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

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Old cars (pics)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/44a7b2cbe9e4e225?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 6:39 am
From: ClintEastWoodyAllenAlda

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:24:35 +1100, Avery wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:14:23 +1100, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>tony@altavista.com wrote,on my timestamp of 18/02/2009 1:55 AM:
>>
>>>>> The Simca is right. I found it on Google. They had one with a clock in
>>>>> the steering wheel! Must be funny on a curved road, like they have so
>>>>> many here:"What time is it?"
>>>>> "10 to 2, no, 3 o'clock, no 20 to twelve... ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> My grandpa had one of those. Same grey colour.
>>>> It served him well for many years before replacing it with another Simca.
>>>> He religiously covered the engine with a blanket every night, and the car never
>>>> failed to start in the morning. Still have to understand why...
>>>
>>> What ? Why he covered it with the blanket.... or that it never failed
>>> to start ???
>>>
>>
>>Both. The correlation between them.
>
>
> Maybe there is none.

And maybe there is.

Depends on temperatures (ambient, air and metal) and type of aspiration.

Blankets back then, electric block-warmers today.

> I have never covered my daily drive's engine with a blanket. It has
> never failed to start.

As me dear grandmama used to say, 'it's not because of it, it's in spite
of it'. ! <joke, BTW>

But again, the same answer as above.

> I have another car in my garage that has a blanket over it, it has not
> started in 10 years.

If it hasn't started in 10 years, it needs far more than a blanket!

Maybe a few organ transplants, fresh bodily fluids and the electroshock
paddles would help....!

> beware of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:49 am
From: John McWilliams

Focus wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Focus wrote:
>>> I found these old cars on the way back home. Some of them I've never
>>> heard of, like the "Aronde". Anybody know about them?
>>>
>>> http://atlantic-diesel.com/
>>>
>> Stop x posting to aus.photo

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Film cranks
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/62d0c329e7759b68?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 6:41 am
From: Peter Irwin

whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
> "Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:nbSdnXjLbqs-fAHUnZ2dnUVZ_gmWnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>> I remember Ilford back in the late 1980s had some kind of colour film (6-
>> 12 ASA) that had Tech Pan resolution, but it was never released to the
>> public.
>
> Any ides what sort of 'film' is/was usder for micro-fiche (SP)
>
<http://www.ilford.com/en/products/micrographic/index.asp>

More like under 1 ASA, but definitely still available.

Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb.net

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 6:41 am
From: "ad607@ncf.ca"

"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:gnjjar$al8$1@qmul...
>
> "Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:nbSdnXjLbqs-fAHUnZ2dnUVZ_gmWnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
>>
>> I remember Ilford back in the late 1980s had some kind of colour film (6-
>> 12 ASA) that had Tech Pan resolution, but it was never released to the
>> public.
>
> Any ides what sort of 'film' is/was usder for micro-fiche (SP)
>
> you know the sort that was used in libraries around that time for
> newspaper scanning etc...
Kodak Technical Pan was in a previous life really panchromatic microfilm.
Fuji also makes one, various companys like H&W Control Pan repackaged it
with a developer very similar to Technidol that made it practical for
pictorial uses. Today you can buy a version of this as Bluefire Police (made
by Adox)

http://www.frugalphotographer.com
http://www.adox.net/Products.htm

When Kodak Tech Pan became popular, Leica in the magazine claimed even their
lenses could not resolve to that film capabilities.

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 6:55 am
From: Don Stauffer

RichA wrote:
> I've read a lot of the musings from film buffs. Problem is, most of
> what they say is just wishful or wrong. The idea promoted by some
> that film has "infinite resolution" and the results can be varied
> based on increasing scan resolution is nonsense. At best, the
> sharpest, finest grain 35mm film can resolve as much as a 6-8
> megapixel digital. Film grains, their clumpiness, and the spaces
> between them ARE the "pixels" of film and they do not afford infinite
> resolution. The highest resolving power film I've ever seen was Tech
> Pan (discontinued). It is possible that with the very best lenses,
> modern scanning, 35mm Tech Pan could approach the resolution of a
> 10-12 megapixel digital, but I really doubt it.
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm

I tend to agree with much that you say, but there ARE grainless films,
such as those used in microfilm and some technical process photography.
There are folks who use these in regular photogaphy by altering
developers and development. For instance, folks who use Kodalith in
normal contrast range work.

Even the Tech Pan has ways of considerably increasing res by magic soups.

Still, that was extreme stuff and a labor of love. I tried it a few
times (my wife stuck with it longer). We both have gone to digital :-)

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:47 am
From: tmonego@wildblue.net

On Feb 19, 4:01 am, Doug Jewell <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > I've read a lot of the musings from film buffs. Problem is, most of
> > what they say is just wishful or wrong. The idea promoted by some
> > that film has "infinite resolution" and the results can be varied
>
> Bullshit - I've never heard a "film buff" say that film has
> infinite resolution.> based on increasing scan resolution is nonsense. At best, the
>
> That is not nonsense. Most film can be scanned better than
> what most people scan it. Consumer grade scanners (and that
> includes things like the Nikon and Minolta scanners with
> their "4000dpi") don't come close to getting the detail that
> is present in film. Most of these scanners are limited by
> their own inability to accurately focus on the film. I've
> seen 7MP frontier scans that get better detail than 4000dpi
> (approx 20MP) Minolta scans. A proper drum scan will go
> better again.> sharpest, finest grain 35mm film can resolve as much as a 6-8
> > megapixel digital.
>
> Rubbish. Cheap consumer 400 ISO C41 film (eg Fuji Superia
> 400) has a resolving power that is about on par with 8MP
> when properly scanned. Lower ISO, and generally better
> quality films are significantly better. My estimate for
> Velvia 50 is somewhere in the vicinity of 15-20MP.
>
> >Film grains, their clumpiness, and the spaces
> > between them ARE the "pixels" of film and they do not afford infinite
> > resolution.
>
> True that they are a long way from "infinite" resolution.
> But at the same time, you can't directly compare them to
> pixels - the variable size of grain, and randomness of it
> means that it is better at recording irregular shapes - eg
> diagonal lines. Film's diagonal resolution is the same as
> it's horizontal & vertical resolution, whereas digital's
> diagonal resolution is only 1/SQRT(2) of it's
> horizontal/vertial resolution. Since few things in reality
> are perfectly aligned vertically or horizontally, this
> immediately gives film an advantage.
>
> >
> The highest resolving power film I've ever seen was Tech> Pan (discontinued). It is possible that with the very best lenses,
> > modern scanning, 35mm Tech Pan could approach the resolution of a
> > 10-12 megapixel digital, but I really doubt it.
>
> I don't know how you are doing wrong, but techpan is capable
> of 200 lp/mm (admittedly at reduced contrast) - which would
> require 138MP to reproduce in digital or 200MP to reproduce
> on a diagonal. Now I'm not saying that a 35mm frame of
> techpan is equal to 200MP - since no lens can do that, but
> it is definately able to record far more than 10-12MP.
>
> >http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm
>
> Much of rockwell's stuff is crap, but he does make some good
> points about being able to rescan film to get a better
> quality image.

When Kodak brought out the DSC 460 in 1995 or so, they were telling
folks this was the digital equivalent of general purpose film.
Marketing yes but I have also seen 460 files at 16x20 looking better
than film enlargements. The best color films were about 120lpm in high
contrast drop to low contrast and you have 60-80lpm, this is for Kodak
EPY, or Kodachrome 25, You can squeeze out 200lpm out of tech pan or
150lpm out of PanX, or PanF. But it comes down to not many lenses can
support that resolution. All the res data for films is in Kodak
literature, they were very good at publishing data. I have a color
film book from the early '90s. Again there are high and low contrast
responses of film, which extends to shutter speed. Come to think of it
I don't know if this extends to digital. I'll still say digital
enlarges better, whether it is because it retains edges better or it
just a more pleasing look it just does.
Have to get my *ss in gear to bring out my 4x5, that is where film
shines.

Tom

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:59 am
From: Pat

On Feb 18, 10:16 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've read a lot of the musings from film buffs. Problem is, most of
> what they say is just wishful or wrong. The idea promoted by some
> that film has "infinite resolution" and the results can be varied
> based on increasing scan resolution is nonsense. At best, the
> sharpest, finest grain 35mm film can resolve as much as a 6-8
> megapixel digital. Film grains, their clumpiness, and the spaces
> between them ARE the "pixels" of film and they do not afford infinite
> resolution. The highest resolving power film I've ever seen was Tech
> Pan (discontinued). It is possible that with the very best lenses,
> modern scanning, 35mm Tech Pan could approach the resolution of a
> 10-12 megapixel digital, but I really doubt it.
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm

You can contort number and equations and other things that you may or
may no know about all day, but in the end the only thing that matters
is what you can see.

Go watch an old movie in a theater where the screen is huge. Go
ahead, and site in the front row. The picture quality is very good
and it's using 1/2 frame 35mm technology. No go and get a 6-8 mp
digital and project it to the same size and see if the quality is
remotely comparable (I won't even make you use a 3-4 mp to even the
field). This is the only test that matters.

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 8:19 am
From: "Nomen Nescio"

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:0a91b8be-f98f-4986-a43e-a763e9a62bd8@s24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Go watch an old movie in a theater where the screen is huge. Go
> ahead, and site in the front row. The picture quality is very good
> and it's using 1/2 frame 35mm technology. No go and get a 6-8 mp
> digital and project it to the same size and see if the quality is
> remotely comparable (I won't even make you use a 3-4 mp to even the
> field). This is the only test that matters.
>
Nonsense!!! Take a single frame of a movie, mount it in a slide frame and
project it as a still frame. You'l see how crappy movie film really is!
It is an optical illusion, the same one that makes a movie move that
deceives the brain into thinking that. Your test is based on no actual
experience.

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 8:39 am
From: "Steve"

>"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>news:0a91b8be-f98f-4986-a43e-a763e9a62bd8@s24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 18, 10:16 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've read a lot of the musings from film buffs. Problem is, most of
>> what they say is just wishful or wrong. The idea promoted by some
>> that film has "infinite resolution" and the results can be varied
>> based on increasing scan resolution is nonsense. At best, the
>> sharpest, finest grain 35mm film can resolve as much as a 6-8
>> megapixel digital. Film grains, their clumpiness, and the spaces
>> between them ARE the "pixels" of film and they do not afford infinite
>> resolution. The highest resolving power film I've ever seen was Tech
>> Pan (discontinued). It is possible that with the very best lenses,
>> modern scanning, 35mm Tech Pan could approach the resolution of a
>> 10-12 megapixel digital, but I really doubt it.
>>
>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm
>
>You can contort number and equations and other things that you may or
>may no know about all day, but in the end the only thing that matters
>is what you can see.
>
>Go watch an old movie in a theater where the screen is huge. Go
>ahead, and site in the front row. The picture quality is very good
>and it's using 1/2 frame 35mm technology. No go and get a 6-8 mp
>digital and project it to the same size and see if the quality is
>remotely comparable (I won't even make you use a 3-4 mp to even the
>field). This is the only test that matters.

Have a peek at this:
http://fwd.five.tv/gadget-show/blog/programme-4-weblinks

The interesting bit begins about 13 minutes into the video where they
compare the results from a Nikon D700 with those from a Nikon F5. The
results are displayed a tad bigger than a cinema screen.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 9:08 am
From: John McWilliams

Steve wrote:

> Have a peek at this:
> http://fwd.five.tv/gadget-show/blog/programme-4-weblinks
>
> The interesting bit begins about 13 minutes into the video where they
> compare the results from a Nikon D700 with those from a Nikon F5. The
> results are displayed a tad bigger than a cinema screen.

Yikes! How many £ s spent on all the hoopla? Infotainment at its
glorious best.
All to demo what we already knew.

Interesting that the photog. holds his camera upside down for verticals.
Must never have used a monopod.

--
John McWiliams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to use bracketing exposures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a1f6d6a548ab4b87?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 6:50 am
From: Don Stauffer

carp wrote:
> I often take shots with a (technical term please :) wide range of tone
> - black to white; parts of my picture are burned out or underexposed.
>
> My Canon 10D allows bracketing, so that when the shot fires, I will
> also have exposures 3 stops up and down from where I set the exposure.
>
> My problems/questions are:
>
> 1) Which bracketing option setting should I use on the camera?
> 2) Once I have the several images in Photoshop, (lets say three: one a
> little over, another underexposed and the third ok in most parts) how
> do I go about cherry picking the best parts of each image and then
> combining them into a single, perfectly exposed 4th image?
> 3) Do you use this bracketing technique much? Now with larger memory
> sticks it is a lot more feasible.

There is a difference between bracketing and HDR photography. It sounds
like you are trying to combine the two.

Bracketing makes small changes in exposure, assuming you are somewhere
near the right exposure to start with. You do not combine the images,
you merely select the best to work further with. It is used for normal
scenes where camera can capture the entire range, but you just need to
optimize the exposure.

With HDR you make several shots ON A TRIPOD with a wider range of
exposures than in bracketing. Software then combines the shots, and
cranks down the contrast of the result so it will all print. PS, PSP
have such subprograms, or you can find standalone software to do HDR. It
is used for scenes with a VERY wide dynamic range, beyond capability of
the camera to capture.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Arrest for Photography! - was: Please check out my photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d22e4be0817489b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 6:54 am
From: Caesar Romano

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:48:11 -0600, George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote Re Arrest for Photography! - was:
Please check out my photos:

>And if you happen to be a photographer in the Bronx, don't take any shots in
>the subway...
>
><http://tinyurl.com/cprnba>

Yes indeed. The NYC police have been out of control for about 150
years.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 6:55 am
From: Caesar Romano

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:13:01 -0800, ClintEastWoodyAllenAlda
<Identity_crisis_37@razed_and_defused.info> wrote Re Re: Arrest for
Photography! - was: Please check out my photos:

>> And if you happen to be a photographer in the Bronx, don't take any shots in
>> the subway...
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/cprnba>
>
>Mein Gott in Himmel!
>
>The land of the free and the home of the paranoid?
>
>Incredible.

No really. It's just business as usual in a police state.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Camera categories
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b3eb968735ff9dba?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:19 am
From: Yawn

On 19 Feb 2009 11:28:38 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>dj_nme <dj_nme@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> dj_nme <dj_nme@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0a63d00c-017f-4b9d-901d-f5a262c70f77@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Feb 16, 7:03 pm, "Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Consumer
>>>>>> Point and shoots
>>>>>> Bridge
>>>>>> Super zooms
>>>>>> Prosumer
>>>>>> Affordable SLRs
>>>>>> Pro
>>>>>> SLRs
>>>>>> Other
>>>>>> Cell phones, web cams, etc.
>>>>> In your case you forgot "point" and "pointless".
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, you are correct. Somehow that post got truncated.
>>>>>
>>>>> My intent was to see if the folks here could somewhat agree on camera
>>>>> categories. Features are spreading in both directions (up and down) and I
>>>>> am wondering if the category system is dead. Maybe cost alone is all that
>>>>> will matter in the future?
>>>
>>>> About the only way that I can see to categorise digicam types is to
>>>> describe either there size (EG: ultra-compact, compact & large),
>>>> viewfinder mechanism (EG: tunnel, LCD, EVF, SLR & RF), price-range (EG:
>>>> disposable, cheap, expensive), can it use interchangeable lenses, the
>>>> use that they're put to (EG: P&S, enthusiast or professional) or a
>>>> combination of all the above.
>>>> For example, I'd describe something like the Ricoh GX200 as a
>>>> compact/EVF enthusiasts camera that's moderately expensive.
>>>> Something like the Panasonic DMC-G1 could be described as an EVIL
>>>> camera: combination of EVF and interchangeable lens.
>>>
>>> What have you got against functional description?
>
>> What functional difference?
>> They all take pictures: that is their function.
>
>So there's no functional difference between a 15mm lens and a 150mm
>lens? I see your problem. But it's not a problem with functional
>descriptions.

I see that your problem is that you don't realize you're always wrong.
There really is no difference between a 15mm and a 150mm lens. Both can
image the same content out of any scene, DOF (CoC) included. It all depends
on how much you want to enlarge or reduce the details in the image from
each and how far away you are from the subjects in that image. This is
often difficult for the layman/amateur to believe and comprehend but
nonetheless is perfectly true.

The only thing that makes them different is the size of image recording
plane used with each and the subject distances.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:47 am
From: John McWilliams

Yawn wrote:

> There really is no difference between a 15mm and a 150mm lens.

<< Snipped bits out >>

> The only thing that makes them different is the size of image recording
> plane used with each and the subject distances.

Gosh, that'd make 'em different in most languages.......

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon sitting on their laurels?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7b87ea61250d7973?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:34 am
From: Yawn

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:50:27 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Troy Piggins wrote:
>> * carp wrote :
>>> I am curious what people think about this. It seems to me that canon
>>> aren't making much of an effort to put out newer and better lenses.
>>> They have the best collection of lenses at the moment, and have done
>>> for quite a while.
>>>
>>> Could it be that they will just not put anything better out until some
>>> competitor does something to worry their sales?
>>>
>>> Surely they must have been doing a lot of research and I bet they have
>>> some good alternative to the glass they are using right now.
>>>
>>> What do you reckon?
>>
>> They must have heard you. 2 new tilt-shift lenses with "Canon's
>> latest sub-wavelength structure coating" :
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09021806canon17mm24mmTSElenses.asp
>>
>> Thanks for pushing them along. :)
>
>Whoah!
>TS-E 17mm f/4L.
>Nice. That's essentially a medium format lens, I don't know how wide MF
>was available before but surely not that wide.
>
> > "Canon has now added a new unique functionality to the TS-E 17mm
>f/4L and TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, allowing users to rotate the direction of
>the tilt and shift independently of each other."
>
>Nice!
>
> > +/- 6.5° Tilt and +/-12mm Shift

Great, so they expend their efforts on a lens design that is now no longer
needed by anyone since digital-image editing methods came to be.

Way to go Canon! That sure is some amazing contemporary (not even forward)
thinking there!

For future reference you might want to send out your resumés for new jobs
in the fast-food industry. Maybe you can find a better way to power
broilers with coal or wash dishes faster with scouring-rushes that you've
grown.

No doubt some 60-70 year-old lens designers are still trying to prove why
they are needed by someone, by anyone. They failed.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Britain's horrific new photo law
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9a7f879f7bd7a51b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:42 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> Well the new Soviet state apparatus. The police say photogs
> won't be bothered by it? Even without this law they've been
> searched, detained and arrested too many times before this law
> was passed.
>
>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographers_rights_Po
> lice_war n_of_terror_law_misuse_update_news_277211.html
>
>
> Photographers' rights: Police warn of terror law 'misuse'
> (update)
>
>
> Tuesday 17th February 2009
> Chris Cheesman
> community police
>
> The Metropolitan Police Federation (MPF) has come out in support
> of photographers by condemning the latest anti-terrorism
> legislation as 'unfair', 'poorly drafted' and open to misuse.
>
> The body, set up to ensure high standards of policing, backs the
> campaign led by Labour MP Austin Mitchell who is calling for the
> introduction of a photography code to be followed by officers on
> the ground.
>
> Last year the MP for Great Grimsby launched an Early Day Motion
> in the House of Commons, highlighting photographers' right to
> take pictures in public.
>
> The petition has won cross-party support from more than 240 MPs
> and was drawn up largely on the back of the experiences of
> Amateur Photographer (AP) readers.
>
> In a statement the MPF said: 'The code should be drawn up
> jointly by the Home Office and the various professional bodies
> representing police and photographers. Its aim should be to
> facilitate photography wherever possible, rather than seek
> reasons to bar it.'
>
> Yesterday, amateur and professional photographers staged a
> demonstration outside Scotland Yard over fears that police will
> enforce Section 76 of the Terrorism Act 2008 to stamp out
> photographs of police officers.
>
> As reported by AP, Section 76 of the new Act (which came into
> force yesterday) expands on Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000
> which made it an offence to record an image likely to be useful
> to a terrorist.
>
> The MPF warned that Section 76 is open to 'misinterpretation'.
>
> It adds: 'How, for example, will it be expected to apply to the
> 2012 Olympics which will be both a photo event, par excellence,
> and subject to an intense security operation?
>
> 'Does the law mean tourists are going to be rounded up and
> arrested en masse for taking suspicious photos of iconic scenes
> around the capital? That will work wonders for the international
> reputation of the London Bobby and for the city as a whole as a
> welcoming destination.'
>
> Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police claimed that taking
> photographs of police officers would not - except in
> 'exceptional circumstances' - be covered by the new offence.
>
You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny
state where everything is "free" and everything is controlled. So,
why are you so surprised that the State now wants to chip away at
your freedoms one by one? Your country has never had a formal
consitution which states all of your freedoms, rights, and
protections as does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which
leads me to believe you got just what you deserved. The fix? Vote
the Socialists clowns out of office, elect some representatives
that will do what the people want them to do and NOT do what the
people don't want them to do, write a formal document defining your
rights, and take back your country from the Socialists.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when
you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job" –
Ronald Reagan

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:48 am
From: "DRS"

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> wrote in message
news:Xns9BB76CF4EBC5DReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131

[...]

> You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny
> state where everything is "free" and everything is controlled. So,
> why are you so surprised that the State now wants to chip away at
> your freedoms one by one? Your country has never had a formal
> consitution which states all of your freedoms, rights, and
> protections as does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which
> leads me to believe you got just what you deserved. The fix? Vote
> the Socialists clowns out of office, elect some representatives
> that will do what the people want them to do and NOT do what the
> people don't want them to do, write a formal document defining your
> rights, and take back your country from the Socialists.

You first. Get rid of the Patriot Act, the warrantless wiretapping and all
the rest and then you can talk.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:52 am
From: Chris H

In message <Xns9BB76CF4EBC5DReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131>, HEMI-Powered
<none@none.gn> writes
>You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny
>state where everything is "free" and everything is controlled.

That would not be a socialist state. Probably Facist though

>doms one by one? Your country has never had a formal
>consitution which states all of your freedoms, rights, and
>protections as does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which
>leads me to believe you got just what you deserved.

You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
because of your bill of rights.

> The fix? Vote
>the Socialists clowns out of office,

Had we voted the Socialists out of office 5 years ago we would have been
out of Afghanistan about 4 years ago. The only real support the US had
globally for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was the UK's
socialist government.

The PM of the time Blair has been decorated twice by GWB. No other
forigen government member has. Certainly not the right wil Germans and
Austrians who refused point blank to support GWB . so it seems the UK
Socialist Government is the only friend the US had.

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

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 8:02 am
From: tony cooper

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
>because of your bill of rights.
>

What is your basis for this claim?

Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm
just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause
of any problems we might have.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 8:28 am
From: Chris H

In message <0f0rp4lkd0632sdfodcpnls4aimp985s2e@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
>>because of your bill of rights.
>>
>
>What is your basis for this claim?
>
>Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm
>just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause
>of any problems we might have.

As I understand it you have everything defined including National
Security overriding everything. This is not the case in the UK

In the UK the courts have far more latitude to stop the government
(assuming some one brings a case) doing lots of things. The Government
can not say "national security" and not have to prove it in court. This
is why the Home Secretary has to go to court to through people out.

The Courts use Case Law and Common Law (common law not being written
down) and can interpret far more freely.

The Government has lost several "national security" trials because the
judges read things differently to the government of the day. Clive
Ponting was a case in point. The Jury and the courts refused to convict
even though on first look he was guilty of a breach of National
Security. Actually he was guilty of severely embarrassing the government
.

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

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 9:30 am
From: tony cooper

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:28:36 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In message <0f0rp4lkd0632sdfodcpnls4aimp985s2e@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
>>>because of your bill of rights.
>>>
>>
>>What is your basis for this claim?
>>
>>Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm
>>just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause
>>of any problems we might have.
>
>As I understand it you have everything defined including National
>Security overriding everything. This is not the case in the UK

The Bill of Rights, which is the term used to describe the ten
amendments that were made to the proposed Constitution in 1789, was
added to provide protection to the citizens. Basically, they spell
out the freedoms that were to be guaranteed to the citizens. The
amendments were added because it was felt that the Constitution
itself, as originally drafted, did not adequately protect the rights
of the citizens.

The drafters of these ten amendments used the English Bill of Rights
of 1689 as a guide to what protections the citizens should have. If
you compare our Bill of Rights to your Bill of Rights, you see the
basic similarity. I assume that you are familiar with your Bill of
Rights since you propose yourself as an expert on the effect of the
documents of state on the society of country.

The issue of national security is not covered in the Bill of Rights
unless you consider Amendment II (the right to maintain a
well-regulated militia) to be a national security issue. The effect
of that amendment has been more centered on the right of the citizens
to keep and bear arms than it has on the establishment of a militia.

The various legislation enacted in the name of national security in
the 200-plus years since the Constitution was ratified by the states
must be held to be in line with the Constitution and the subsequent
Amendments. No legislation can abridge the rights given in those
documents.

There are arguments about whether or not certain legislation does
abridge these rights. Often, these take the form of challenges to
legislation, and the challenges end up being decided by the Supreme
Court. It is the Court's job to determine if the legislation is in
accordance with the *intent* of the Constitution and the Amendments.
They have to deal with intent because modern-day situations could not
have been anticipated by the drafters in the 1700s.

In short, some of our laws and practices regarding national security
are controversial, but the Bill of Rights is not the cause of the
problems. Conversely, the Bill of Rights offers protection.

You have a bad habit of going off half-cocked on issues that you have
very little - if any - understanding of. Feel free to criticize us,
but make some effort to approach accuracy in what you say. You are
far too often wide of the mark.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photographing a mirror
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0ea735b8c57df986?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:51 am
From: John McWilliams

carp wrote:
> On Feb 17, 10:18 pm, Mark Thomas <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> When you are sitting in your driver's seat, your camera should be fairly
>>> close to the rear-view mirror....
>> And here's a random example:
>>
>> http://vwkombi.com/photos/beetle-bash-bug-jam-etc/Images/0.jpg
>>
>> Obviously the 'image' is not at the same distance as the mirror itself.
>
> Mark, I love that photo! Thank you for posting it. It is also a clear
> example of the image and mirror frame being in different focus.

Excellent!

--
john mcwilliams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: No Nikon BIG Announcement
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/70f143a56f881107?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:54 am
From: "Nomen Nescio"

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:wK6dnVJT07FHjgbUnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> cjcampbell <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in news:5c4cc322-1652-
> 4496-94ad-c5f51bb8f619@m4g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
>> The Nikon-sponsored (invitation only) cocktail party before the Blues
>> Traveler concert was nice, as was the concert itself. However, Nikon
>> had nothing to announce, although we left early because I have signed
>> up for Matt Mendelsohn's Master Class first thing in the morning.
>> About half way through the cocktail party various Nikon people took
>> the stage for announcements. Nothing.
>
> Yes, it's a pathetic PMA, with loads of unprofitable P&S's being announced
> by the mfgs. Do they really think it's a good idea to devote fab space to
> making so many of these crummy things when DSLRs are the only cameras
> showing profitability and increased sales numbers? P&S sales have been
> flat or sinking (depending on brand) since 2005.
>

Hmmm, already have a review for PMA 09, which hasn't opened yet! PMA is
March 3~5 2009.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: DPR's full D3x review
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b0c85f4ecb60c84b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 2009 7:18 am
From: ASAAR

Highly Recommended, Recommended, or Highly Recommended, Just

Be the first on your block to know, if not to own one.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/

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

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