Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 7:27 am
From: tony cooper

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:29:46 -0800 (PST), Mikie <mppg1@msn.com> wrote:

>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.
>
I have a card reader that has lasted over a year with no damage
despite no special care taken. I won't recommend the brand, though,
since it's a $6 cheap plastic one.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 7:58 am
From: Nervous Nick

On Jan 31, 7:29 am, Mikie <mp...@msn.com> wrote:
> 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.

Maybe you'll get lucky and find one as a prize at the bottom of your
next box of Life cereal, Mikie.

--
YOP...

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:16 am
From: Allen

tony cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:29:46 -0800 (PST), Mikie <mppg1@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> I have a card reader that has lasted over a year with no damage
> despite no special care taken. I won't recommend the brand, though,
> since it's a $6 cheap plastic one.
>
I have a famous "Made in China" brand metal reader that I paid about $5
for at Fry's one month short of five years ago. Still works fine. I have
used it only for CF and SD (no SDHC) so I can't say how it would handle
other cards.
Allen

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:33 am
From: ray

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:29:46 -0800, Mikie wrote:

> 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

I've been happy with a multi-card unit I got from Crucial - also with a
$10 reader from WalMart.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 7:35 am
From: John Sheehy

Bhogi <bhogi@siol.com> wrote in
news:d4a248b5-b719-46ac-981d-b8368e9dca60@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

> No need for floating point. I don't think there's a dslr that can
> collect more than 65000 electrons per pixel. Smaller pixels can hold
> even less. All you need is a 16bit A/D at unity sensitvity (1 electron
> = 1 numerically).

The Canon 5D and 1D2 have a maximum of about 80,000, at "ISO 50".

Pixel density has move higher, without well depth increasing with the newer
models, so new FWCs are much lower. A breakthrough in well depth will be
needed before FWCs start climbing again.

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 7:49 am
From: Caesar Romano

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 04:43:07 -0800 (PST), muffinnman
<muffinnman@aol.com> wrote Re Re: camera for diving ?:

>On Jan 31, 6:46 am, Antonio Huerta <ahue...@inbox.com> 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...
>
>I have a Canon Powershot SD850 8.1 Megapixel camera. It's a land
>camera that costs around $200.00. I also use an underwater housing
>made for this camera that cost about $200.00 also.

That's a nice combo.

Here's one rated to 100' that can costs a little less..
http://www.adorama.com/ICAWPDC15.html?sid=1233143326515887

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:19 am
From: John McWilliams

Joerg Hahn wrote:
> Hi Antonio,
>
> 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
>
> Olympus c5000z with Oly PT-19 housing
> No external flash 2years ago kitprice 265,-- Euros
>
> Tested 80m no problems
>
> Albums beneath, you see see good and bad eexamples of casual photos.

Another option is the cheapo disposable, such as

<http://www.ebestsource.com/product/FUJIQUICKSNAPWATER?meta=FRG&utm_source=GBASE&utm_medium=CPC&utm_content=&utm_campaign=>

$14.00 US.

--
john mcwilliams

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:32 am
From: Fred Lotte

In article
<b8efe03b-ec2d-430f-bbe8-387d1e022a31@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.co
m>,
Antonio Huerta <ahuerta@inbox.com> wrote:

> I am planning on snorkelling. As such, I am
> looking at the depth of diving of up to 3 m, and a range of camera of
> 1-5 m (greater if possible).

You may be able to rent a camera to see if you really want to get
into underwater photography.

When I was first certified for SCUBA, I rented an Instamatic
(equivalent to a P&S) from my instructor. My buddy and I used it
on a vacation in the Florida Keys where we learned that flash
bulbs float really good, don't go off about 2/3's of the time and
have to be about 3 feet from the camera in order to not
illuminate all the stuff floating in the water.

For the next vacation, I bought an Ikelite housing for my F2 and
strobe which I used for about 20 years taking many hundreds of
shots underwater at depths up to 140 ft.

--
Fred Lotte
flotte@nospam.stratos.net

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:34 am
From: ray

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.

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

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:02 am
From: Sheila

ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:36:12 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>> So without a camera you can still take nice pictures? This I have to see!!
>> Clasp both hands together just right with a piece of film inside..
>> proper technique can produce a pinhole between the middle fingers. It
>> takes ninja skills to hold steady for the 2 minute exposure but
>> masterpieces can be created this way by talented individuals.
>
> 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.

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:09 am
From: John A.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:46:40 -0600, HowieT <howiet@giveitarest.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:04:03 +1100, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alan Smithee" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:Y9WdnVfWgvwnYOfUnZ2dnUVZ8tzinZ2d@pipex.net...
>>> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2009012321244616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>>>
>>>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it normally your cooking pots cook really good food?
>>
>>Actually some of my very expensive pots cook the same food a whole lot
>>better, really the same goes for cameras, while my basic cameras will take
>>an adequate photo using my better cameras lets me take better photos,
>>definately more keepers.
>>
>
>A REAL chef can create a culinary masterpiece using nothing but a campfire,
>rolled-up bark or leaves for cooking pots, a slab of rock for frying, and a
>mud food-wrap (for oven needs) that would put all of your cooking and
>expensive cookware to shame.
>
>Let me tell you about the golden-browned pizza that I made in the coals of
>a campfire using an old discarded fry-pan and a piece of tin for a lid. A
>pizza that friends still talk about because they've never bought anything
>better. Made the sauce from some wild cherry-tomatoes and red-peppers that
>were growing in the area too.
>
>Your analogy doesn't work in the face of real talent, creativity, and
>expertise--three things with which you are obviously unfamiliar. You're
>just a point and shoot fry-cook, just like all the point and shoot dslr
>owners who think it's their camera that makes them a better photographer.
>If not you would have known better than to reply as you did.

Food always tastes better camping. Hunger is the greatest condiment.
I've relished vienna sausages and potted meat on fishing trips, but
I'd never touch the foul stuff on land.

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:16 am
From: John A.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:24:34 -0800, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
wrote:

>
>
>James Colston wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:36:12 -0800, Paul Furman
>> <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
[snip cause aioe says I had too many quoted lines - as if there were
such a thing! :P ]
>>
>> I read a rather interesting book recently, "Pinhole Photography -
>> From Historic Technique to Digital Application" by Eric Renner.
>> ISBN: 978-0-240-81047-8
>>
>> Most of the images in that book would put all of the dslr photos in
>> this and other newsgroups and forums to shame. It's one of the few
>> photography books that I've read that actually had some decent
>> photography in it.
>>
>> The reason that I bring this up is that one technique used by some
>> individuals was to hold a bit of film in the back of the mouth and
>> then use their lips to form a pinhole. People were taking
>> self-portraits in mirrors and other images using this method.
>>
>> People who think it's the price of their equipment that makes or
>> breaks the photographer should read this book. They'll probably
>> throw their expensive dslr over the side of the nearest bridge when
>> they see that it's not the camera that creates good photography.
>>
>> A whole book of excellent proof that these equipment-worshipping
>> fools have been dead wrong all of their sad and sorry lives.
>
>Can you say, "hyperbole"?

That's tomorrow, right? I never watch.

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:24 am
From: Allen

Pete D wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:yRSgl.9805$8_3.925@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> Pete D wrote:
>>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>>> news:NOOgl.19252$Ws1.6032@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> Pete D wrote:
>>>>> "Neil Ellwood" <cral.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:w-mdnVD4mfTym-bUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> So without a camera you can still take nice pictures? This I have to
>>>>> see!!
>>>> Clasp both hands together just right with a piece of film inside..
>>>> proper technique can produce a pinhole between the middle fingers. It
>>>> takes ninja skills to hold steady for the 2 minute exposure but
>>>> masterpieces can be created this way by talented individuals.
>>> Did you know that you can make a pinhole lens for an SLR camera, in fact
>>> you can make a pinhole zoom lens with a couple of cardboard tubes, fun
>>> for all the family. Not sure how many keepers you will get though.
>> Just crinkle a piece of foil over the opening & poke a pin in the middle.
>>
> How do you zoom that setup?
>
>
Use a toilet paper tube. Attach one end to the camera and put the foil
on the other end. For greater FLs, use a paper towel tube or even one
that small carpets are rolled on. Alternatively, go to Home Depot and
get a 12 foot length of black PVC pipe. Mark your calendar for the day
the you start the exposure and mark a date a few days in the future for
when you should return and end the exposure. Simple and cheap.
Allen

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:38 am
From: Paul Furman

Jeff R. wrote:
> Pete D wrote:
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>>> Just crinkle a piece of foil over the opening & poke a pin in the
>>> middle.
>> How do you zoom that setup?
>
>
> Just move the foil closer or further away from the sensor.
>
> Focus is automatic. :-)

The widest you can go is about 45mm before the mirror rubs on the foil.
I tested that by letting it brush against the foil a bit (very
gradually) but that could potentially damage the mirror mechanism.
Guaranteed absolutely zero barrel distortion. No complex math in
determining the focal length.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:42 am
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-01-30 08:06:13 -0800, Allen <allent@austin.rr.com> said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>>
>> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>>
> Having read this thread from the beginning, I have been amazed at the
> number of people who have had a sense-of-humor-ectomy.
>
> Allen

Indeed. I used to be a Certified Public Accountant before I retired.
And those guys had way more sense of humor than photographers.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:43 am
From: John A.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:38:38 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Jeff R. wrote:
>> Pete D wrote:
>>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>>>> Just crinkle a piece of foil over the opening & poke a pin in the
>>>> middle.
>>> How do you zoom that setup?
>>
>>
>> Just move the foil closer or further away from the sensor.
>>
>> Focus is automatic. :-)
>
>The widest you can go is about 45mm before the mirror rubs on the foil.
>I tested that by letting it brush against the foil a bit (very
>gradually) but that could potentially damage the mirror mechanism.
>Guaranteed absolutely zero barrel distortion. No complex math in
>determining the focal length.

How do you suppress the dust & lint from the cardboard tube,
particularly if you have two telescoping tubes rubbing together? I
imagine that wouldn't be so much of a problem with film, but with
digital it could be a pain in the butt.

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 9:01 am
From: paul ventnor

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:09:29 -0500, John A.
<no.john@spammers.virginiaquilter.allowed.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:46:40 -0600, HowieT <howiet@giveitarest.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:04:03 +1100, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Alan Smithee" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Y9WdnVfWgvwnYOfUnZ2dnUVZ8tzinZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2009012321244616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>>>>
>>>>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it normally your cooking pots cook really good food?
>>>
>>>Actually some of my very expensive pots cook the same food a whole lot
>>>better, really the same goes for cameras, while my basic cameras will take
>>>an adequate photo using my better cameras lets me take better photos,
>>>definately more keepers.
>>>
>>
>>A REAL chef can create a culinary masterpiece using nothing but a campfire,
>>rolled-up bark or leaves for cooking pots, a slab of rock for frying, and a
>>mud food-wrap (for oven needs) that would put all of your cooking and
>>expensive cookware to shame.
>>
>>Let me tell you about the golden-browned pizza that I made in the coals of
>>a campfire using an old discarded fry-pan and a piece of tin for a lid. A
>>pizza that friends still talk about because they've never bought anything
>>better. Made the sauce from some wild cherry-tomatoes and red-peppers that
>>were growing in the area too.
>>
>>Your analogy doesn't work in the face of real talent, creativity, and
>>expertise--three things with which you are obviously unfamiliar. You're
>>just a point and shoot fry-cook, just like all the point and shoot dslr
>>owners who think it's their camera that makes them a better photographer.
>>If not you would have known better than to reply as you did.
>
>Food always tastes better camping. Hunger is the greatest condiment.
>I've relished vienna sausages and potted meat on fishing trips, but
>I'd never touch the foul stuff on land.

So what you are saying is ... if someone with a cell-phone camera or
pinhole-camera takes a photo that feeds the hunger of people who are
desperate for good photography, they will be sated?

Yes, this is exactly what you are saying.

I see this proved time and time again in photography forums. The most
mundane photography is being given rave reviews by those who live in their
basements and bedrooms, their only connection to reality being their
keyboards and monitors. That's the only glimpse of the real world that
those sad people will ever have. Take for example the Annika/Helen
phenomenon. Annika takes mundane and poorly done snapshots. Helen is
enthralled with any and all of Annika's photos. She's just that desperate
for any glimpse of the real world so her hunger is abated over the most
meager of morsels. Her shut-in life is fed by Annika's paltry offerings,
and Annika's desperate need for acceptance and attention by anyone is fed
by one sad shut-in's gushing remarks. They both ravenously dine on fetid
scraps, and are happy.

Sad and sadder, all around.

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 9:10 am
From: ASAAR

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 . . .

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:14 am
From: John McWilliams

Caesar Romano wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2009 22:40:43 GMT, Father Guido Sarducci <don@novello.com>
> wrote Re Re: How to fix too-dark JPGs .. .:
>
>> In message news:glvqph$thr$1@news.motzarella.org, Dave Cohen
>> <user@example.net> said:
>>
>>> it has it's limitations.
>> Its. No apostrophe. Do you say hi's and her's? No.
>
> No? How do you know "no". Perhaps he does say "hi's" and "her's"; in
> which case "It's" would be consistent. Wrong, but consistent.
>
> Having taught logic and law for so many years at the 5-Minute
> University you should know that. But, perhaps we are all getting old
> and forgetful.

Not me!

<pause>

Ah, what was I saying??

An old tag line of mine follows.....
--
john mcwilliams

In additon to it's, we can have hi's, her's and their's!!!

Help stamp out repetition, gratuitous apostrophe's, and NEEDLESS',
redundant, and WHOLLY UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION, **AND**superflous
*EMPHASIS*. And tautological statements which waste space and can be
repetitive or even wordy in and of themselves', thus taking more time to
read, or even think about; it's tedious and enervating.

These are *THE* internet *SCOURGES'*, along with exclamation point's!!!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:18 am
From: Dave Cohen

D.Mac wrote:
>
>
> "Nooby" <Nooby@Spamavoider.com> wrote in message
> news:1so6o4p5loud1q0dottnd0uk0is0elu5ms@4ax.com...
>> Our wedding photographer gave us copies of all our wedding photos on
>> disk -- after we paid a pretty hefty sum for our wedding order. The
>> files are JPGs. It's sure nice having them, but unfortunately they all
>> print dark when we have them printed. We tried different places too.
>> All too dark.
>>
>> I can lighten them in Irfanview though. The Brightness control and the
>> Gamma correction control both make the picture lighter. But when I do
>> that, the shadow areas all turn grey.
>>
>> I can fix the grey shadow areas by cranking up the contrast. But when
>> I do that, the faces all take on a hard look, and the shadow areas
>> still don't look right, even if they are darker. It looks like the
>> contrast is all going into the lighter areas.
>>
>> I don't mind doing some more experiments, but it is starting to take
>> some time, and it is getting kind of boring going back and forth to
>> the photo place. So I would like to get some pointers for how to fix
>> dark JPGs without getting the tones all bad.
>>
>> I am just a newby when it comes to picture editing. I use Irfanview
>> and have played a bit with Picasa. I also have a copy of Elements but
>> have never used it. A friend has Photoshop but I hope that won't be
>> necessary.
>>
>> Nooby
>
>
> What you "paid a hefty sum" for is known as a "shoot & burn" deal. It
> probably cost you $500 tops. No self respecting wedding photographer
> lets technically poor images past their own PC. It's bad for business.
> $500 hardly covers the time needed to post process a few hundred images,
> much less pay for a "real" photographer to shoot them.
>
> It sounds like you got what you paid for. Crap in crap out.
>
> Seriously mate... To fix them needs some expert work in post processing.
> Shoot & burn ankle biters and people silly enough to go to them in the
> belief they'll get something for nothing are what keep Professional
> Photographers in business. People see the shit you got and head straight
> for a Pro for their own wedding.
>
> Take you disc of photos to a *REAL* Professional lab. Pay them a buck a
> print (or more) instead of try to get 9¢ prints at the local shopping
> centre and you might get back some half way decent prints. I'd think the
> likely hood of them being anything but happy snaps are pretty high.
>
In a follow up post the op said he was satisfied with the hardcopy
prints which is what he contracted to get.
We don't really know how bad the .jpg images are and how readily they
can be fixed.
Dave Cohen

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:37 am
From: ray

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:53:18 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <87iqnwlkyn.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson says...
>
>> He claims he can't find any of the "Colors", "Tools", or "Filters"
>> items on the main toolbar... how will a book help him?
>
> I didn't claim I could not find the colours or the tools. I looked for
> the shadow recovery filter and could not find it. It must be somewhere
> hidden in the menus, so a book would help.
>
>> He's just making up stories about how hard it is.
>
> No. But if you belong to the development community of the GIMP, no
> wonder the GIMP is like that.
>
>> The reason you've not had any difficulty is because you actually do use
>> it. When actually using UFRAW there is *never* any need for 100% pixel
>> viewing. It's a raw conversion program, not an image editor! There is
>> virtually *nothing* that you would change or adjust because of
>> something that can be seen at 100% vs. 50% viewing.
>
> But a RAW converter should incorporate as much image editing as
> possible, so that no further image editing steps are needed after RAW
> conversion. This way all image processing steps are stored in a small
> settings file and you can always start from RAW and regenerate
> losslessly the final image file.
>
> Image processing after RAW conversion should be as limited as possible,
> unless you have a software which stores all processing steps in a
> history file and allows you to regenerate the final image automatically
> starting from the RAW file. That way in the future if you make edits to
> an image, change the colour space etc., all these operations are
> lossless.
>
>> But these made up scenarios presented by folks who have never actually
>> used the program and have no intent other than to be negative, are
>> clearly not significant.
>
> I *have* used the program and the criticism I made was constructive. But
> if the developers of UFRAW disregard these inputs, UFRAW will never
> improve.
>
> If you want to improve a software, you have to listen to the people who
> use it.

The guy is obviously a freaking idiot spoiling for a fight - why not just
let it go?

== 2 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.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 8:51 am
From: C J Campbell

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 9:02 am
From: Alan Browne

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.

Anyway, I'm sure you don't have a $150 Sigma on _your_ D3x, at least not
for any decent work.

--
-- 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.

==============================================================================
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 8:51 am
From: TruthSquad@hope.com

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:42:09 -0000, "Jerry"
<mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote:

>
><TruthSquad@hope.com> wrote in message
>news:a747o4p4kdc3o3k3qv78g43ij2d51vdun0@4ax.com...
>: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:49:29 -0000, "Jerry"
>: <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote:
>:
>: >
>: ><TruthSquad@hope.com> wrote in message
>: >news:qep6o4la65sbmh6nofsnisr8pet6af73ea@4ax.com...
>: ><snip>
>: >:
>: >: ROFLMAO!
>: >:
>: >
>: >Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing, at your attempted trolling - I
>see
>: >that you have no answer for the facts that have been placed before
>: >you - just face it, you are the typical Usenet w*nker, all hot air
>and
>: >no facts...
>:
>: What fact?
><snip further trolling>

Trolling? You ignorant moron, your pathetic attempts at "reasoning"
and self-aggrandizing bluster causing you to drift further and further
from the topic with each of your replies causes me to question you
mental status.

Since it is now apparent I'm dealing with some immature low
intelligence stick in the mud that needs to have the last word in
order to attempt to prop himself up with desperate ego massaging in a
need to save face, go ahead, take the last word, be my guest, fool.

None of your noise changes the FACT that you can't make a LEGAL MPEG-2
compliant DVD without using a L I C E N S E D MPEG-2 encoder, a fact
you keep trying to dance around.

>Now take your own advice, go take a hike, go find a clue - looser...

As if any further proof of your ignorance was needed.

The word "looser" refers to something being loose, as in not rigidly
fastened or securely attached. The word LOSER, what you were grasping
for, but are too stupid to properly use... clearly describes yourself
and refers to some Bozo who repeatedly shows signs of being
incompetent, as in doomed to fail... a trait you have clearly shown in
this thread beyond question.

For your further education, which is obviously lacking:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/looser

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loser

Hear the WORLD laughing at you?

Well duh...

ROTFLMAO!

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

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