Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Help with my D90 please
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/78c07e5249379239?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 2:59 am
From: "Samantha Booth"

Got my D90 yesterday and I am a complete novice so go easy on me :)

It came with something that goes on the end of the lens. It screws on the
end and is like a zig zag shape, sorry dont know the name. However when I
take photos and review them this thing is visible in the shot at the bottom.
I cannot rotate it to make it invisible so what is it for and why is it
showing in my pictures.

Can anyone help please?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 3:21 am
From: "Samantha Booth"

"Samantha Booth" <mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote in message
news:glpdpu$mp6$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Got my D90 yesterday and I am a complete novice so go easy on me :)
>
> It came with something that goes on the end of the lens. It screws on the
> end and is like a zig zag shape, sorry dont know the name. However when I
> take photos and review them this thing is visible in the shot at the
> bottom. I cannot rotate it to make it invisible so what is it for and why
> is it showing in my pictures.
>
> Can anyone help please?
Lens hood I think and its sorted now, user error :)

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 3:00 am
From: Bob Williams

Jürgen Exner wrote:
> 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

But the 200-400mm Zoom is not the Kit lens that comes with an entry
level Nikon DSLR. Also you can forget about good Macro performance with
such a lens.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 4:25 am
From: measekite

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:00:53 -0800, Bob Williams wrote:

> Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> 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
>
> But the 200-400mm Zoom is not the Kit lens that comes with an entry
> level Nikon DSLR. Also you can forget about good Macro performance with
> such a lens.

Why?

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 3:06 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 28 Jan 2009 06:53:32 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:09:27 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>You hit the nail on the head. The Jews have been unjustly hated by
>>>>>>large groups of ignorant people for centuries, regardless of where
>>>>>>they are what they do.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is irrelevant since the subject is Israeli policies and not
>>>>>Jewish policies.
>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT is the underlying root for the hatred
>>>>>>toward Israel, and it always has been.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it couldn't be the brutality, the flagrant disregard for human
>>>>>rights, the contempt for UN resolutions ...
>>>>
>>>>Again you confuse the trees for the forest.
>>>
>>>Oh look, the apoligist is AGAIN making excuses for brutality and
>>>killing.
>>
>>Oh look, the self-righteous bigot is AGAIN ignoring facts to support
>>his one-sided views.
>
>Your bald-faced lies are not facts, asshole.

That nasty Tourette's syndrome is a real challenge for you, isn't it,
Ray?

>
>>>>Why do the Muslims want Israel to disappear?
>>
>>>They don't, bigot.
>>
>>You are a fool to believe otherwise.
>
>You are an evil bigot looking for an excuse to kill.

No, but you are a lying Nazi who thinks everyone who disagrees with
you is a murderer. What a pathetic evil person you are.

>> Just read the Hamas charter or
>
>Choke on this, you lying bigot.
>
> JERUSALEM - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Monday that
> Hamas - the Islamic militant group known for its suicide bombings
> and rocket attacks on Israel - is prepared to accept the Jewish
> state's right to "live as a neighbor next door in peace."

I'm not choking. At least you have the honesty not to clip out the
part that says "Hamas - the Islamic militant group known for its
suicide bombings and rocket attacks on Israel." If they are truly
"prepared" to live in peace, that's wonderful and I welcome it. But
their charter still says otherwise and they must demonstrate that they
are not using this as a stalling tactic to re-arm themselves like
they've done in the past.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 3:11 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 28 Jan 2009 06:55:04 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>The facts are Israel has committed war crimes and lied about it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Not a fact until proven in a court of law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Then by your own standards, Palestinians are innocent of any of the
>>>>>>>>>crimes you Israelis accuse them of.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1. Trying to turn the tables doesn't work, Ray, unless you are also
>>>>>>>>willing to acknowledge that Israel has not committed war crimes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>UN and Red Cross + other INDEPENDENT organisations say Israel HAS
>>>>>>>committed War crimes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have all those other sources acknowledged that the other side has
>>>>>>committed war crimes?
>>>>>
>>>>>Grow up, you hypocrital bigot.
>>>>
>>>>Typical Ray response:
>>>
>>>Typical bishop evasion. EVERYBODY who criticizes Israel MUST be
>>>biased and unfair.
>>
>>I've never said you are biased and unfair "because you criticize
>>Israel."
>
>You accuse everybody who is critical of Israel of being biased

Not so. Criticism is fine. But I do think that people who are
coming from the position that Israel has no right to exist and who
ignore or justify the evil done by the other side are most definitely
biased. You and Chris fit that mold perfectly.

>
>> You are biased and unfair because you refuse to recognize
>>the evil that has been done on both sides.
>
>You're lying.

Prove me wrong, then. Let's hear you say that you condemn the evil
murderous acts that the Palestinians have been committing against
innocent people for decades, regardless of what you think about
Israel.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 3:12 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 28 Jan 2009 06:56:32 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>>>>You don't understand subtle meanings, so you shout "lies!"
>>>>>
>>>>>I understand how evil sleazebags try to claim that black is white,
>>>>>freedom is death, and outright lies are really just "subtle meanings".
>>>>
>>>>You have little understanding of the truth.
>>>
>>>I understand that you're a shameless liar. Proof is provided above.
>>
>>Not proof at all, Ray.
>
>Here it is again, liar.
>
> The West Bank [...] is just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
> Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>
> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
> Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>

Again you ignore what I've said about that in your childish attempt at
"gotcha."

Answer my questions, Ray, if you can find them in all that text you've
dishonestly clipped away.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 3:16 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 28 Jan 2009 06:59:01 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>You whine but I provide proof.
>>
>>You clip away evidence of your lies again.
>
>Your lies are not proof of anything, bigot.
>
>THIS is proof. YOUR own words.
>
> The West Bank [...] is just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
> Stephen Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>
> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
> Stephen Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>

You still rely on out of context quotes and clipped-away explanations
as a childish attempt at "gotcha."

Answer my questions, Ray. Why are you afraid to do so?

As long as you are quoting "lies," why not quote your own lies about
the Likud party being the majority party in Israel?

Or your own lies about Israel's latest military action in Gaza being
in the West Bank?

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 3:50 am
From: Chris Malcolm

HEM-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...

>> "Liberal" in US politics means something very different from
>> what it means in the UK, and most Brits are rather baffled by
>> the US political meaning, so I'm rather puzzled about how the
>> BBC managed to make such an admission.
>>
>> I do hope you didn't hear the BBC using the word "liberal" in
>> one of its British English senses, and imagine that they meant
>> the US meaning!

> You're working to a false premise. Americans don't give one rip about
> British politics, the meaning of "liberal" or the spoon-fed bilge
> coming from the BBC.

That was what I was suggesting might be the case. Thanks for
confirming its truth.

> All that is necessary is that it is NOT what
> Americans want to here so the rest is a waste of our time. The BBC
> only got into this discussion because YOU brought it up as a paragon
> of unbiased truth which it most surely is NOT.

I didn't bring it up, nor did I say anything about its truth. I simply
corrected a false about a simple well known matter of fact which some
clueless idiot made, and suggested a reason for it. You have confirmed
that my suggestion is in fact the case, at least as far as you are
concerned.

You have so completely misunderstood what was said and who said it
that this business of keeping track of newsgroup arguments is clearly
getting too much for you. Suggest you take a rest and calm down.

--
Chris Malcolm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon's Quarterly Profit Down 81.5% Due To The Failure Of The 5D Mk II
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7be2935c480fe6fd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 3:36 am
From: "Larry Thong"

It seems Canon's last ditch effort to pull their earnings out of the toilet
by offering a dirt cheap high-res camera has been a dismal failure. It
seems Nikon has dealt the last blow to Canon's longstanding track record of
offering cameras that lack QA standards when the D3, D700, and D3x were
introduced.

<http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/01/28/business/business-canon-results.html?_r=2>

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 4:02 am
From: "Alan Smithee"

"Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:beidnWrm88UA3h3UnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com...

> It seems Canon's last ditch effort to pull their earnings out of the
> toilet by offering a dirt cheap high-res camera has been a dismal failure.
> It seems Nikon has dealt the last blow to Canon's longstanding track
> record of offering cameras that lack QA standards when the D3, D700, and
> D3x were introduced.
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/01/28/business/business-canon-results.html?_r=2>

SLR's are still predicted to increase, so the sales must be going to
someone.
http://www.cipa.jp/english/pdf/press090127_e.pdf

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 4:33 am
From: ^Tems^

Larry Thong wrote:
> It seems Canon's last ditch effort to pull their earnings out of the
> toilet by offering a dirt cheap high-res camera has been a dismal
> failure. It seems Nikon has dealt the last blow to Canon's longstanding
> track record of offering cameras that lack QA standards when the D3,
> D700, and D3x were introduced.
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/01/28/business/business-canon-results.html?_r=2>
>
>
>

So they must have slowed production as there is still a 9 - 12 week wait
for the 5d in Australia

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 6:23 am
From: "ad607@ncf.ca"

"Larry Troll" <larry_thong@shitstirrer.com> wrote in message
news:beidnWrm88UA3h3UnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com...
> It seems Canon's last ditch effort to pull their earnings out of the
> toilet by offering a dirt cheap high-res camera has been a dismal failure.
> It seems Nikon has dealt the last blow to Canon's longstanding track
> record of offering cameras that lack QA standards when the D3, D700, and
> D3x were introduced.
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/01/28/business/business-canon-results.html?_r=2>
>
>
The main emphasis of the cite was office equipment. I doubt 5D mk.II sales
had an impact, because;

a. FF cameras are a small market segment for both Canon and Nikon, their
best selling dSLR are XSi, XS and D40, D60.

b. The 5D only trickled in at the end of Q4, too small numbers and too late
to really dent the bottom line.

However with the business climate being shaky, many companies aren't buying
new office equipment. CitiBank even cancelled their purchase of a new Falcon
bizjet.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe gone crazy?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 3:50 am
From: "dwight"

"Krypto" <Krypto@rolling-one.com> wrote in message
news:7plvn49lng8ps0qlvjgc14i7q8tolpdg9v@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:22:04 -0500, "dwight" <dwight@tfrogX.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Krypto" <Krypto@rolling-one.com> wrote in message
>>news:pqdvn413b1mgn75m0253p689qsnukkv1e4@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:00:17 -0800 (PST), Nervous Nick
>>> <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jan 27, 3:25 pm, Jim <J...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:39:56 -0000, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>>>>> >After downloading PS CS4, which was next to impossible, because they
>>>>> >have a
>>>>> >new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox,
>>>>> >Internet
>>>>> >Explorer and Opera.
>>>>> >I finally managed (NOT thanks to the help of very "unknowledgeable"
>>>>> >helpdesk
>>>>> >workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in the
>>>>> >window of
>>>>> >FF.
>>>>> >Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
>>>>> >"Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may
>>>>> >not
>>>>> >have
>>>>> >the appropriate permissions to access the item."
>>>>> >I even tried it with administrator and password, but still the same.
>>>>> >Also very funny: AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!!
>>>>> >Way to go Adobe!
>>>>> >What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on
>>>>> >the
>>>>> >screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe
>>>>> >company
>>>>> >don't leave me in misery...
>>>>>
>>>>> >Does anyone know *how* to get this thing to work? Or do I need to get
>>>>> >a
>>>>> >cracked version?
>>>>> >I've been trying this for 4 days now and Adobe support doesn't have a
>>>>> >clue...
>>>>>
>>>>> >Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> AVG is famous for reporting false virii. Kaspersky is the best
>>>>> antivirus program. If you want to go the cracked route CS4 is now
>>>>> posted in alt.binaries.multimedia.utilities. Virus checked thoroughly
>>>>> and it is clean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a direct link to get an NZB file for
>>>>> it:http://binsearch.info/?b=Adobe.Photoshop.CS4.Extended.v11.0.with.Keyg...
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember you *must* block it with your firewall after install or it
>>>>> will reject your serial eventually. CS4 phones home and checks the
>>>>> serial so it must be blocked.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: for those people who are no doubt going to rag about downloading
>>>>> warez. Pfft!
>>>>> Go spend your hard earned money, I don't really care!
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>>Isn't it illegal to do it that way?
>>>
>>> illegal? That's just a large sick bird.
>>>
>>> Seriously, if you use APCS4 in any commercial capacity I would
>>> definetly recommend that you buy it.
>>>
>>> If you are like me, a casual home user, then save several hundred
>>> bucks and get it free. Nobody is going catch or punish you for using
>>> it. Think of it as a long term evaluation period.
>>>
>>> Does Abobe lose any money cuz I use it for free? No! I would never buy
>>> the program because it is too expensive for home use, so no, they
>>> didn't lose any money with me. Adobe, Microsoft etc. mostly care about
>>> commercial users of their products. I have never heard of any home
>>> user being prosecuted.
>>>
>>> Last, have you ever downloaded an mp3? Your kids maybe? That is also
>>> somewhat illegal. Yet people do it. Do you think your kids are
>>> criminals for having a few mp3s?
>>>
>>> I know, next the morality argument. No problem there for me I have no
>>> moral problem with keeping the money in my pocket. Maybe I'll save up
>>> and buy a new lens :-)
>>>
>>> Ok, now you outraged people can flame me. I love it. Always good for a
>>> laugh!!
>>>
>>> Ps: Pssst!! want the serial number for NX2?
>>
>>As Krypto said, but in a LOT more words - yes, it is illegal.
>>
>>dwight
>>
> Well said dwight. So do you want that serial number?

Not me. I'm one of those fools who makes a living on copyright.

dwight

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 4:00 am
From: Chris Malcolm

David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:02:50 -0700, Wally <Wally@luxx.com> wrote:
>>>But there is a great danger of a frustrated user disabling his AV or
>>>firewall software because it is obstructing what he wants to do. And
>>>I've seen plenty of polluted computers as a result.
>>
>> Be more specific. Are you saying that a computer can be harmed by
>> turning off the anti-virus program during the download and install
>> from a site like Adobe's?
>>
>> Assuming the anti-virus is re-opened immediately after these two
>> actions, what harm can befall the computer?

> The firewall should be left on all the time. If one doesn't click email
> attachements, I'm not convinced that AV software is necessary. (If one is
> the only one using your own computer.)

Unless you're running IE, and especially if you're using your computer
in admin mode. Since those are the out-of-the-box defaults on a lot of
computers, that's what a lot of people are doing.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 4:57 am
From: "J. Clarke"

John McWilliams wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:02:50 -0700, Wally <Wally@luxx.com> wrote:
>>>> But there is a great danger of a frustrated user disabling his AV
>>>> or firewall software because it is obstructing what he wants to
>>>> do. And I've seen plenty of polluted computers as a result.
>>> Be more specific. Are you saying that a computer can be harmed by
>>> turning off the anti-virus program during the download and install
>>> from a site like Adobe's?
>>>
>>> Assuming the anti-virus is re-opened immediately after these two
>>> actions, what harm can befall the computer?
>>
>> The firewall should be left on all the time. If one doesn't click
>> email attachements, I'm not convinced that AV software is
>> necessary.
>> (If one is the only one using your own computer.)
>
> Unless, of course, you are running a Mac. Then AV software is really
> unnecessary, and you don't need to sweat it if the firewall is down.

In any case "firewalls" running on the machine that they are
ostensibly protecting are a joke. More marketing based on fear,
uncertainty, doubt, and in this case ignorance. The firewall goes
_between_ the machine being protected and the rest of the world, with
the idea being that the attack hits the firewall and packets from the
attack never even _get_ to a port on the protected machine.

You can get a real hardware firewall these days for about the same
price as most of the crappy software pretend firewalls.

As for Mac AV software being unnecesary, AV software in general is
unnecessary. Just don't run as root. But Macafee, Norton and the
rest will tell you that your Mac is going to be instantly destroyed by
the thousands of Mac viruses out there if you don't use their
kruftware, just as they claim for Windows. The real difference is
that for some reason Windows users believe them.

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

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 5:10 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:02:50 -0700, Wally <Wally@luxx.com> wrote:
>>>> But there is a great danger of a frustrated user disabling his AV
>>>> or firewall software because it is obstructing what he wants to
>>>> do. And I've seen plenty of polluted computers as a result.
>>>
>>> Be more specific. Are you saying that a computer can be harmed by
>>> turning off the anti-virus program during the download and install
>>> from a site like Adobe's?
>>>
>>> Assuming the anti-virus is re-opened immediately after these two
>>> actions, what harm can befall the computer?
>
>> The firewall should be left on all the time. If one doesn't click
>> email attachements, I'm not convinced that AV software is
>> necessary.
>> (If one is the only one using your own computer.)
>
> Unless you're running IE, and especially if you're using your
> computer
> in admin mode. Since those are the out-of-the-box defaults on a lot
> of
> computers, that's what a lot of people are doing.

Actually the problem is that people will insist on logging in as
administrator because it's more convenient for them and they've been
brainwashed into thinking that running on a user account makes them
not in charge. I've seen people get angry at the notion of running
from a user account.

There is no helping such folks and they deserve everything that
happens to them.

Vista comes out of the box locked down. I had hoped that this would
finally force the idiot software developers into playing by the
security rules, but apparently not--most of the Vista "problems" that
you hear about are crap software being killed by the security, with
the OS doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Unfortunately it
looks like the "fix" may be to back off the security defaults rather
than telling the idiots "fix your junk".

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

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 5:01 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <g2bvn4d4phd67ng74kt4bdi5dg5n38bneg@4ax.com>, Jim says...
>
>> I'm afraid it is you who is out of date and out of touch. AVG is
>> known throughout the net for giving false positives.
>> I have used all of the major AV programs and Kaspersky is best,
>> followed by NOD32.
>
> I read a few days ago somewhere a report od a guy who had to
> uninstall
> Kaspersky because it was slowing down his CS4 to almost zero.

You have to understand--the "best antivirus" is like the "best
cancer".

If you're running XP, get a copy of the XP Administrator's Pocket
Companion and work through it and learn to lock it down, then run from
a user account, not administrator. If you're running Vista just don't
log on as administrator unless you're doing something that requires
it. That will do more for you than all the antivirus kruftware in the
world, and save you money besides.

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

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 5:41 am
From: "bowser"

"Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote in message
news:I56dnUTQXcOQ_uLUnZ2dnUVZ8v-WnZ2d@novis.pt...
> After downloading PS CS4, which was next to impossible, because they have
> a new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox,
> Internet Explorer and Opera.
> I finally managed (NOT thanks to the help of very "unknowledgeable"
> helpdesk workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in
> the window of FF.
> Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
> "Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not
> have the appropriate permissions to access the item."
> I even tried it with administrator and password, but still the same.
> Also very funny: AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!!
> Way to go Adobe!
> What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on the
> screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe company
> don't leave me in misery...
>
> Does anyone know *how* to get this thing to work? Or do I need to get a
> cracked version?
> I've been trying this for 4 days now and Adobe support doesn't have a
> clue...

I downloaded mine from PC Connection via the UPS download device. Had it up
and running the next day with no problems, and the price included media,
packaging, etc.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Science Disproves Evolution
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/768b954b24fa4c9a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 4:23 am
From: measekite

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:15:20 -0800, SMS wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:25:02 -0800, Twibil wrote:
>>
>>> Religion disproves Creationism!
>>>
>>> Recent revelations straight from God have proven once and for all that
>>> evolution is not only real, but was and is God's favorite tool;
>>> designed by Him to eventually produce what He had in mind from the
>>> beginning.
>>
>> What lenses did God use? Were they Nikon, Canon or what.
>
> Pretty sure Jesus used Nikon, Buddha uses Canon, Joseph Smith used
> Pentax, Mohammed used Minolta, Ishvara uses Olympus. The devil uses Sigma.

And the devil wears Pravda

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cokin Filters
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/73d46a78131affbe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 4:33 am
From: measekite

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:58:04 +0000, nick c wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>> Has anybody use Cokin filter frames and the multitude of filters they
>> have. What are your experiences?
>
> I often use Graduated Cokin filters to adjust the photographic light
> range of a scene that is beyond the cameras dynamic range. Depending
> upon the lens type being used, I may hand hold the filter against the
> lens or use a filter holder frame. I very rarely use a variety or
> multiples of Cokin filters.

Why do you choose not to do that?
>
> I have yet to encounter a problem that would cause me to discontinue
> such a useful practice carried over from past times when I once shot
> film. FWIW, I consider the use of Graduated filters to be in the same
> league as using Polarized filters; each being used to their best
> advantage.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 5:43 am
From: "whisky-dave"

}"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:be2aebfd-9326-4533-8a89-f045aee6a86e@m22g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 24, 12:24 am, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

}Isn't this really the same question as poised in the cartoon. Is it
}the camera that produces good pictures or the photographer? Will a
}sh*tty photographer with a good camera out-perform a good photographer
}with a sh*tty camera?

another good question is if there's a "good picture" in the offering
and there's no photographer to record it then does the "good picture" exist
;-)

These are really both just different parts of the same issue.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A serious equipment question.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/342f5b9eebeb6e3e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 5:59 am
From: "Larry Thong"

D.Mac wrote:

>> This is why you shoot large groups with the 200/2 and make a pano.
>> No pro photog will be stupid enough to use a WA lens in this
>> application.
>
> I agree entirely. That's why I use an 85mm F/1.4 for all portrait
> work and most of my wedding shots. 200 mm is simply too long. It's
> too long for portraits, too long for group shots and not long enough
> for candid portraiture.

Nonsense! The 200/2 is the perfect wedding lens and is being used by most
pros that actually know what they are doing.

> For a wedding photographer, I couldn't think of a worse lens to use
> than a 200 mm prime on anything less than a 6x9 CM Medium Format
> camera.

Haven't shot many weddings in your career, have you?

> I don't know where you got the notion you could "make a pano" for a
> wedding album. Maybe the same place you came up with the bullshit
> about photographers buying Nikon speedlites to use on their Canon
> DSLRs?

Why not? Panos are a perfect addition to any album. Of course you might
have problems convincing your supposed customers "Down Under" that you can
actual do a "stepping out" pano.

> Your "supposed" information is about as useful as a hole in a rubber
> boot.

Well, that's better than your situation, using a used rubber with a hole in
it.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 6:51 am
From: Don Stauffer

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
>

Adobe reader should give you options on printing. There should be
"radio buttons" for the options. The normal options are whole thing,
pages N-M, and selection. For the latter, you select first and then
that option will print only the selection.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Colored monochrome effect?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fc1678c77c3f9341?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 28 2009 6:57 am
From: Don Stauffer

I want to make a tinted or colored monochrome like what is painted on
Delft or Wedgwood china. Dark areas should be shades of blue, lighter
backgrounds approaching white.

When I try things I keep ending up with black on shades of light blue,
or else dark blue details on black.

I have PSP, PS Elements, and access to PS. Any suggestions? I assume I
need to create some sort of mask layer, but so far have not found the
right technique.

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

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, January 28, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic