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: Items in basic D90 bundle?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9e66f2cd716d4f6e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:18 am
From: "PDM"

One reason for missing items is that is has previously been sold and then
returned, the original owner not putting everything back in the box. Had
this happen to me last year. It is very rare for Nikon, Canon et al not to
have included all the right accessories.

PDM

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:040220092355088071%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gme4sl$s84$1@news.motzarella.org>, mianileng
> <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The Nikon D90 I ordered from a dealer has just arrived but some
>> items seem to be missing. Since not even a manual is included, I
>> cannot be sure what should be included. My broadband is down
>> again, dial-up is slower than normal and it's difficult to
>> download the manual or browse around for information.
>>
>> The package includes the camera, battery, battery charger and
>> power cord. Nothing else. I'd expected at least a manual, data
>> cable, software CD/DVD and neckstrap to be included.
>>
>> Please tell me what items are missing from the standard basic
>> bundle so that I can call the dealers and tell them what is
>> missing.
>
> <http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25446/D90.h
> tml>
>
> Supplied Accessories
>
> EN-EL3e Rechargeable Li-ion Battery, MH-18a Quick Charger, DK-5
> Eyepiece Cap, DK-21 Rubber Eyecup, UC-E4 USB Cable, EG-D2 Audio Video
> Cable, AN-DC1 Camera Strap, BM-10 LCD Monitor Cover, Body Cap, BS-1
> Accessory Shoe Cover, Software Suite CD-ROM Supplied accessories may
> differ depending on country or area

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 5:16 am
From: Caesar Romano

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:05:41 +0530, "mianileng"
<mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote Re Items in basic D90 bundle?:

>The Nikon D90 I ordered from a dealer has just arrived but some
>items seem to be missing. Since not even a manual is included, I
>cannot be sure what should be included.

What dealer did you buy from?

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 7:01 am
From: "mianileng"

mianileng wrote:
> The Nikon D90 I ordered from a dealer has just arrived but some
> items seem to be missing. Since not even a manual is included,
> I
> cannot be sure what should be included. My broadband is down
> again, dial-up is slower than normal and it's difficult to
> download the manual or browse around for information.
>
> The package includes the camera, battery, battery charger and
> power cord. Nothing else. I'd expected at least a manual, data
> cable, software CD/DVD and neckstrap to be included.
>
> Please tell me what items are missing from the standard basic
> bundle so that I can call the dealers and tell them what is
> missing.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. What I didn't mention in my
initial post was that I asked the dealer to substitute an
18-200mm Nikkor for the 18-105mm kit lens and for some reason,
they're sending the lens in a separate package which has not
arrived yet.

Armed with the info you provided, I called the dealer and they
assured me that all the items missing from the camera box are
coming with the lens.

Rather surprising that they separated those standard accessories,
even the manual, from the camera body. ATM I'm giving them the
benefit of the doubt and assuming that they opened the box to
take out the 18-105mm kit lens and forgot to put the other items
back.

The dealer is J.J.Mehta & Sons in Mumbai, India and they have
established themselves for several years as both conventional and
online shops. Their website is http://www.jjmehta.com and they
have a fairly active photography forum.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 7:37 am
From: Caesar Romano

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:31:26 +0530, "mianileng"
<mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote Re Re: Items in basic D90 bundle?:

>mianileng wrote:
>> The Nikon D90 I ordered from a dealer has just arrived but some
>> items seem to be missing. Since not even a manual is included,
>> I
>> cannot be sure what should be included. My broadband is down
>> again, dial-up is slower than normal and it's difficult to
>> download the manual or browse around for information.
>>
>> The package includes the camera, battery, battery charger and
>> power cord. Nothing else. I'd expected at least a manual, data
>> cable, software CD/DVD and neckstrap to be included.
>>
>> Please tell me what items are missing from the standard basic
>> bundle so that I can call the dealers and tell them what is
>> missing.
>
>Thanks for the replies, everyone. What I didn't mention in my
>initial post was that I asked the dealer to substitute an
>18-200mm Nikkor for the 18-105mm kit lens and for some reason,
>they're sending the lens in a separate package which has not
>arrived yet.
>
>Armed with the info you provided, I called the dealer and they
>assured me that all the items missing from the camera box are
>coming with the lens.
>
>Rather surprising that they separated those standard accessories,
>even the manual, from the camera body. ATM I'm giving them the
>benefit of the doubt and assuming that they opened the box to
>take out the 18-105mm kit lens and forgot to put the other items
>back.
>
>The dealer is J.J.Mehta & Sons in Mumbai, India and they have
>established themselves for several years as both conventional and
>online shops. Their website is http://www.jjmehta.com and they
>have a fairly active photography forum.
>

Please let us know how this turns out. You might also consider adding
a rating review for jjmehta.com at http://www.resellerratings.com/
You would have to add them as a new merchant as they are not currently
listed.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 8:40 am
From: "mianileng"

Caesar Romano wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:31:26 +0530, "mianileng"
> <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote Re Re: Items in basic D90
> bundle?:
>
>> mianileng wrote:
>>> The Nikon D90 I ordered from a dealer has just arrived but
>>> some
>>> items seem to be missing. Since not even a manual is
>>> included,
>>> I
>>> cannot be sure what should be included. My broadband is down
>>> again, dial-up is slower than normal and it's difficult to
>>> download the manual or browse around for information.
>>>
>>> The package includes the camera, battery, battery charger and
>>> power cord. Nothing else. I'd expected at least a manual,
>>> data
>>> cable, software CD/DVD and neckstrap to be included.
>>>
>>> Please tell me what items are missing from the standard basic
>>> bundle so that I can call the dealers and tell them what is
>>> missing.
>>
>> Thanks for the replies, everyone. What I didn't mention in my
>> initial post was that I asked the dealer to substitute an
>> 18-200mm Nikkor for the 18-105mm kit lens and for some reason,
>> they're sending the lens in a separate package which has not
>> arrived yet.
>>
>> Armed with the info you provided, I called the dealer and they
>> assured me that all the items missing from the camera box are
>> coming with the lens.
>>
>> Rather surprising that they separated those standard
>> accessories,
>> even the manual, from the camera body. ATM I'm giving them the
>> benefit of the doubt and assuming that they opened the box to
>> take out the 18-105mm kit lens and forgot to put the other
>> items
>> back.
>>
>> The dealer is J.J.Mehta & Sons in Mumbai, India and they have
>> established themselves for several years as both conventional
>> and
>> online shops. Their website is http://www.jjmehta.com and they
>> have a fairly active photography forum.
>>
>
> Please let us know how this turns out. You might also consider
> adding
> a rating review for jjmehta.com at
> http://www.resellerratings.com/
> You would have to add them as a new merchant as they are not
> currently
> listed.

I'll do that. Thanks again for your interest.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:06 am
From: "bmoag" <-aetoo@hotmail.com>

Are you sure J.J.Mehta & Sons in Mumbai, India isn't really based in
Brooklyn?

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:40 am
From: "mianileng"

bmoag wrote:
> Are you sure J.J.Mehta & Sons in Mumbai, India isn't really
> based in
> Brooklyn?

I'm not sure if that wasn't a sarcastic rhetorical question. But
here's my answer:
I have not actually visited their shop but I'm familiar with the
area they pinpointed as their location in Mumbai. The people I
spoke to on several occasions have unmistakable Indian accents.
Members of their forum occasionally mention the shop - usually
neither glowing praise nor criticism, just matter-of-fact
mentions. The D90 I received today bore a Mumbai postmark and
transit time was about the same as with any other product I
ordered from Mumbai before.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 5:22 am
From: Chris H

In message <10jlo41t5qjd9lbhu6jchdk0sjkpancv2n@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:44:35 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>In message <d6jko4pir7kp09megalqragutmagg4gfv3@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>On 04 Feb 2009 05:07:14 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>> I served in the military,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what?
>>>>>
>>>>>So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to liberty.
>>
>>I agree with that completely.
>>
>>>That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
>>>who hate the military often say.
>>
>>I have about a decade's military service and you are WRONG
>>
>>>But the fact is that unless you put feet to your opinions, that is all
>>>they are.
>>
>>This is a red herring. Being in the military (especially the US
>>military) had nothing to do with liberty. The US military has a very
>>poor trak record of promoting Liberty. It does project US interests
>>abroad. It says they are promoting Liberty but that is not what it
>>does.
>>
>>The British Army is under no illusions of the sort of clap trap the US
>>military spouts about liberty and freedoms.
>>
>>> What have you actually done, Ray boy? Being a cranky fool
>>>for many years on usenet spouting your left-wing opinions does nothing
>>>to promote liberty.
>>
>>Ray is not left win. More of a pragmatist and Stephen I have seen
>>nothing you have said that promotes "liberty" Most propaganda people
>>use terms like "liberty" , "Freedom", "Democracy" life the Peoples
>>Liberation Army (China), the Democratic Federal Republic (East Germany)
>>etc
>>
>>>Seriously, what have you done?
>>
>>Classified... As you said :-)
>> but involved Iran , Iraq, Syria Kurdistan and talking to people there..
>>Not bombing from 10K or driving around in a tank. As you said unless
>>you have been there with your feet on the ground your words are just
>>uniformed opinion.
>>
>>>You are truly a fool who should be thankful for those in the military
>>>who have protected your right to make an idiot of yourself in public
>>>like you do.
>>
>>
>>SO how did you protect Ray? Since 1946 the US has been the aggressor and
>>attacked others.... So much so it caused several terrorist groups to
>>fight back.
>>
>>It got so bad that OBL said "Enough" we will fight back and did three
>>RETALIATION attacks (as he stated in an interview 6 weeks before the
>>first one). It was the two embassies and then the finally 9/11
>>
>>So the US military has made things LESS safe and delivered Democracy to
>>no one. The only "democracy" Iraq has is the ability to vote and say
>>"things are worse than under Saddam" They have no electricity, water
>>and sanitation which they had under Saddam. They security situation is
>>WORSE and there are fewer jobs.
>>
>>They recent election has said we want the US out "NOW!" not in 12
>>months,... well will the US give them democracy and get out as they ask?
>
>
>And another elitist country with bigoted opinions is heard from...

In short you have no answer to the comments above.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lithium & future long term battery cost
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d45d9eb5b0863b4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 5:56 am
From: Savageduck

Twibil wrote:
> On Feb 4, 5:59 pm, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
>
>>> What I find Ironic is that Abu Dhabi are creating a zero carbon
>>> emission city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City) using money
>>> made from fossil fuels. ;-)
>> Now that is truly ironic. I see they aren't able to quite meet their
>> goal at night. They also have a high degree of hypocrisy with the
>> aluminum smelter and the F1/GP racetrack.
>
> Smelter, yup, but an F1 track? Sure, a race weekend contributes some
> uncountably tiny percentage to the world's daily c02 output, but at
> the same time it provides *dramatic* photographic opportunities!
>
> I mean, *get your priorities in order*, man!

I know, I know! Point taken.

I was just pointing at the irony of the situation. I am an avid F1
(though the new track designs leave much to be desired???) and Le Mans
series fan (NASCAR does nil for me) and Laguna Seca is just up the road
from me.

>
> ~Pete

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 5:57 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:040220091159392318%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gmcidr$upa$1@qmul>, whisky-dave
> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>> At $700 I'd never buy Photoshop or any other program for using perhaps a
>> couple of hours a week,
>
> if you only are going to use it 'a couple of hours a week,' then the
> full version is not for you, but rather the consumer version, photoshop
> elements.

Well not really, last week I was asked how do you dom HDR with PS.
This was a friend who works for a charity, teaching the homeless and drug
and drink re-hab patients what else they can do with their lives.
This friend isn;t very technical so come to me for free help, where she
works can;t
really afford a Pro to help them out. They have about 5 Macs running CS3
so I';m not sure how I'd tell them how to do HDR in CS3 by using elements.
I'ver got elements anyway and found it a bit confusing, but then I've got
used to PS
since 2.5.

>
>> If they offered it for download at say $70 I'd buy a copy same as people
>> have been
>
> photoshop elements retails for about $100 and can usually be found on
> sale for half that. it's even bundled for free with various products.

I've various versions of the old PS up to 5 the LE versions, still in there
wrappings.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 6:00 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4989e23d$0$1653$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> NelsonTodd <ntodd@retriever.org> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of
>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>>>>program for 'free'
>>>>>
>>>>>Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>>>
>>>>You do.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money that
>>>>>might have been used to make the product better.
>>>>
>>>>They took away no money so they are not thieves.
>>>
>>> You're either stupid or lying. Stealing the software denies the
>>> company it could use to produce the software.
>>
>>How ?
>
> Moron.

Just out of spite I gave the latest copy of ASC4 to my cat last night....
Can you explain how adobe will loose money and won;t be able to
update their product line, if you can I'll get it back from him.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 6:25 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4989e339$0$1653$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>>
>>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>>program for 'free'
>>>
>>> Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>
>>Those that make money from selling their photographs or are employed
>>because they know how to get the best from using such a program.
>
> That doesn't even make sense. Adobe doesn't get royalties on photos
> produced using Photoshop.

No, not directly but why do most people purchase Photoshop ?
At $700 (I'm in the UK) I doubt it's your average person that
takes pictures of his family on the beach or at the park.
Why would anyone pay $700 just to edit a photo, what sort of people
do that ?

>>>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>>
>>> Yes. Adding features costs money.
>>
>>So, they don;t have to add any features they could have stayed with
>>version
>>2.5 which
>>was the first version I ever used (a copy).
>
> Which would mean that Adobe would no longer exist.
But they do despite all the copying, the more people that have it the more
that know about
it know how to use, it's a bit like advertising.

What conpany makes the most out of the software they write ?
Isn't it the same company that is most copied ........

>>>The thieves take away money that
>>> might have been used to make the product better.
>>
>>That's why such people aren't thieves
>
> People who steal are thieves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealing

That's the problem with the way the law was written and what stealing
means,
you'll have to find another word.
How about sexual abuse of adobe ?????? would that sound better.

>
>>because they don;t remove any money
>>from anyone.
>
> That's an stupid lie.

Then explain the process. How does giving a copy to my cat cost adobe
anything.

> If I take your paycheck before you get it, is
> that not stealing because I haven't removed any money from you?

I get paid directly in to my bank account, if you steal the payslip,
all you get is free toilet paper, enjoy yourself.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 6:46 am
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-02-04 21:35:52 -0800, TooFunny <toofunny@standups.net> said:

> The value of "money" is all in your mind.

Oh. Well, if it isn't worth anything, send me all you've got. I'm sure
I can figure out something I can do with it.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 7:05 am
From: tony cooper

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:25:07 -0000, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:

>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4989e339$0$1653$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>>>program for 'free'
>>>>
>>>> Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>>
>>>Those that make money from selling their photographs or are employed
>>>because they know how to get the best from using such a program.
>>
>> That doesn't even make sense. Adobe doesn't get royalties on photos
>> produced using Photoshop.
>
>No, not directly but why do most people purchase Photoshop ?
>At $700 (I'm in the UK) I doubt it's your average person that
>takes pictures of his family on the beach or at the park.
>Why would anyone pay $700 just to edit a photo, what sort of people
>do that ?

Me. Not $700, but about a third of that several years ago. I forget
the actual amount, but I got the student price. I took a course at a
community college on spreadsheets and data bases and had a student ID
number. That allowed me to buy Photoshop through the bookstore at the
student price.

Anyone can do this. A community college course is usually under $100.
That qualifies the person for the student price. It can be any course
on any subject.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 6:52 am
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg

Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg says...

>> Oh, now you are saying no non-destructive editing with settings
>> saved per image exists? I was under the impression Photoshop
>> was well able to do this, but lacking photoshop I cannot confirm
>> this.

> It can't. Do some editing in Photoshop and it won't sace the editing
> history.

Say you've got 5 shots and want to treat them identically. You say
you cannot do that in PS, at least not if you save your work at
some time and restart PS? Or if you first do 3 shots and then,
a crash and a few days later, the other 2?

If that's so, PS must be pretty limited as far as non-destructive
editing goes.

>> > And you have to apply two image processing applications in sequence,
>> > messy and time consuming if compared to the single step-approach of the
>> > RAW converter which does everything.

>> Of course, you have never heard of batch files, either. Or
>> of a simple shell script. Or of a simple GUI with a 'click
>> here' button where you can drag the RAW file in.

> Perhaps not everybody knows how to write software?

"But you have to trigger the shutter button to take a
picture"[1] --- "So use a finger and press the button!" ---
"Perhaps the user doesn't have a finger or toe to press the
shutter button?"

That's the kind of arguments you offer. It's getting very,
very tiring.

Just because *you* don't know the first thing about writing
simple batch files --- not to mention programming --- doesn't
make your claims how things cannot be done or must be in some
certain way true. In fact, your claim has been debunked.
Live with it.

>> > Lastly, some image processing steps, such as chromatic aberration
>> > removal can only be applied at the RAW conversion stage,

>> As ofthers have told you, you are wrong.

> No. But it looks like you don't know much about this issue.

Coming from you, and based on the rest of your posts, I have
doubts that you have true understanding of the matter; too
often you have claimed things to be in some way when it is
obvious they aren't.

> Chromatic aberrations removal at the RAW conversion stage directly
> accesses the individual R, G and B layers. It shrinks or expands them a
> bit, so that they again match.

That is true. It doesn't, however, *need* access to the raw data,
you can get these layers out of any image format containing colour.

> This kind of chromatic aberration removal - the only one which restores
> image sharpness (magenta desaturation techniques do not, because the
> mismatch in the individual colour layers remains) -

It doesn't restore sharpness due to sub-pixel shifts. An otherwise
identical lens without CA delivers a better result.

> cannot be applied
> after RGB conversion because the original colour channel information is
> no longer available.

Since CA is a special case and no visible CA is the normal case ---
at least with good glass and certainly in the center --- your
solution is not allowed to degrade the normal case.

You may start thinking how to demosaic images properly(!) when
the R G and B measuring points are randomly positioned, since
that will be the case if you don't demosaic first. I await your
description of a random position demosaicing algorithm that rivals
the best known ones for fixed bayer positions. (Please
provide proof of the quality.)

On top of that: Why do you need the exact data when practically
all lenses don't resolve exactly enough in the areas where CA
is visible?

-Wolfgang

[1] wrong in itself, you can drive many cameras from your laptop.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:33 am
From: Alan Browne

Mr.T wrote:
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:873aeutu6w.fld@apaflo.com...
>> You may have noticed that DSLR raw data
>> files are all different, and proprietary! (It might be
>> argued that DNG files from Pentax are not, but...)
>
> Which would be wrong since DNG is an Adobe proprietary format, which like
> PDF, they allow others to use given certain conditions.
> IMO it's a pity that there is not a single "Raw" format however, DNG or
> otherwise.

DNG is being incorporated as an ISO standard, it will be the only open
standard format out there. As it is, it is open for any co. to use.

I just wish my camera would produce DNG's. Losslessly compressed I'd
get 30 - 50% more images onto the card. (Currently get ~210 ish raws on
an 8 GB card).

Currently I convert to losslessly compressed DNG during transfer to my
computer (while also re-naming, metatagging).

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: So called Freeware, MPEG-2 licensing and you
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/514dbdd886b02f31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 7:15 am
From: TruthSquad@hope.com

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 23:30:41 -0600, "Ken Maltby"
<kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>"Bob S." <no-one@here.com> wrote in message
>news:gmdapv$9qt$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> Not to point out the obvious but when I read posts like this, I have to
>> ask - what is the source you're quoting? You're post is more about movies
>> but since I've been doing a little work in the RIAA area, I'll use their
>> site as reference. I don't see a difference in what content is being
>> stolen, music or video, stealing is stealing but copying a CD/DVD may not
>> be illegal as you suggest.
>>
>> Any legal references (not Wiki notes) to current case law? Otherwise, this
>> is all fabricated opinion. It may or may not be fact and may not be
>> applicable under all circumstances.
>>
>> For instance, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm
>>
>> I'm not about to do your research for you but without proof, this is just
>> a lot of "so what...".
>>
>> Take a read on this http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php You'll note
>> that the RIAA doesn't even mention end-user copying in that blurb but does
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
>> ...............................................................................................................
>> 11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?
>>
>> Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for
>> their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they bought
>> legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading music
>> illegally rob the people who created that music of compensation for their
>> work. When record companies are deprived of critical revenue, they are
>> forced to lay off employees, drop artists from their rosters, and sign
>> fewer bands. That's bad news for the music industry, but ultimately bad
>> news for fans as well. We all benefit from a vibrant music industry
>> committed to nurturing the next generation of talent.
>>
>> For more on what the law says about copying CDs, click HERE
>> ...............................................................................................................
>>
>> I think this kind of blows a hole in your FAQ don'tcha think?
>>
>> So while your intentions to inform may have been honorable, your
>> presentation leaves a bit to be desired.
>>
>> Take another whack at it but this time, take it to the newsgroups in China
>> and Russia where counterfeiting CD's and DVD's is big business and they do
>> them all, Audio, video, programs, databases and whatever else they can
>> make a buck copying.
>>
>> Bob S.
>>
>
> Actually, the subject under discussion has nothing to do with
>protecting the rights of content providers, the OP's erronious
>claim was that MPEG-2 can only be made, legally, using
>software that has paid a licence fee to the MPEG. The
>correlative example would be saying that every technology
>to digitize music to 16 bit PCM is covered by some imaginary
>patent held by the Compact Disk standards group. That you
>couldn't burn any music CD legally, even one of your spouse
>singing in the bathroom.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>

Well Kenny boy, if my comments are erroneous, how come you haven't
been able to provide ONE creditable cite to refute what I said?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: The Flat Stomach ad: Worst Photography Ever?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aab53b1bdf37b057?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 7:58 am
From: C J Campbell

The "One rule for a flat stomach" ad turns my stomach for sure. The
before and after shots are horrible.

Worse, this ad seems to appear on practically every page on the web,
sometimes two or three times. There has to be some way of blocking this
obnoxious thing using Safari on a Mac.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 8:11 am
From: Bert Hyman

In news:2009020507584016807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom C J Campbell
<christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:

> There has to be some way of blocking this
> obnoxious thing using Safari on a Mac.

Does Safari have the "block images from ..." option like Firefox? In
Firefox, that shows up in the pop-up menu when you right-click an image
on a Web page.

Otherwise, look at the image properties and copy the host name of the
site that's serving the image, then edit your hosts file and add a line
like this:

127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net

replacing "ad.doubleclick.net" with the name of the serving site.

I don't know where the hosts file lives on your Mac or what handsprings
you have to turn in order to edit it.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 8:26 am
From: Jürgen Exner

C J Campbell <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Worse, this ad seems to appear on practically every page on the web,
>sometimes two or three times. There has to be some way of blocking this
>obnoxious thing

Never seen it. I guess the AdBlock Plus and maybe FlashBlock addons do
their job in FireFox.

>using Safari on a Mac.

Sorry, no experience with those. But maybe you can check if there are
similar addons for Safari.

jue

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ef39fca12569e5d3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 8:36 am
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-02-04 15:39:05 -0800, Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us> said:

> On Feb 4, 5:27 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2009-02-04 10:59:04 -0800, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 3:35 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>> "Sir John Howard" <sirjohnhow...@gmail.con> wrote in message
>>>>>>> This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/
> s
>>> hift
>>>>>>> lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that i
> n
>>>>>>> Photoshop with a single image.
>>
>>>>>> A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens ape
> rt
>>> ure
>>>>>> controls depth of field.
>>
>>>>> Partly true, a simple tilt-shift lens is not a complete substitute fo
> r a
>>>>> full view camera with tilting film back and lensboard which DO allow
> the
>>>>> depth of field to be non parallel to the film/image plane.
>>>>> And you cannot do that with lens aperture alone.
>>
>>>> I've taken photos that had subjects from six inches to infinity, and
>>>> even at f22 it's hard to get everything to be sharp. Of course, TS
>>>> lenses tend to be too expensive for the occasional need.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ray Fischer
>>>> rfisc...@sonic.net
>>
>>> There is software to handle the extended depth of field. You take a
>>> series of pictures and merge them. Say you start by focusing 6 inche
> s
>>> out. Then if your DOF ends at 12", you take another picture and focu
> s
>>> 8 inches out. If your DOF then ends at 16", your next picture is at
>>> 12" or so. You then merge the photos together and get one picture
>>> with extended DOF. I've never used the software but I've read
>>> articles about it and it's pretty slick (and easy).
>>
>>> It is the same concept of bracketing exposures and blending the images
>>> to give a larger dynamic range.
>>
>> Sure, but it is not always possible to take multiple exposures so that
>> you can merge them together.
>>
>> After all, you can take two exposures and effectively double the pixels
>> in your camera, too. So why bother getting a 24 megapixel camera when
>> you can get nearly the same resolution with two 12 megapixel exposures?
>> Maybe the bride won't sit still?
>>
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
> Actually, if you took 10 images where you did nothing except changed
> the focus and you merge them together, you'd still have your original
> resolution. You wouldn't be gaining any information, you'd just be
> making sure that all of it was in focus.

I said nothing about changing focus.

As for gaining information, perhaps if you moved the camera to the left
a half a pixel for the second shot. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photos of Guppys
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad5f006dfb858982?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 8:45 am
From: John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Try the links in my post upstream a few, esp. the one with dashes
>>> (and sans % or spaces.)
>>
>> Oh, I got to his full gallery. I just backtracked on the URL.
>>
> Er, yes; I know. I wanted to see if the URL worked for you and your news
> client.
>
> Not a biggie.

Did it?

--
john mcwilliams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: NEW: Nikon Coolpix P90
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/186d46379d383b45?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:10 am
From: "mianileng"

Doug Jewell wrote:
>
> The readers of this NG might prefer to have 10X zoom,
> allowing a bigger sensor for similar sized lens, or might
> prefer to only have 6MP in return for better high-ISO
> performance, considering there probably wouldn't be much
> difference in actual resolution.

I, for one, would certainly have preferred a less noisy, lower
pixel count with my otherwise excellent 8MP Pana FZ30. The higher
MP figure was not the reason I upgraded from my earlier 5MP FZ20.
It was the major overhauling of other features like the much
faster startup, zoom ring, swivel LCD, relocation of the memory
card slot, extended shutter speed range, higher resolution EVF
and LCD, addition of RAW and 3:2 format, etc. etc. I'd even hoped
that the change from 1/2.5" sensor to 1/1.8" would have offset
the noise of a higher pixel density, but I was disappointed in
this respect.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ping:Annika (hawk photo)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c858e9758b8b40e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:51 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

...Thanks a lot Bret, for the hawk photo. I took the liberty of printing it
out on my Canon Pixma iP 4300, with Agfa 4 X 5" glossy paper, Epson A4 (8 X
10") matte paper, Epson 8 X10" high resolution paper, with outstanding
results, I made at least a dozen copies which I gave to friends, so your
masterpiece is cherished by many people. ( I am using the original Chroma
Life 100 canon inks).

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ochrocephala
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/38224cc0499247b4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 11:31 am
From: "Miguel"

Hello:

It is an interesting subspecies of the parrot that I put previously:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3256424634/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3256424642/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3256424652/

Always It's interesting to know your opinions and appreciations.

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com

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

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