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

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/632cc84438e1b7bf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 3:27 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 01 Feb 2009 02:56:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 31 Jan 2009 20:52:04 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 30 Jan 2009 06:06:18 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 29 Jan 2009 06:58:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You don't understand subtle meanings, so you shout "lies!"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I understand how evil sleazebags try to claim that black is white,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>freedom is death, and outright lies are really just "subtle meanings".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You have little understanding of the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I understand that you're a shameless liar. Proof is provided above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Not proof at all, Ray.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Here it is again, liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The West Bank [...] is just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>>>>>>>>> Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>>>>>>>> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>>>>>>>>> Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Again you ignore what I've said about that in your childish attempt at
>>>>>>>>"gotcha."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Did you say that the West Bank is part of Israel? Yes or no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The answer is both, dummy.
>>>>>
>>>>>And that makes you a liar.
>>>>
>>>>No,
>>>
>>>When somebody makes two statements that are mutually contradictory and
>>>claims that both of them are true, that people is insane or a liar.
>>
>>Ray, did you know that water is a liquid?
>
>Invalid analogy.

It's a perfectly valid analogy. Oh wait, how would you know, you
deleted most of it.

>
>>>> it makes you a fool
>>>
>>>I don't believe your lies, asshole.
>>
>>Your gay advances
>
>So, in addition to calling people anti-semites and terrorists and
>bigots, you also trot out the old "gay" accusation.

You just don't know when you are being mocked, do you? You are the
one with a rectal fixation in your choice of words. It's just
reasonable to assume that it must be on your mind a lot.

>>>>Surely you know that you can take ANYONE's words out of context
>>>
>>>Explain how the context makes your statement true.
>>
>>You deleted all of that
>
>You're a liar.

Yet you even lie with that statement. But how can you prove
otherwise since you've deleted all the evidence?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/785f7679e18aa82a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 3:30 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>Stephen, one of the many euphemisms I HATE is "spin", which
>>today means to tell a story to be most favorable to your side
>>when in reality, it is really a LIE. Ray and some others attempt
>>to spin the truth to make it sound more believable and more
>>palitable to normal folk but succeed in neither.
>
> Exactly. In self-righteous anger they somehow believe that
> lying and personal attacks are justified because they *think*
> they have the moral high ground. In their limited worldview,
> they truly think that the end justifies the means. Lie, quote
> out of context, erase the words of others, avoid questions and
> repeatedly bring home the false accuation of "liar, liar."
> It's all so transparent. That's why I've called Ray a Nazi,
> because he uses their tactics against the opposition.
>
I just replied to you in another post that a strange side of being a
liberal is vigorous defense of freedom of expression EXCEPT when the
other person doesn't agree with the Liberal view of the world.

Then there's the strange circularity of political ideology where as
one moves Left, eventually you get to Socialism, Marxism, and
Communism but then the ideology wraps around and re-enters from the
far right as Facsism and back to the left again as reactionary,
neocon, and so on. I think the idea SHOULD be to stay somewhere just
left or just right of center and not get so sidetracked as to be
either a Far Left OR a Far Right Loon.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7fc71383c4ed520f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 3:31 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 01 Feb 2009 02:57:11 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 31 Jan 2009 20:55:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 31 Jan 2009 07:48:03 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 29 Jan 2009 07:06:40 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 28 Jan 2009 07:00:18 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 27 Jan 2009 03:40:05 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:24:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 25 Jan 2009 03:43:31 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:37:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 18:09:14 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 08:37:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:15:08 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then you need to get a life and learn to do independent research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have. Including going to the ME. My parents have travelled in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Israel and Palestine. Your experience is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like you were more on a sight seeing tour than a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>finding mission as your thesis is ludicrous at best.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My "experience" is precisely this: I think that ALL/ANY sovereign
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nations have the RIGHT to defend themselves against unwarranted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attacks without resorting to bullshit arbitration by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>international community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No you don't. You totally reject the Palestinian's right to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>anything of the sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Palestinians are NOT a sovereign nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How convenient doe you to make such an excuse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Excuse? That's simply a fact that cannot be disputed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And WHY aren't they a nation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because Israel doesn't allow it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Israel is still illegally expanding settlements in the West Bank and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>refuses to withdraw.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why is it illegal?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you think wikipedia is a reliable source, you are a fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Translation: Any source that isn't pro-Israel must be biased.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>But I notice no denial or refutaton from you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No translation needed. Virtually nobody considers Wikipedia to be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>trustworthy source.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
>>>>>>>>>>> Attacking the Person
>>>>>>>>>>> (argumentum ad hominem)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Definition:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument
>>>>>>>>>>> itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character,
>>>>>>>>>>> nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be
>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome.
>>>>>>>>>>> Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the
>>>>>>>>>>> company he keeps.
>>>>>>>>>>> There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument
>>>>>>>>>>> attacks the person who made the assertion.
>>>>>>>>>>> ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the
>>>>>>>>>>> author points to the relationship between the person making the
>>>>>>>>>>> assertion and the person's circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>> ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a
>>>>>>>>>>> person does not practise what he
>>>>>>>>>>> preaches.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They captured that land from Jordan during the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1967 Arab-Israeli war when they won that war of Arab aggression. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>have every right to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Just like the nazis had every right to Poland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Poland never started multiple wars against Germany for the purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>removing them from Europe, knucklehead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And until the Zionists started using terrorism to drive out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Palestinians, neither did the Arabs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Again, you are ignoring history,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Evidence? What "history" do you believe is being ignored?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You tell me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You make an accusation you can't even justify.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That makes you a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ray, you've already demonstrated that you view any source that
>>>>>>>>supports Israel's right to exist as propaganda.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And now you're lying your bigoted ass off again. You lie, you get
>>>>>>>challenged, you come up with some new lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's a sickness with you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Those aren't lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>You admitted that your statements are lies.
>>>>
>>>>Uhmm ... no.
>>>
>>>Of course you did.
>>
>>Never. You are the worst kind of liar, one who actually thinks he is
>
>Lessee, what is it that you say? Something about calling people liars
>as a way of deflecting from your own lies?
>
>Back at you, hypocrite.

Deleting most of my post and then using that as a springboard for more
insults?

Talk about being a lying hypcrite, Ray.

You just repeat a lie as a way of avoiding the questions I've asked
you.

Am I lying? Then prove it by not deleting text and by actually
answering questions.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 3:34 am
From: "mianileng"

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:56:50 -0600, Rich <none@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>> I often hear people (likely motivated more by envy than
>> anything
>> else) criticize novices who sport expensive DSLRs. I figure
>> it's
>> the same kind of people who dine on steak and feed their kids
>> hotdogs because "the kids can't appreciate the steak fully."
>> Friend is attending photo school. Guy shows up toting a new
>> D3...with a $150 Sigma zoom attached. Disgusting, I know.
>> Shows a
>> lack of something on that person's part. But ultimately, even
>> a
>> novice or a complete hack will do somewhat better with a
>> better
>> camera, it's inevitable. The person with the D300 coupled to a
>> 300mm
>> f2.8 is likely going to do a little better than the guy with
>> the old
>> D50 and the basic, slow 70-300mm G lens, if you were to
>> average the
>> results across a couple hundred shots.
>> So, the old question, is a $5000 camera in a novice's
>> hands(lets
>> assume a novice who is clueless and won't bother learning)a
>> complete
>> waste? No. Because even though they'll never exploit its full
>> potential, they will do slightly better with it than with a
>> lesser
>> machine.
>
> Every year I play the trumpet ("Taps", etc.) in our town's
> Memorial
> Day parade. In any year we have two to four people who do this.
> One
> year we had a college kid who couldn't understand why I (an old
> geezer who hardly ever practices) got a better sound than he
> did.
> After the parade we did a few unscientific tests that pretty
> well
> exposed the truth: while he was a better trumpet player, I had
> a
> better trumpet.
>
> It's fairly universal that for a given skill level of its user,
> better
> equipment produces better results.
>
And vice versa. For a given equipment, a skilled operator will
usually produce better results than someone less skilled. The two
are equally universal truths. It's when some people harp on just
one to the exclusion of the other that it becomes misleading. For
example, when someone makes an unqualified statement that no one
needs a DSLR because content trumps quality every time, or that a
P&S can never be good enough for someone with a half-serious
interest in photography.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 3:35 am
From: Chris Malcolm

Robert Coe <bob@1776.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2009 07:08:06 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> : Samantha Booth <mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote:
> : >"Samantha Booth" <mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote in message
> :
> : >> Got my D90 yesterday and I am a complete novice so go easy on me :)
> : >>
> : >> It came with something that goes on the end of the lens. It screws on
> : >> the end and is like a zig zag shape, sorry dont know the name. However
> : >> when I take photos and review them this thing is visible in the shot
> : >> at the bottom. I cannot rotate it to make it invisible so what is it
> : >> for and why is it showing in my pictures.
> : >>
> : >> Can anyone help please?
> : >Lens hood I think and its sorted now, user error :)
> :
> : Just what I was going to tell you. :-)

> But why would a lens hood intended for a particular camera be visible in a
> photograph taken therewithal?

The clue is in the original claim, that it's "visible at the
bottom". That's what happens with a wide enough angle lens with a hood
on used with a pop-up flash. It's not the actual hood that's visible,
it's its shadow. That's one of the reasons the lens hood is made to be
detachable :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 6:43 am
From: Jürgen Exner

Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> : >"Samantha Booth" <mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote in message
>> : >> It came with something that goes on the end of the lens. It screws on
>> : >> the end and is like a zig zag shape, sorry dont know the name. However
>> : >> when I take photos and review them this thing is visible in the shot
>> : >> at the bottom. I cannot rotate it to make it invisible so what is it
>> : >> for and why is it showing in my pictures.
>
>The clue is in the original claim, that it's "visible at the
>bottom". That's what happens with a wide enough angle lens with a hood
>on used with a pop-up flash. It's not the actual hood that's visible,
>it's its shadow. That's one of the reasons the lens hood is made to be
>detachable :-)

I'm impressed, I think you nailed it. Your crystal ball is truly very
high quality :-).
The OP already said "user error" but as usually neglected to tell us the
solution to the riddle.

jue

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 8-Way Processing With Intel's New Superchip!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2e50dafd5821524d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 4:14 am
From: "Larry Thong"

^Tems^ wrote:

>> It looks like we are being forced to upgrade our computers once again
>> since we have upgraded our cameras. The new CPU is guaranteed to
>> outlast most other chips on the market by 10-years. Fortunately
>> Intel has been forced to throw away the old way of thinking, no more
>> planned obsolescence.
>>
>>
>> <http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2369/2273922550_9bc64f5845_b.jpg>
>
> Looking at the plugs it could be expandable to 10 ways in the future
> if needed

I wonder what happened there?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:47 am
From: Nervous Nick

On Jan 31, 7:21 pm, "Larry Thong" <larry_th...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> It looks like we are being forced to upgrade our computers once again since
> we have upgraded our cameras. The new CPU is guaranteed to outlast most
> other chips on the market by 10-years. Fortunately Intel has been forced to
> throw away the old way of thinking, no more planned obsolescence.
>
> <http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2369/2273922550_9bc64f5845_b.jpg>

OMG you posted a photo of a toilet in a diarrhea clinic

Cute

Clever

Funny

Oh, I forgot to add these:

!! !! !! !!

--
YOP...

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 5:00 am
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg

Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> But a RAW converter should incorporate as much image editing as
> possible,

Why?

> so that no further image editing steps are needed after RAW
> conversion.

It's obvious that to you "RAW converter" means "RAW converter +
full blown image editor (like Photoshop)". It's just as obvious
that UFRAW is a RAW converter without any image editor bolted on.

It's really funny to see you claim things that UFRAW *must*
do or have. Imagine a camera set to only output RAW --- and
someone claiming that it's worthless, since it does output RAW
instead of JPEG, because RAW needs further image editing steps
where JPEG is already a final product.

The whole 'non-destructive editing' argument is a red herring as
it's got nothing at all to do with the choice between pure RAW
converter + separate image editor or do-everything-and-clean-the-
kitchen-too-RAW-converter.

-Wolfgang

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 5:31 am
From: nospam

In article <873aeyh6gv.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:

> >combine the raw converter and image editor and not only is it all
> >available in one program, but it makes it much easier to do
> >non-destructive editing. you could revisit the raw converter at any
> >point to make a change, even *after* extensive retouching, compositing,
> >etc., without losing any of it.
>
> Except that a combination would still commonly be used
> by invoking it twice.

how so?

> > the issue then is why have it in two separate apps?
>
> Because it actually is not best done as a single entity.
> A raw converter should be a lightweight program which
> can be invoked quickly and cleanly with minimal
> confusion, to produce one or both of either a preview
> image or a image file that is used as the starting point
> for a production image.

an intermediate file effectively kills any possibility of
non-destructive editing.

> The ability to both rapidly run through a series of
> images in interactive mode, and to invoke the converter
> in batch mode, is essential.

which can be done either way.

> All of the above pretty much excludes implementation as
> an integral part of an image editor.

no it doesn't. photoshop, lightroom and aperture do all of that.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 6:01 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <873aeyh6gv.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> >combine the raw converter and image editor and not only is it all
>> >available in one program, but it makes it much easier to do
>> >non-destructive editing. you could revisit the raw converter at any
>> >point to make a change, even *after* extensive retouching, compositing,
>> >etc., without losing any of it.
>>
>> Except that a combination would still commonly be used
>> by invoking it twice.
>
>how so?

Once to generate previews. And once again when doing
production editing.

>> > the issue then is why have it in two separate apps?
>>
>> Because it actually is not best done as a single entity.
>> A raw converter should be a lightweight program which
>> can be invoked quickly and cleanly with minimal
>> confusion, to produce one or both of either a preview
>> image or a image file that is used as the starting point
>> for a production image.
>
>an intermediate file effectively kills any possibility of
>non-destructive editing.

No it doesn't. Regardless, "non-destructive editing" is
eye-candy that has very little real value.

>> The ability to both rapidly run through a series of
>> images in interactive mode, and to invoke the converter
>> in batch mode, is essential.
>
>which can be done either way.
>
>> All of the above pretty much excludes implementation as
>> an integral part of an image editor.
>
>no it doesn't. photoshop, lightroom and aperture do all of that.

Photoshop and Lightroom do not do all of that
independently any more than UFRAW and GIMP do. I didn't
bother to look up Aperture, and assume you don't know
any more about it than the others?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:44 am
From: nospam

In article <87tz7efe7m.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:

> >an intermediate file effectively kills any possibility of
> >non-destructive editing.
>
> No it doesn't.

then explain how you can go back and make an adjustment to the raw
conversion after you make some changes in the editor, such as
retouching out a skin blemish or applying a lens distortion correction
filter, without losing any of those changes.

> Regardless, "non-destructive editing" is
> eye-candy that has very little real value.

it has a *lot* of value. i can't imagine working any other way. have
you actually tried it?

> >> The ability to both rapidly run through a series of
> >> images in interactive mode, and to invoke the converter
> >> in batch mode, is essential.
> >
> >which can be done either way.
> >
> >> All of the above pretty much excludes implementation as
> >> an integral part of an image editor.
> >
> >no it doesn't. photoshop, lightroom and aperture do all of that.
>
> Photoshop and Lightroom do not do all of that
> independently any more than UFRAW and GIMP do.

you said that you don't use camera raw which means you don't use
photoshop or lightroom. how is it that you know what they can or
cannot do?

it's possible to interactively batch edit, non-destructively edit and
generate intermediate files (not needed but still possible), which you
said can't be done if the raw converter is part of the app.

> I didn't
> bother to look up Aperture, and assume you don't know
> any more about it than the others?

you're quick to make (incorrect) assumptions.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:08 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> All of the above pretty much excludes implementation as
>> >> an integral part of an image editor.
>> >
>> >no it doesn't. photoshop, lightroom and aperture do all of that.
>>
>> Photoshop and Lightroom do not do all of that
>> independently any more than UFRAW and GIMP do.
>
>you said that you don't use camera raw which means you don't use
>photoshop or lightroom. how is it that you know what they can or
>cannot do?

Sigh. Go give google a whirl.

>it's possible to interactively batch edit,

A contradiction in terms.

>non-destructively edit and
>generate intermediate files (not needed but still possible), which you
>said can't be done if the raw converter is part of the app.

That is not what I said. Please learn to read and
please learn to use words with the meanings they have
for others.

>> I didn't
>> bother to look up Aperture, and assume you don't know
>> any more about it than the others?
>
>you're quick to make (incorrect) assumptions.

Photoshop does raw conversions absent a plugin?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How do you create mood
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b42e56278cfae76f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 5:46 am
From: "mianileng"

measekite wrote:
> I have seen many photographs (many in BW that was desaturated
> from
> color) that are very dark and moody. I do not know if they are
> intentionally underexposed or made that way in a photo editor.
> Many
> times mist and fog was added.
>
> Does anyone know how to do this?

As for converting color photos to B&W, I use Irfanview almost
exclusively. One can use either "Convert to grayscale" or
desaturating with "Color corrections" (Shift + G). Results
produced by the two methods look the same, but whereas the
greyscale picture is 8-bit (256 shades), the second one is still
technically 24-bit (16.7 million). The ratio of resultant file
sizes in uncompressed format is 1:3.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 5:56 am
From: "Alan Smithee"

"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:R49hl.11573$W06.7468@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>I have seen many photographs (many in BW that was desaturated from color)
> that are very dark and moody. I do not know if they are intentionally
> underexposed or made that way in a photo editor. Many times mist and fog
> was added.
>
> Does anyone know how to do this?

Do you mean like these?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cadm/3224186483/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loomax/3165940801/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/itsgreg/3049211090/

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:17 am
From: measekite

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:56:28 +0000, Alan Smithee wrote:

> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> news:R49hl.11573$W06.7468@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>I have seen many photographs (many in BW that was desaturated from color)
>> that are very dark and moody. I do not know if they are intentionally
>> underexposed or made that way in a photo editor. Many times mist and fog
>> was added.
>>
>> Does anyone know how to do this?
>
>
> Do you mean like these?
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/cadm/3224186483/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/loomax/3165940801/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/itsgreg/3049211090/

In that general direction but much sharper. The question was not so much
how to desaturate but to create mood. And I do know about some plug-ins
to create fog but not mist. But I want to know about how to expose for
this and what to do after.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Freeware alternative to Camtasia for capturing a video of whatever is
on the screen
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c93acde252e3d7e8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 6:43 am
From: Bill Wells

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 08:41:00 +0900, Johnw wrote:

>> One application this allows me is I can play music in the background, and
>> then scroll through my picture collection of a school event, and the whole
>> thing is automatically turned into a video that I can share or convert to
>> DVD for sharing. That's a neat idea.
>
> Sounds like you will be busy for a while, have fun.

Your recommended CamStudio seems fine for what I need.
It's much simpler to use than Wink, for example.

I just checked the option to record audio and then hit the record button.
When done, I hit the stop button and it automatically saves to an AVI.
I kind'a wish it would save to an AVI as it was recording so I wonder when
it will run out of memory, but that will take time to ascertain.

Once it's an AVI file, I can edit to my heart's content (not) and then
convert to DVD-video format with DVDFlick freeware and burn to DVD media
with ImgBurn freeware.

Thanks for the great suggestion. I'll try to summarize separately for
others to gain knowledge from our endeavor.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D90 and 18-200mm lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8eaf53f0456b671c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 6:57 am
From: TheRealSteve

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:03:19 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:37:47 +0000, Focus wrote:
>
>> "pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:gm2c45$eom$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with the D90?
>>> "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in advance.
>>> Elaborations will be welcome.
>>
>> I have given this lens some serious thought, but I decided on the 16-85
>> instead. Quality is more important to me than a long range. The 18-200 loses
>> by a landslide and costs more.
>> Both will work with the D90. Almost all Nikon lenses after 1990 will work
>> and even much older ones, some with restrictions.
>>
>>
>
>Based on everything I have read I would agree. You would also want to
>look at the Tokina 11-24? and the 70 to 200.
>
>Still, after you have all of those you may occasionally feel lazy and
>want to compromise and use an 18-200. But it would be luck to have that
>prize winning opportunity and not have the best lens with you to capture
>it.

There's always comprimises. What if that prize winning opportunity
would best be captured at 200mm but you had your 16-85 on?

Steve

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:12 am
From: measekite

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:57:08 +0000, TheRealSteve wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:03:19 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:37:47 +0000, Focus wrote:
>>
>>> "pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:gm2c45$eom$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with the D90?
>>>> "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in advance.
>>>> Elaborations will be welcome.
>>>
>>> I have given this lens some serious thought, but I decided on the 16-85
>>> instead. Quality is more important to me than a long range. The 18-200 loses
>>> by a landslide and costs more.
>>> Both will work with the D90. Almost all Nikon lenses after 1990 will work
>>> and even much older ones, some with restrictions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Based on everything I have read I would agree. You would also want to
>>look at the Tokina 11-24? and the 70 to 200.
>>
>>Still, after you have all of those you may occasionally feel lazy and
>>want to compromise and use an 18-200. But it would be luck to have that
>>prize winning opportunity and not have the best lens with you to capture
>>it.
>
> There's always comprimises. What if that prize winning opportunity
> would best be captured at 200mm but you had your 16-85 on?
>
> Steve

That depends if you want to shoot sports or nature etc. But if you should
mostly street and landscapes you will catch your shot with the 16-85 on an
APC sensor body (24-122) and you would have time to change lenses if you
feel you need to.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:40 am
From: TheRealSteve

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:12:24 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:57:08 +0000, TheRealSteve wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:03:19 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:37:47 +0000, Focus wrote:
>>>
>>>> "pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:gm2c45$eom$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>> Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with the D90?
>>>>> "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in advance.
>>>>> Elaborations will be welcome.
>>>>
>>>> I have given this lens some serious thought, but I decided on the 16-85
>>>> instead. Quality is more important to me than a long range. The 18-200 loses
>>>> by a landslide and costs more.
>>>> Both will work with the D90. Almost all Nikon lenses after 1990 will work
>>>> and even much older ones, some with restrictions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Based on everything I have read I would agree. You would also want to
>>>look at the Tokina 11-24? and the 70 to 200.
>>>
>>>Still, after you have all of those you may occasionally feel lazy and
>>>want to compromise and use an 18-200. But it would be luck to have that
>>>prize winning opportunity and not have the best lens with you to capture
>>>it.
>>
>> There's always comprimises. What if that prize winning opportunity
>> would best be captured at 200mm but you had your 16-85 on?
>>
>> Steve
>
>That depends if you want to shoot sports or nature etc. But if you should
>mostly street and landscapes you will catch your shot with the 16-85 on an
>APC sensor body (24-122) and you would have time to change lenses if you
>feel you need to.

Here you're rationalizing. If you shoot mostly street and landscapes
then the 16-85 is also the wrong lens for you. And you're not going
to get that "prize winning" opportunity shooting streets and
landscapes that have been shot a million times before by everyone else
with a digital camera.

We're discussing do-it-all walkaround travel lenses and having a
prize-winning opportunity happen upon you. You don't know what you'll
be shooting or what it is and it's certainly within the realm of
possibilities that this once in a lifetime shot will be captured much
better at 200mm than 85mm and that if you're fumbling around changing
lenses, you'll miss it.

BTW, since you seem to like Ken Rockwell (and I'll admit he does have
some valuable info on his site) you might be interested in what he has
to say about the 16-85 vs. 18-200.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm-vs-18-200mm.htm

The basic conclusion is that if you're shooting test charts and brick
walls or are going to print your shot at 20x30, the 16-85 would be
better. But for real world photography, it's not worth the extra cost
considering the loss of the long end.

For me, I was considering the 16-85 only because in certain situations
it has less CA than the 18-200. But that wasn't enough reason for me
to sell the 18-200 and get the 16-85. Espcially since CA is
correctable if you have that prize winning shot and newer bodies even
do it automatically.

Steve

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 7:50 am
From: Robert Coe

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:19:52 -0800, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
: "pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid> wrote:
: >Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with
: >the D90? "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in
: >advance. Elaborations will be welcome.
:
: See http://bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm which not only has a very
: detailed compatibility matrix for the what but also excellent
: explanation about the why.
:
: BTW: you could have found out easily yourself by looking into the manual
: or just following the standard route:
: The lens is at least AI-P (designed after ~1989), so it is fully
: compatible, unless the camera is a D40/40x/60 which would require an
: AF-S for auto-focus, but which lens even is.

The gibbericity of that answer fully justifies the original question.

Bob (recognizing another reason to be satisfied that his cameras are Canons)

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:32 am
From: "bmoag" <-aetoo@hotmail.com>

You might save some money and get equal or better optical performance from
the Sigma 18-200.
I have only me extensive personal experience with these lenses to go by, not
what I've read . . .

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:35 am
From: "Jim"

"pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid> wrote in message
news:gm2c45$eom$1@news.albasani.net...
> Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with the D90?
> "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks in advance.
> Elaborations will be welcome.
>
Of course it will fit.
Jim

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:00 am
From: Robert Coe

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:06:35 -0800 (PST), blackmanblues@gmail.com wrote:
: On Jan 28, 5:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
: > This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
: > does work!!
: >
: > First - Download ACPCS4 Trial from Adobe
: >
: > [etc.]
: >
: > If Adobe used better protection you would not see this post!
: >
: > Note:
: > all you ubber honest guys should not read this post let alone try it!
: >
: > This is just information I do not advocte that you actually do this. I
: > recommend that you take the $700 out of your meagre paycheck and buy
: > the program. (Muahahahahahaha!)
: >
: > Robin Hood
:
: Well I'll be damned--it actually works!

How long do you goobers think it will take before Adobe fixes the trial
version to plug that leak?

Bob

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 1 2009 8:33 am
From: Sheila

Frank H wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:30:14 -0500, Sheila <swdalton@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Frank H wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:54:33 -0500, Sheila <swdalton@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are you just talking about the camera battery. If so, it is on the
>>>> bottom of the camera, there is a slot that you push to one side and the
>>>> battery is there with the card.
>>> No, Sheila,
>>>
>>> I am talking about the battery that holds the settings, as well as
>>> time and date.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Frank
>>
>> I've never heard of that kind of battery. There is probably memory that
>> holds this information. I've never had that kind of battery in any of
>> my digital cameras and I have a few. I also have a G10.
>
> Hi again Sheila,
>
> And thanks also to those who responded as well.
>
> I just downloaded the manual for the G10 from Canon.
>
> On the very top of page 15, it states:
> A rechargeable lithium battery is built into the camera to save such
> settings as Date/Time. It seems to charge itself off of the primary
> battery in about 4 hours.
> If you do not have your primary battery in the camera while not in
> use, this built in lithium battery will totally discharge within 3
> weeks, and you would have to re-do your settings.
>
> Now I still wonder how much Mr. Canon would charge to replace this
> secondary battery when the time comes, and it will.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Frank
>
>