Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 9:15 am
From: nospam

In article <87tz7fivok.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:

> >> You are claiming a program you don't use and know
> >> nothing about is not good because it does not include
> >> useless options.
> >
> >i can say the same about you.
>
> But it would just be more fabrication on your part.

nope. see below for why.

> >you don't use camera raw nor do you use a multi-stage sharpening
>
> I shoot raw 100% of the time. I commonly use multi-stage sharpening.

camera raw is the name of adobe's raw converter. the fact that you
thought i meant /shooting/ raw very clearly indicates that you don't
use it, so i was *exactly* correct in my claim (even more so than i
thought).

you previously said that sharpening should be the *last* step (your
emphasis). now you claim you do multi-stage sharpening? if you do,
then you are not only contradicting yourself, but you are agreeing with
those whom you have been calling ignorant.

> >workflow and i doubt you've read any of a number of authors on the
>
> Apparently I'm somewhat better informed on at least this topic
> than you are.

i would describe it as you are convinced that your way is the only
correct way and that anything that deviates from that is useless and
wanting it can only be due to ignorance.

there *are* other workflows, and like everything, they have their
advantages and disadvantages. they are not always better in all cases.
the nice thing about having choices is that you can pick what works
best for any particular situation. why is that bad?

so far, the only evidence i've seen from you about *why* it's useless
is because you say so and that anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant.
that's not exactly a convincing reason.

> >subject to form your opinion, so how is it that you know it's useless?
>
> I actually do use the program we are discussing. A fact
> that you should have realized some time back.

i never said you didn't use ufraw. what were you saying about
fabricating?

what i said was you don't use camera raw (from adobe, in case there's
any confusion this time) and not familiar with an alternate workflow,
one which sharpens when converting from raw.

> >> As I've noted before, 100% crop pixel viewing in UFRAW
> >> would be totally useless. There is neither sharpening
> >> nor artifacts to look at. And there is no valid reason
> >> to add either the 100% crop or things to look at with it.
> >
> >you can always turn them off if you don't want to use them. offering
> >more options makes the tool *more* flexible, something i would think is
> >desirable.
>
> If there are only so many minutes in a day, why would
> anyone put something useless at the top of the priority
> list? You are...

*you* think it's useless. others don't. having choices is a good
thing since each image is unique. it's not useless.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 10:40 am
From: "J. Clarke"

nospam wrote:
> In article <87tz7fivok.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
> <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> You are claiming a program you don't use and know
>>>> nothing about is not good because it does not include
>>>> useless options.
>>>
>>> i can say the same about you.
>>
>> But it would just be more fabrication on your part.
>
> nope. see below for why.
>
>>> you don't use camera raw nor do you use a multi-stage sharpening
>>
>> I shoot raw 100% of the time. I commonly use multi-stage
>> sharpening.
>
> camera raw is the name of adobe's raw converter. the fact that you
> thought i meant /shooting/ raw very clearly indicates that you don't
> use it, so i was *exactly* correct in my claim (even more so than i
> thought).
>
> you previously said that sharpening should be the *last* step (your
> emphasis). now you claim you do multi-stage sharpening? if you do,
> then you are not only contradicting yourself, but you are agreeing
> with those whom you have been calling ignorant.
>
>>> workflow and i doubt you've read any of a number of authors on the
>>
>> Apparently I'm somewhat better informed on at least this topic
>> than you are.
>
> i would describe it as you are convinced that your way is the only
> correct way and that anything that deviates from that is useless and
> wanting it can only be due to ignorance.
>
> there *are* other workflows, and like everything, they have their
> advantages and disadvantages. they are not always better in all
> cases. the nice thing about having choices is that you can pick what
> works best for any particular situation. why is that bad?
>
> so far, the only evidence i've seen from you about *why* it's
> useless
> is because you say so and that anyone who thinks otherwise is
> ignorant. that's not exactly a convincing reason.
>
>>> subject to form your opinion, so how is it that you know it's
>>> useless?
>>
>> I actually do use the program we are discussing. A fact
>> that you should have realized some time back.
>
> i never said you didn't use ufraw. what were you saying about
> fabricating?
>
> what i said was you don't use camera raw (from adobe, in case
> there's
> any confusion this time) and not familiar with an alternate
> workflow,
> one which sharpens when converting from raw.
>
>>>> As I've noted before, 100% crop pixel viewing in UFRAW
>>>> would be totally useless. There is neither sharpening
>>>> nor artifacts to look at. And there is no valid reason
>>>> to add either the 100% crop or things to look at with it.
>>>
>>> you can always turn them off if you don't want to use them.
>>> offering more options makes the tool *more* flexible, something i
>>> would think is desirable.
>>
>> If there are only so many minutes in a day, why would
>> anyone put something useless at the top of the priority
>> list? You are...
>
> *you* think it's useless. others don't. having choices is a good
> thing since each image is unique. it's not useless.

If you want to avoid confusion between common nouns such as "camera"
or "raw" and proper nouns such as "Camera Raw" then you might want to
consider following the standard English language convention of
capitalizing the proper nouns.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Top flight DSLRs in novice hands
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a405372c4093d0be?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 9:18 am
From: Alan Browne

Rich wrote:
> I often hear people (likely motivated more by envy than anything else)
> criticize novices who sport expensive DSLRs. I figure it's the same kind
> of people who dine on steak and feed their kids hotdogs because "the kids
> can't appreciate the steak fully."
> Friend is attending photo school. Guy shows up toting a new D3...with a
> $150 Sigma zoom attached. Disgusting, I know. Shows a lack of something
> on that person's part. But ultimately, even a novice or a complete hack
> will do somewhat better with a better camera, it's inevitable. The person
> with the D300 coupled to a 300mm f2.8 is likely going to do a little better
> than the guy with the old D50 and the basic, slow 70-300mm G lens, if you
> were to average the results across a couple hundred shots.
> So, the old question, is a $5000 camera in a novice's hands(lets assume a
> novice who is clueless and won't bother learning)a complete waste? No.
> Because even though they'll never exploit its full potential, they will do
> slightly better with it than with a lesser machine.

Story I
A few years ago at a trade show I saw some fellow in his 50's with a
high end Canon and flash attempting to photograph his company's large
booth. He looked puzzled, confused, frustrated and borderline angry. I
could have stopped and suggested he shoot available light with a tripod,
but I doubted that he had a tripod. From his shooting posture and his
puzzled look at the controls, he was looking for the camera to fix the
problem. I walked on by...

Story II
Last summer at the Lincoln Memorial a young fellow had a high end Canon
and a wide angle zoom. He was doing a back sunlit shot of someone with
fill flash. As I walked by he appeared puzzled at what was shown in the
monitor. Without seeing his monitor I knew immediately what the problem
was, I bent down, pointed at the petal shade and said: "Remove this."
He immediately caught on and said, "Oh! of course! Thanks!"

The difference between these novices was one who really expected the
camera to do the work without thought and the other who had the correct
approach but was making one little mistake... and one he instantly
understood once pointed out.

It's not about how novice someone is, it's about their attitude and
willingness to learn despite mistakes that come up. And as usual this
has nothing to do with the equipment.

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

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 9:18 am
From: "SteveB"

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009013108510375249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2009-01-29 06:56:50 -0800, Rich <none@nowhere.com> said:
>
>> I often hear people (likely motivated more by envy than anything else)
>> criticize novices who sport expensive DSLRs. I figure it's the same kind
>> of people who dine on steak and feed their kids hotdogs because "the kids
>> can't appreciate the steak fully."
>> Friend is attending photo school. Guy shows up toting a new D3...with a
>> $150 Sigma zoom attached. Disgusting, I know. Shows a lack of something
>> on that person's part. But ultimately, even a novice or a complete hack
>> will do somewhat better with a better camera, it's inevitable. The person
>> with the D300 coupled to a 300mm f2.8 is likely going to do a little
>> better
>> than the guy with the old D50 and the basic, slow 70-300mm G lens, if you
>> were to average the results across a couple hundred shots.
>> So, the old question, is a $5000 camera in a novice's hands(lets assume a
>> novice who is clueless and won't bother learning)a complete waste? No.
>> Because even though they'll never exploit its full potential, they will
>> do
>> slightly better with it than with a lesser machine.
>
> Bah. I will attach any lens I want to my D3x, no matter what any sneering,
> envious jerk who calls himself a good photographer thinks. If that is a
> $150 Sigma, that is nobody's business but mine.
>
> And, hey, the guy with the D3 was going to photo school. Seems sensible
> enough to me.
>
> Something W.T. Duck had to say seems apropos today: the difference between
> a snapshot and art is about $1200.
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

My SIL has a D300, and all the lenses, bells, and whistles. He also has a
lot of money. He saw my Sony DSCH1, and had to have something better, and
that's what he came up with. I am in the market for a new camera, so I
asked him how he liked the D300. Fine he sez. I asked him if it had the
18-55 mm lens, and if so how he liked it. He said he didn't know what
lenses he had, but said he had several. He looked and looked but could not
identify the lens looking at it. I just wanted to see if he knew enough to
find it. Then I asked him how it worked in the different modes, and he said
he only used it on AUTO. But he does take some darn nice pictures of the
grandkids. But then, how could ANYONE take any bad pictures of my
grandkids? I bet he even reads the manual one of these days.

Steve

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 9:55 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

Alan Browne wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Bah. I will attach any lens I want to my D3x, no matter what any
>> sneering, envious jerk who calls himself a good photographer thinks.
>> If that is a $150 Sigma, that is nobody's business but mine.
>
> Sailing takes less time when you simply stand in an ice cold shower and
> shred $100 bills.
>
> At the resolution of the $8K D3x one is doing pretty much the same if
> they have anything less than good primes or holy-trinity zooms.
>

Uh ... this is a full-frame camera with very ordinary sized (5.9 micron) pixels.
It's not a Canon 50D with teensy pixels.

As such, the D3x is not in need of the super-best lenses to get
pixel-peeper approval. It just needs ordinary ... not bargain basement ...
lenses. Same for all the Canon full-frame cameras.

Now a full-frame with 50D-sized pixels ... now there we're talking
the very best primes at their optimal apertures. Small pixels and
using the corner of the lens coverage will be a real test. But that has
not happened yet.

Doug McDonald

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 9:33 am
From: "Alan Smithee"

"DanP" <dan.petre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef5d2b0d-e69d-4f54-97ba-ef46d4eb5357@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> i dont agree with "save" for the same reason why i dont agree with
> publishing companies when they claim "loses" everytime someone uses
> music/software without a license.

I think that music companies are sometimes too greedy. I have bought a few
albums after hearing a song I liked used as a background track on a amateur
youtube video. In fact, just this week I came across a 5D II video with a
song I liked (http://www.vimeo.com/2675248) and is a song I wouldn't have
otherwise bought. With the likes of Play and Amazon selling individual
tracks now, I think a lot of people will also do this.

As for the OP, sounds like a wind-up to me.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 11:06 am
From: Jim

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:49:42 +0200, Dave <dave@durbs.koza> wrote:

>On 31 Jan 2009 07:41:01 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>
>>So you think that your'e clever for being a slimy thief.
>
>no comparison between stealing a program and
>supporting Palestinian suicide bomb attacks
>against civilians in a crowded bus like you do, idiot.

How did we get here from there? What has software got to do with
middle east terror?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 11:18 am
From: RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:06:53 -0800, Jim <Jim> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:49:42 +0200, Dave <dave@durbs.koza> wrote:
>
>>On 31 Jan 2009 07:41:01 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>So you think that your'e clever for being a slimy thief.
>>
>>no comparison between stealing a program and
>>supporting Palestinian suicide bomb attacks
>>against civilians in a crowded bus like you do, idiot.
>
>How did we get here from there? What has software got to do with
>middle east terror?

Right, the topic is the liberation of a piece of software not
the liberation of Palestine. Let's try to stay on track.

Robin Hood

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 9:51 am
From: Sheila

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:02:52 -0500, Sheila wrote:
>
>>> It'll take more than talent. You'll have to hold a sensor instead
>>> of a piece of film if you want to use that digital technique.
>> Just think of all the dust you will have one your sensor.
>
> Dust doesn't bother those low-res. sensors. It takes clump of
> dust or dirt particles to block a single pixel, and users are
> motivated to clean the sensors - they're strawberry flavored . . .
>

LOL!

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

==============================================================================
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: Sat, Jan 31 2009 9:54 am
From: "Jerry"

<TruthSquad@hope.com> wrote in message
news:ipu8o4dgr4ni6fn639psjam1bku0i5tmcp@4ax.com...

Fuck all left to reply too...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: camera for diving ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f5f0b7143efb2882?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 10:01 am
From: "ben bradlee"

"Antonio Huerta" <ahuerta@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:f1451300-14ee-4ae6-a462-9b3829472a21@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>I would like to dive and take casual pictures of the rocks and fishes.
> What waterproofed camera should I get ? I do not want an expensive
> one, because it is first of all for experimenting. And I would not be
> sorry if I did not do much diving (thus would not be sorry for the
> sunken cost... gee, pun not intended).
>
> I am aware that there are Olympus mu kind of cameras which are
> waterproofed, but I am not sure about their suitability for diving and
> their image quality. I am also aware that there are housings for
> "land" cameras. But I do not know about their suitability...

You can buy cheap film cameras at most any dive shop. The last one I
purchased was under $40 and I think I've seen single use cameras for about
half that price. If you want to experiment that is the way to do it at the
lowest cost. Film is a good way to start because it shows you how hard it
is to get good quality shots.

The next cheapest way to go is to rent a camera at your destination or from
a local dive shop. This option will enable you to experiment at low cost
unless you flood the camera or otherwise destroy it in the process. Then
you will probably be liable for the damage.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 10:43 am
From: "J. Clarke"

ray wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:46:08 -0800, Antonio Huerta wrote:
>
>> I would like to dive and take casual pictures of the rocks and
>> fishes. What waterproofed camera should I get ? I do not want an
>> expensive one, because it is first of all for experimenting. And I
>> would not be sorry if I did not do much diving (thus would not be
>> sorry for the sunken cost... gee, pun not intended).
>>
>> I am aware that there are Olympus mu kind of cameras which are
>> waterproofed, but I am not sure about their suitability for diving
>> and their image quality. I am also aware that there are housings
>> for
>> "land" cameras. But I do not know about their suitability...
>
> Since this is to be experimental, I suggest you try a zip loc bag on
> whatever camera you already have.

Trouble with that is that (a) single ziplocs are prone to leakage--you
should at least double, and (b) ziplocs don't give you a flat window
in front of the lens.

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

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 11:03 am
From: Paul Furman

I think you'll find wide angle is valuable for underwater:

Lee Bell wrote:
>>> I was thinking about an inexpensive camera. I did a search on
>>> dpreview, and found Ricoh G600,

28-140mm equivalent lens
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0804/08042201ricohg600.asp

> which was watreproofed according to
>>> JIS grade 7. This means that the camera can stand 30 minutes at a
>>> depth of 1 m, http://www.opticsplanet.net/water-proof.html . Perhaps,
>>> it could withstand larger depth ? It probably could do it, at a
>>> stretch. Or not ?
>> What this means in real world is that you can probably take the camera
>> out in the rain... If you're lucky, maybe even a heavy rainstorm...
>
> Correct
>
>>> Here is the camera Olympus Stylus Tough 8000,

38-114mm equivalent lens

which is rated JIS grade
>>> 8. This means that it can be continiously immersed into the water at
>>> the conditions more severe than the camera above, JIS grade 7. The
>>> description of Olympus says that the camera is waterproofed up to the
>>> depth 33 ft, or 10 m,
>>> http://www.digicamera.com/reviews/olympus_stylus_8000/ . This is what
>>> I need !
>> Which means that you can take it in the bathtub with you...
>
> I don't know about the Tough 8000, but my Olympus Stylus 1050 SW is
> specifically designed for snorkeling. It's particularly good for taking
> underwater shots of those bathing beauties you're so fond of watching in
> North Florida springs.
>
>> If you are only going to be taking a few photos, you might want to
>> consider an older film camera and housing... Some underwater
>> photographers are switching over from film to digital and you can
>> sometimes get really good deals on the old cameras and housings...
>
> I really, really, really recommend against a film camera for someone just
> starting underwater photography. For the first year or so, the ration
> between keeper and garbage pictures is quite low. Developing and printing
> are not cheap. The high cost for a low return has turned many a photographer
> away from taking underwater shots. With digital, the shots you don't like,
> don't cost you anything.
>
>> If you're willing to settle for the point-and-shoot type of digital
>> cameras, your best bet is to just look for housings that are acceptable
>> in price and then buy the camera that goes with it... Otherwise, you
>> might get a camera that no one makes a housing for or if they do, it is
>> overly expensive...
>
> A pretty good idea, actually. In most cases, the housing will be good to
> greater depths than snorkeling cameras like mine. Those that may consider
> diving one day should consider this option carefully. The downside is that
> the combination of camera and housing, even for the point and shoot models,
> is likely to be more than the better quality waterproof options. If all
> you're going to do is snorkel, you get more bang for your buck with a
> snorkeling camera.
>
>> As far as megapixels go, you don't necessarily need 10+mp unless you are
>> going to be doing significant cropping or enlarging the photos to poster
>> size or better... If you are just going to post them on a web page, even
>> a 2mp camera will produce images larger than most monitor resolutions...
>
> Correct.
>
> Lee
>
>

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Got <140 bit DR Image?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/00d043919be94bfd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 10:16 am
From: John O'Flaherty

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 02:29:42 -0800 (PST), Vance <Vance.Lear@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jan 29, 2:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 12:43 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>
>> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:3e1fa2bf-f230-4a37-bccb-fc9f789990ae@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > >And as you've suggested, a pair of 16 bit captures could also take
>> > >full advantage of the 140 db worth of DR, or even up to 192 db should
>> > >a given cmos imager offer as much.
>>
>> > No, I said extra scans are unnecessary *if* your sensor provides 140dB in
>> > one scan. Simply use 2 or more A/D's.
>>
>> That's even better, because 12 bit ADCs are relatively dirt cheap, and
>> 16 bit can't be all that much worse off. Fast terabyte media storage
>> could get a little spendy.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > In other words, at 192 db of
>> > >dynamic range (similar to the best human eye),
>>
>> > The best human eye cannot manage that range in one pass either. It can only
>> > do so by adjusting the pupil diameter. But then the problem of the eyes
>> > color accuracy at extreme sensitivities goes to hell in any case.
>>
>> I agree, the 140 db of the cmos imager would always far outperform the
>> human eye, not to mention at < ten thousand fold faster response.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Just as it is now possible to record audio with more accuracy than human
>> > hearing, it should be possible to record images with more accuracy than
>> > human vision in the foreseeable future, IMO. The only thing missing at the
>> > moment is suitable sensors AFAICT. Possibly not even that :-)
>>
>> > Of course you do realise such an image can never be printed with even the
>> > slightest accuracy?
>>
>> > MrT.
>>
>> Image accuracy is always the eye candy that's in the eye of the
>> beholder. I've called it observationology, and it's entirely
>> subjective as well as in need of deductively interpreting no matter
>> how good or bad the image technology is. If you can't deductively
>> think and thus interpret for yourself, you're kind of screwed into
>> accepting whatever others (your peers) have to say. Unlike most, I
>> still like to think for myself, and I never saw one stinking image of
>> anything looking WMD worthy, but then I'm not as smart as our SEC and
>> Madoff either.
>>
>> ~ BG
>
>Do you actually pictures?

Do you actually English?

--
John

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 10:56 am
From: Alan Browne

John O'Flaherty wrote:

> Do you actually English?

The usenet editor position was abolished a long time ago.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 11:19 am
From: BradGuth

On Jan 31, 10:56 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> John O'Flaherty wrote:
> > Do you actually English?
>
> The usenet editor position was abolished a long time ago.

Why are you doing this kind of Usenet/newsgroup damage control?

Aren't these clowns of the brown-nosed status quo capable of defending
their own actions?

Is our John O'Flaherty simply not familiar with optics, image sensors
and the kinds of fully processed end results?

And, don't birds of a feather usually flock together?

~ BG

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rotating photos on PC
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/085e2aefce113426?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 10:31 am
From: Paul Furman

tapyeno wrote:
> Why do photos I have rotated correctly on my pc, still come up the
> wrong way around when copied to disc?
>
> The photo may have been taken vertically with the camera. so I have
> rotated it to be horizontal. It mysteriously goes back to vertical
> when put on CD.
>
> How can this be corrected?

Various software will just tag the file as rotated (often the camera
tags it this way too) but not all that software speaks well with other
software & operating systems. There isn't a fixed solution but
understanding the issue will let you decide how to deal with it. If you
describe which OS/software you are using we can offer specifics.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Maximum size SD card for my camera?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5210f5a494924fb2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 10:40 am
From: "Focus"

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:5pk7o41grke42dv1hkh8o2kjd6ho4fdnrm@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:08:49 -0000, Focus wrote:
>
>> I can shoot a whole wedding with only 2 cards of 4 Gb (but I have more
>> for
>> security). If you look at the prices of the 8 or 16 Gb, my goodness! I
>> can
>> buy a 160 Gb imagetank and never think again about storage ;-)
>> Shooting with one big card is just plain dumb; you're testing (tempting)
>> the
>> odds.
>
> Several years ago some said that 512MB cards were too big. I've
> purchased dozens of cards from 48MB to 16GB and never had a failure.
> For me, buying a 160GB Imagetank would be dumb, especially since a
> decent, lightweight NetPC with a 160GB drive, a 10" screen and a 5
> or 6 hour battery can be bought for about $300 by those that are
> paranoid. Having an assistant copy cards to an Imagetank may be a
> reasonable precaution for working pros, but it's a bit excessive for
> most casual photographers. At only $18 for 8GB Class 6 SDHC and
> $19.50 for 8GB CF cards (Kingston, both from B&H) I've got to wonder
> what you're paying that goosed that "my goodness!" out of you? :)

Those cards are cheap because they're slow and old models.
Look at the fast ones of Sandisk or Sony and you pay between $100 and $200.-

The imagetank needs no starting up time and you don't need to start an
application, copy the files, etc.
It costs much less than $100.-
But a small notebook might come in handy to see some pictures on location.

--
Focus

==============================================================================
TOPIC: G10 memory battery internal?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/43d6d5f542774717?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 10:47 am
From: Frank H

Hi all

I have had a look at the Canon G10, as a second and travel camera, but
I could not see any battery to hold the memory, like I have in my S3
IS. Does one have to send this camera to a dealer to replace this
battery? Would be a big step backwards in usability and user
friendlyness.
Perhaps I overlooked it, and it is hiding someplace?

Thanks to those that can shed some light on this for me.

Cheers,

Frank

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 10:54 am
From: Sheila

Frank H wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have had a look at the Canon G10, as a second and travel camera, but
> I could not see any battery to hold the memory, like I have in my S3
> IS. Does one have to send this camera to a dealer to replace this
> battery? Would be a big step backwards in usability and user
> friendlyness.
> Perhaps I overlooked it, and it is hiding someplace?
>
> Thanks to those that can shed some light on this for me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Frank
>
>

Are you just talking about the camera battery. If so, it is on the
bottom of the camera, there is a slot that you push to one side and the
battery is there with the card.

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 11:03 am
From: Frank H

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:54:33 -0500, Sheila <swdalton@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>Are you just talking about the camera battery. If so, it is on the
>bottom of the camera, there is a slot that you push to one side and the
>battery is there with the card.

No, Sheila,

I am talking about the battery that holds the settings, as well as
time and date.

Cheers,

Frank

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 11:30 am
From: Sheila

Frank H wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:54:33 -0500, Sheila <swdalton@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Are you just talking about the camera battery. If so, it is on the
>> bottom of the camera, there is a slot that you push to one side and the
>> battery is there with the card.
>
> No, Sheila,
>
> I am talking about the battery that holds the settings, as well as
> time and date.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Frank

I've never heard of that kind of battery. There is probably memory that
holds this information. I've never had that kind of battery in any of
my digital cameras and I have a few. I also have a G10.

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 11:07 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Frank H wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have had a look at the Canon G10, as a second and travel camera,
> but
> I could not see any battery to hold the memory, like I have in my S3
> IS. Does one have to send this camera to a dealer to replace this
> battery? Would be a big step backwards in usability and user
> friendlyness.
> Perhaps I overlooked it, and it is hiding someplace?
>
> Thanks to those that can shed some light on this for me.

Odds are that they are using a supercapacitor for this purpose instead
of a coin cell.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to fix too-dark JPGs .. .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a49bf9a897ac768d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 10:55 am
From: Paul Furman

Nooby wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:58:50 -0500, cbj0129@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> Sounds to me like he underexposed by about 1 stop to hold the
>> highlights, shot both raw and jpeg. He then processed the raw for the
>> photos and albums, but gave you the underexposed jpegs. It will take
>> some skill and good software to manipulate the jpeg to get a good
>> printable result. If your friend has photoshop is willing to try to do
>> the correction, that will tell you if it is possible.
>> Another option if you are willing to learn and experiment is to download
>> Raw Therapee http://www.rawtherapee.com/ . Be sure to download the
>> latest release candidate! Raw Therapee is for processing RAW
>> photographs, but some options work with jpegs. I have used it for some
>> hard to adjust photos from my wife's P&S. The software is free and
>> actively being developed, so all it will cost is your time.
>
> Thanks -- I think you are right about them being underexposed. I
> noticed that the outdoor shots are actually the right brightness, it's
> the indoor ones that are so dark.

Also the sizes you posted are large email/HD TV size, not print size...
OK for 4x5 prints but no larger. It sounds like he burned off this
reduced size set from the original jpegs _then_ processed the raw files
to make prints... maybe this is the result of sending you a preview of
the full unedited set to chose your favorites before he spends the time
adjusting the keepers? It would be more professional to do his own
culling and only show decent looking versions but as you've learned,
making those final adjustments is a lot of work & costs money/time. The
underexposure may have been intentional, to prevent blowing out highlights.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: SD Card Reader recommendations
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b6d80ba802031bba?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 10:56 am
From: "Focus"

"Mikie" <mppg1@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fd7a5b24-6a61-4f65-8ff0-8cf671dd10fe@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Hello!
>
> I bought an ,'el cheapo' plastic SD Card Reader and I'm afraid it's
> going to fall apart into a dozen little plastic pieces.
>
> Need a recommended reader hopefully made of metal with simple means of
> inserting the card and inserting the reader into USB port.
>
> Mfr, or vendor or serial numbe ror even a model number would make me
> happy! I saw a metalone for 16.95 and I may go that route if I can't
> find a better and cheaper.
>
> Thanks!
> Mikie

Try this one if you can find it. I got it for a few bucks and though it's
plastic, it's very fast and nice and small! Most of the "Hispeed" readers
are not high speed at all.
http://www.apmfrance.com/articles/view.php?id=6936

--
Focus

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

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

Saturday, January 31, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Saturday, January 31, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic