should be coded correctly and thus might fail to open. Even dumber
than that many DivX files have the file's header miscoded by simply
not using the expected proper syntax.

Even my beloved Sony's Vegas stumbles on this one. A free utility that
can come in handy is something called AVIC. It's only purpose is to
read/write to a AVI file header so you can see if some dummy put the
wrong syntax in for DivX files. Simply changing the header to the
correct "DIVX" from "divx" or "Divx" making it the expected all caps
resolves many video applications saying they are unable to play some
DivX files.

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

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