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

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 6:56 am
From: Rich

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.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 7:31 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:y9qdnUA7rZgvXhzUnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@giganews.com...
>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."
Isn't that because tehy don;t want to spend that much ion their kids
or their kids prefer hotdogs I know I did as a kid ;-)
And I still don;t like steaks I don;t like chewy food or fatty food.

> 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.
Might show what he's been reading and the type of advice he has been given.

> But ultimately, even a novice or a complete hack
> will do somewhat better with a better camera, it's inevitable.
Hopefully.

>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.

I guess your talking about technical results over artistic merit ;-)

> 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.
I'd agree.
1/ because it's those clueless people that can easily afford such cameras
and the
more of them there are, the more cameras will sell bringing down the price
and having a second hand market when they decide their camera isn't as
good as the latest model, so ditch it and buy a new one.

> Because even though they'll never exploit its full potential, they will do
> slightly better with it than with a lesser machine.
Not sure I agree with that, in fact they might take worse photos than they
would with a pinhole camera at least at say f11 most shots will have
something in focus give them a DSLR whith a 50mm f1.2 set to 1/4000th
trying to do a wedding group etc....

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 7:33 am
From: "Homer"

I am having a problem figuring out why you would start this thread on the
newsgroup.
The only conclusion I can come to is some kind of Rant.
The answer to your post from my stand point is "So What"?
Why would one care what kind of photographic gear someone is using, whether
it be cheap or expensive.
It is a known fact: Give a lousy photographer high end equipment he will
still produce lousy photos. Give a good photographer low end equipment and
he will produce the same good photos he always does.
So What?

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:y9qdnUA7rZgvXhzUnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@giganews.com...
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.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:55 am
From: bugbear

Homer wrote:
> I am having a problem figuring out why you would start this thread on the
> newsgroup.
> The only conclusion I can come to is some kind of Rant.
> The answer to your post from my stand point is "So What"?
> Why would one care what kind of photographic gear someone is using, whether
> it be cheap or expensive.
> It is a known fact: Give a lousy photographer high end equipment he will
> still produce lousy photos.

Well, with most modern expensive modern cameras,
they'll be pin sharp, perfectly exposed...

... lousy photos.

BugBear

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 7:10 am
From: Don Stauffer

John Sheehy wrote:
> Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in news:4980724e$0$89396
> $815e3792@news.qwest.net:
>
>> 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.
>
> How about this; with the greyscale in RGB mode, open the Levels tool, and
> set the output blackpoint for the green channel to about 41, and the output
> blackpoint for the blue channel to about 100. Then, apply an overall tone
> curve with the Levels' RGB channel or some other way.

Thanks, I'll try that.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Surprised at Adorama!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b0cfeb7007e0c100?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 7:30 am
From: aquadiver

On Jan 29, 9:19 am, glenz...@xmission.com (GMAN) wrote:
> In article <40747aed-d18a-4ff7-a9cf-e4d91de8f...@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, Helen Oster <osterhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 28, 9:48=A0pm, "Sharp Dressed Man" <s...@zz.net> wrote:
> >> Went on their website to check an item I decided to buy and saw that thei=
> >r
> >> price was the same as another usually reliable online vendor I often buy
> >> from-- but Adorama was offering free shipping. So I put one in my cart an=
> >d
> >> start to check out-- only to see shipping charges listed. I retried the
> >> order from the beginning and got the same result so I called them and
> >> explained the problem.
>
> >> I gave the guy the SKU number and he tells me-- no, that item doesn't hav=
> >e
> >> free shipping. No I said, I'm looking right at it and your web page says
> >> it's free. Well he says in his best New York way, maybe you're reading it
> >> wrong or maybe they just took free shipping off that item. No problem I
> >> say-- as long as you take the $6.95 shipping off my order.
>
> >> Then he says $6.95 wasn't all that much money and he wouldn't remove it a=
> >nd
> >> I said OK, if that's the way you do business now, goodbye. I hung up and =
> >did
> >> not complete the order.
>
> >> Is that just an uncooperative CSR-- or a new business model based on bait
> >> and switch? I've made many purchases from them and other than the occasio=
> >nal
> >> required "confirmation call" so they can try to sell me unwanted add-ons,
> >> I've never had any problems.
>
> >I was extremely concerned to read your posting, and at this point can
> >only apologize that you have been so inconvenienced.
>
> >Could you please contact me directly, with the details of the item you
> >wanted to order, the date and time of your call, plus the number you
> >called from. I'd like to listen to the tapes of the call and find out
> >who spoke to you in this way - and why!
>
> >Adorama absolutely forbids any kind of bait and switch approach to
> >selling; the chances are it was a website error - nevertheless, the
> >sales associate should certainly not have addressed you in the way you
> >describe, and I would have expected an error of this kind to be
> >honored.
>
> >I do look forward to hearing from you.
>
> >Sincerely
>
> >Helen Oster
> >Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
> >helen.os...@adoramacamera.com
> >www.adorama.com
>
> I wish there were more companies and people like you who took the time to care
> like you are!!!!

Helen's postings in this thread are just what I've come to expect from
Adorama, as well as from B&H, to be fair. I generally just order from
their Web sites, but when I've had to use the phone, I've found them
completely professional, not a bit pushy. My only complaint about
Adorama is that they don't tell you on the Web site whether an item is
in stock. Just this morning, I was about to buy an underwater housing
from B&H but saw that the housing I needed was not in stock. I checked
Adorama, which gave no information about whether it was in stock. So I
called. After a short wait, the sales associate came on and told me he
had exactly one unit in stock, and would I like to buy it on the
phone. So I did, along with several other needed items. He took the
order, read it back, told me the order would probably be shipped
today, and that was that.

I think the OP got hold of one bad apple, very unusual for Adorama.

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 7:25 am
From: "J. Clarke"

nospam wrote:
> In article <rNSdnSlApuhd8RzUnZ2dnUVZ_ggAAAAA@giganews.com>, Ron
> Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>>> The main reason Macs don't have much such malware is that it is a
>>>> very small target in a very large sea of Windows machines.
>>>
>>> no, it's because it's very difficult to write a mac virus that
>>> propagates on its own.
>>
>> Yes, but then hackers ARE the experts at this, and what is possible
>> WILL be done, sooner or later.
>
> and despite all that hacker expertise, os x has been out for 8 years
> (and unix for *much* longer) and there's still nothing more than a
> few
> lame attempts.

One of the worst attacks in history affected Unix servers, so, sorry,
but the "attempts" have been anything but "lame".

> where are these so called expert hackers?

Maximizing reward. Why attack Macs? There aren't many of them and
few are doing anything interesting. Kill every Mac on earth and a few
nerds and college kids are inconvenienced. Kill every PC and business
comes to a screeching halt.

> the first
> one to successfully do it will gain instant fame among his hacker
> peers.

Nahh. Not worth the effort.

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

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 7:49 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:O_adnXxm1ut1hR3UnZ2dnUVZ_sULAAAA@giganews.com...

> Usually I have a new battery 'in stock' (my wife buys batteries when a
> good sale comes along), and just install one immediately. When you get
> old, you learn a few ways to deal, safely, with a slowly deteriorating
> memory.....

I'll remember that, must buy a new battery on the way home...... ;-)

failing memory... not what is it again I need on the way home ;-)

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:10 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:rNSdnSlApuhd8RzUnZ2dnUVZ_ggAAAAA@giganews.com...

>
> Yes, but then hackers ARE the experts at this, and what is possible WILL
> be done, sooner or later.
Yep, transporter technology phasers, yep one day.

> The key is the user, and getting him/her to install the program in the
> first place. Should someone ever get a self-propagating virus working on
> a Mac, and put it on the internet, the effect will be devastating.

When it happens, it'll happen same as sex, I'd wear a condom when having
sex
but not when I'm doing other stuff otherwise I'd wear one 24 hours a day.
Now suppose there' is a virus created like AIDS that spreads when you pass
someone talking on a mobile phone, and the only protection is a condon,
so why aren't you wearing a condom NOW. ?
Same with wearing a gas mask someone somewhere might develop
something that they'll release in to the atmosphere like mustard gas and
it'll kill you
in a few minutes so why aren't you also wearing a gas mask ?
Do you have a mask at home ready, if not why not ?
Do you always carry spare underwear incase you have a toilet accident ?
if not why not ?

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:12 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:rNSdnS5ApuiH8RzUnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <wMadnd7J4rYKmhzUnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
>> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Any you can't 'just get' a Windows virus, either. Something has to be
>>> downloaded (loaded), and RUN.
>>
>> yet that happens automatically to a *lot* of people.
> Since a computer is pretty much useless unless you have data to input, and
> programs to run, this represents a problem. Any user who runs programs
> without really knowing what they are, and what they do, or allows a
> website to install something on their computer, runs a risk of loading
> malware. There is no better AV or firewall than an educated, and
> experienced, and skeptical user.

Which could expian why PC users tend to suffer more from viruses
i.e they aren't educated ;-)

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:31 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"dwight" <dwight@tfrogX.com> wrote in message
news:glphal$kbj$1@news.motzarella.org...
>

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

So if it weren't for those 'criminals' you wouldn't be able to earn a
living. ;-)

it's like policeman, we only need them when ??????????????/

>
>

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:35 am
From: Allen

DanP wrote:
> On Jan 28, 10:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> you save something when you have that money and dont spend it on
> something you were going to. if you dont have the money you dont save
> anything.
>
> so if you do have the money and photoshop is of value to you i advise
> you to buy it.
>
> i'll give the gimp a try, this weekend i will install ubuntu.
Let us know your experience with Gimp under Ubuntu, if you will. Running
under Windows, it's about the most non-intuitive software I've ever
encountered of any type--from PC to mainframe stuff, and devices in
between. But others claim that it is much better in a Linux environment,
so I and probably others would be glad to hear about your experience.
Allen

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:44 am
From: ray

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 06:09:14 -0800, DanP wrote:

> On Jan 28, 10:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> you save something when you have that money and dont spend it on
> something you were going to. if you dont have the money you dont save
> anything.
>
> so if you do have the money and photoshop is of value to you i advise
> you to buy it.
>
> i'll give the gimp a try, this weekend i will install ubuntu.

FWIW - it's not necessary to run GIMP on Linux - there are MS versions
available as well. If you're fiddling with raw files, I'd suggest you
also give ufraw a try - it will do a lot of manipulation of the raw data.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 8:47 am
From: ray

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:12:46 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:34:34 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:45:20 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:59:37 -0800, 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pdftotext (1) - Portable Document Format (PDF) to text
>>>>>> converter (version 3.00)
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it on a Canon manual, see what happens. The Windows text print
>>>>> driver does more or less the same. The Windows Office Document
>>>>> Image Writer (included with the most recent versions of MS Office)
>>>>> will print the manual to black and white TIFF with "Copy"
>>>>> watermarked on each page--Photoshop can then make JPGs ouf ot the
>>>>> TIFFs.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Did that. Worked fine - absolutely no sweat.
>>>
>>> What did you do that worked fine, absolutely no sweat?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> I did:
>>
>> pdftotext manualname.pdf output.txt
>>
>> worked fine - absolutely no sweat - just as you suggested "Try it on a
>> Canon manual, see what happens." I downloaded a canon manual and did
>> so. Worked fine - absolutely no sweat.
>
> Which manual? With the 30D and A470 manuals the result is "Error:
> Copying of text from this document is not allowed.".
>
>
> --

You said to "Try it on a Canon manual, see what happens." I did.

Just took another few minutes and did same on A470 user guide
(PSA470_CUG_EN.pdf) - same result - worked fine, no sweat -

"pdftotext PSA470_CUG_EN.pdf file.txt".

Also did:
"pdftotext EOS30DIM_EN.pdf file.txt" - same result - worked fine, no
sweat. I really don't have time for any more of this.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:12 am
From: "J. Clarke"

ray wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:12:46 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:34:34 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:45:20 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:59:37 -0800, 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pdftotext (1) - Portable Document Format (PDF) to
>>>>>>> text converter (version 3.00)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try it on a Canon manual, see what happens. The Windows text
>>>>>> print driver does more or less the same. The Windows Office
>>>>>> Document Image Writer (included with the most recent versions
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> MS Office) will print the manual to black and white TIFF with
>>>>>> "Copy" watermarked on each page--Photoshop can then make JPGs
>>>>>> ouf ot the TIFFs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Did that. Worked fine - absolutely no sweat.
>>>>
>>>> What did you do that worked fine, absolutely no sweat?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> I did:
>>>
>>> pdftotext manualname.pdf output.txt
>>>
>>> worked fine - absolutely no sweat - just as you suggested "Try it
>>> on a Canon manual, see what happens." I downloaded a canon manual
>>> and did so. Worked fine - absolutely no sweat.
>>
>> Which manual? With the 30D and A470 manuals the result is "Error:
>> Copying of text from this document is not allowed.".
>>
>>
>> --
>
> You said to "Try it on a Canon manual, see what happens." I did.
>
> Just took another few minutes and did same on A470 user guide
> (PSA470_CUG_EN.pdf) - same result - worked fine, no sweat -
>
> "pdftotext PSA470_CUG_EN.pdf file.txt".
>
> Also did:
> "pdftotext EOS30DIM_EN.pdf file.txt" - same result - worked fine, no
> sweat. I really don't have time for any more of this.

Are you talking about the one included in xpdf or something else? The
one in xpdf is documented to honor the no-print flag on encrypted
files. If you are not talking about the one in xpdf then where did
you obtan it?

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

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:46 am
From: ray

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:12:40 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:12:46 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:34:34 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:45:20 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:59:37 -0800, 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pdftotext (1) - Portable Document Format (PDF) to
>>>>>>>> text converter (version 3.00)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try it on a Canon manual, see what happens. The Windows text
>>>>>>> print driver does more or less the same. The Windows Office
>>>>>>> Document Image Writer (included with the most recent versions of
>>>>>>> MS Office) will print the manual to black and white TIFF with
>>>>>>> "Copy" watermarked on each page--Photoshop can then make JPGs ouf
>>>>>>> ot the TIFFs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did that. Worked fine - absolutely no sweat.
>>>>>
>>>>> What did you do that worked fine, absolutely no sweat?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> I did:
>>>>
>>>> pdftotext manualname.pdf output.txt
>>>>
>>>> worked fine - absolutely no sweat - just as you suggested "Try it on
>>>> a Canon manual, see what happens." I downloaded a canon manual and
>>>> did so. Worked fine - absolutely no sweat.
>>>
>>> Which manual? With the 30D and A470 manuals the result is "Error:
>>> Copying of text from this document is not allowed.".
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> You said to "Try it on a Canon manual, see what happens." I did.
>>
>> Just took another few minutes and did same on A470 user guide
>> (PSA470_CUG_EN.pdf) - same result - worked fine, no sweat -
>>
>> "pdftotext PSA470_CUG_EN.pdf file.txt".
>>
>> Also did:
>> "pdftotext EOS30DIM_EN.pdf file.txt" - same result - worked fine, no
>> sweat. I really don't have time for any more of this.
>
> Are you talking about the one included in xpdf or something else? The
> one in xpdf is documented to honor the no-print flag on encrypted files.
> If you are not talking about the one in xpdf then where did you obtan
> it?
>
> --

I believe it was included in the Ubuntu 7.10 install - if not then it
came in when I installed some pdf tools. I really don't recall. Since it
also appears on my Gentoo system, I would assume it is included in most
major Linux distributions.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sigma 18-200mm or, turn your DSLR into a junk P&S
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9db7497fbfd6a4f8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:07 am
From: Bernard Rother

bmoag wrote:
> I've been gone for a few weeks.
> Glad to see the usual battles of the ignorant against the uninformed
> rage on: never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.
> I can only write, since I own both the Sigma non-image stabilized lens
> and the Nikon 18-200 image stabilized lens, and have the pictures to
> prove it, that there is not any significant difference in optical
> performance between the particular samples I am looking at on my desk. I
> have photgraphed umpteen parallel lines and checkerboards.
> I have also used the image stabilized Sigma 18-200: my impression is
> that the OS-Sigma is slightly better than either the non-OS Sigma and
> the more expensive Nikon in terms of distortion at the wide end. Given
> the choice it is foolish to tithe Nikon the difference in cost if
> considering one of these long zooms.
> Life is full of choices.
> It is utterly naïve to think that the cherry picked early production
> lenses given to favored reviewers are representative of the production
> quality of the average lens you are going to get off a store shelf
> unless you are purchasing hand crafted lenses, Leica and Zeiss come to
> mind, and paying commensurately for that degree of quality control. A
> lens is not like an electronic device where it is very likely that most
> production samples will function similarly. It is far more likely that a
> camera randomly bought off a store shelf will behave like a review model
> than any mass-manufactured lens.

I'll second you on the Sigma vs Nikon 18-200. I didn't know which to
buy either so tried out both of them ( off the shelf units ) I took a
few pictures at various focal lengths and with OS on & off and once the
pictures were up on the screen I couldn't see much difference between
them ..... in fact, the Sigma appeared to have a bit more contrast. The
following day I walked out with the Sigma OS and still going strong.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:24 am
From: Marvin

J. Clarke wrote:
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Marvin <physchem@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Your reference to creationscience.com tells all we need to
>>> know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
>>> actually bad science.
>> What you refer to as "bad science" I refer to as bad religion,
>> because
>> as best I can tell, creationism is devoid of any science.
>>
>>> It is part of an effort to sneak a
>>> particular religious viewpoint into the American public
>>> school system, in violation of the American Constitution.
>
> Actually, the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law regarding
> an establishment of religion", with the intent being that the Federal
> government would not interfere with the state religions in Connecticut
> and several other states.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution
carries more weight than mine or yours. It has ruled that
the teaching of creationism is unconstitutional. Creation
science is quite obviously an attempt to teach creationism
in another way. And so is "intelligent design".
>
> The founders would have been fine with, say, Utah establishing
> Mormonism as a state religion. It wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme
> Court decided to interpret that wording as a limitation on the powers
> of state and local government. I suspect that if the authors of the
> Fourteenth Amendment had been able to anticipate the manner in which
> it would be interpreted by the Supreme Court they would have worded it
> differently.
>
>> Can't argue with that.
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:30 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Marvin <physchem@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Your reference to creationscience.com tells all we need to
>>> know about your ideas. What is called "creation science" is
>>> actually bad science.
>>
>> What you refer to as "bad science" I refer to as bad religion,
>> because
>> as best I can tell, creationism is devoid of any science.
>>
>>> It is part of an effort to sneak a
>>> particular religious viewpoint into the American public
>>> school system, in violation of the American Constitution.
>
>Actually, the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law regarding
>an establishment of religion", with the intent being that the Federal
>government would not interfere with the state religions in Connecticut
>and several other states.

I don't trust people who claim to know the "intent" while ignoring
half of the amendment.

>The founders would have been fine with

I don't believe you. Religious freedom is a fundamental right of
people and state religion is in opposition to that right.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

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

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:32 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) 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:
>>
>>>>>Even when you condemn yourself with your own words
>>>>
>>>>These are YOUR words, liar.
>>>>
>>>> The West Bank [...] 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>
>>>
>>>Ray, when will you learn that your taking words out of context,
>>
>>Explain the context that justifies your statements.
>
>I did so, abundantly.

And the lying coward runs away again.

Nobody is surprised.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:32 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>On 29 Jan 2009 06:52:58 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>On 28 Jan 2009 06:48:05 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 05:04:29 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 25 Jan 2009 01:10:26 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But what can you expect from someone who thinks FAUX News is a reliable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news source.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>State owned or not, the BBC has admitted to its liberal bias.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No they have not, liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Liar liar pants on fire, Ray.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That's not evidennce, coward.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I know you have difficulty accepting evidence that doesn't support
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ad hominems also are not evidence, liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clipping and dodging is evidence,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>... that you have no facts to justify
>>>>>
>>>>>The fact that *you* clip and dodge is evidence of *someone else's*
>>>>>lack of facts?
>>>>
>>>>Yes. I snip at the first lie.
>>>
>>>Finally you admit that you snip.
>>>
>>>Now you need to admit that what you snip are not lies,
>>
>>But that would be a lie.
>
>Unfortunately for you, the record shows otherwise.

The record shows that you are a lying, hypocritical, bigoted coward.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:33 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>Ray Fischer added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>> Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> No, that's another lie. The Palestinians have already accepted
>> Israel's right to exist. Israel refuses to accept a Palestinian
>> state.
>
>Hmmm. Let me see, the Palestinians from the PLO to Hamas have
>steadfastly said they intend to utterly destroy Israel,

And the Israelis have said that all of Palestine belongs to the Jews.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:35 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>On 29 Jan 2009 06:55:58 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>On 28 Jan 2009 06:49:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>There is no nation of Palestine.
>>>>
>>>>Because Israel refuses to allow it.
>>>>
>>>>> They refused the partition that
>>>>>would have created their own nation
>>>>
>>>>Israel refused to give them the West Bank.
>>>>
>>>>>It would be nice to see a nation of Palestine.
>>>>
>>>>Israel refuses to allow it.
>>>
>>>Israel rightly refuses to allow any nation to be formed on its borders
>>>unless that proposed nation first recognizes its own right to exist
>>
>>No, that's another lie. The Palestinians have already accepted
>>Israel's right to exist. Israel refuses to accept a Palestinian
>>state.
>
>Read the charters of Hamas and the PLO, bigot.

Hamas has said that they will recognize Israel. The PLO is
irrelevant.

>>>>> But first they will
>>>>>have to give up their insane and fanatical beliefs that the Jews have
>>>>>no right to a state in that part of the world.
>>>>
>>>>The Palestinians have no such belief, you evil, lying bigot.
>>>
>>>Just read the charters of Hamas and the PLO.
>>
>>And AGAIN you spew lies and then run away when challenged.
>
>And AGAIN you spew charges of lying

Because you're a liar. You make claims with NO evidence.

>>>You also don't know or ignore radical Muslim ideology that any land
>>>that has ever been controlled by Islam remains Muslim land forever.
>>
>>And to illustrate what a rabid bigot you are ...
>>
>> "You also don't know or ignore radical [Jewish] ideology that any land
>> that has ever been controlled by [Jews] remains [Jewish] land forever."
>
>Do you deny that bit of Muslim theology/ideology ?

Do you deny that Jewish ideology?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:35 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

>>>>> 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.
>>
>>Because you have no shame, even whan you're caught lying your sleazy
>>ass off.
>
>Yet again you dodge and weave by clipping text making sleazy false

And once again the bigot ignores the facts and goes off on another
childish sleazefest.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 29 2009 9:36 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

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:
>>
>>>>>Even when you condemn yourself with your own words
>>>>
>>>>These are YOUR words, liar.
>>>>
>>>> The West Bank [...] 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>
>>>
>>>Ray, when will you learn that your taking words out of context,
>>
>>Explain the context that justifies your statements.
>
>I did so.