Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Album Lumières d'Opale n° 43
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/21cf6c86b96291e9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 17 2009 11:53 pm
From: Lumières d'Opale

Hello,

Now, there are more than 10 000 visitors of the website. New album
"Lumières d'Opale" has been published. If you are interested, visit my
website:
http://lumieresdopale.fr.monsite.orange.fr/index.jhtml or

http://lumieresdopale.fr.monsite.orange.fr

This is information about my website, but not a spam.

The galleries of this website display photographs taken around the
Opale Coast in France, near Le Touquet, under an ever-changing light.
The pictures are changed once or twice a month. The downloading and
use of these images is free as long as they are for personal use and
without resale.

Now on, you can freely see or buy such photos "Lumières d'Opale" (in
A4 format minimum): Click on http://www.licencephoto.com/public/photographe-6510.html.
Then search "OPALE".

Album number 43, named "November 2008-4" has been just published.
Thanks to 435 visitors of album number 42.

Next album will be published on Marsh 10th.

If you want to tell your opinion or to be personally informed about
new publication, write to lumieresdopale@orange.fr .

I remind you that I am an amateur photographer, who likes French "Côte
d'Opale" and its light on the sea and on the sand of its extensive
beaches. I am living and working in Paris, and spend my holydays in
Merlimont ("Pas-de-Calais"). I use a digital still camera "Sony Cyber-
shot DSC-V1" bought in November 2003.

My website is, for me, an opportunity to progress and to share my
interest for photography and French "Côte d'Opale" with its visitors.
It is also the easiest way, and which less spends time, to collect
your observations and advices. It is without any lucrative
intention.

Congratulations.

Daniel

==============================================================================
TOPIC: MY PHOTOS
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb98832b91214a4a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 12:40 am
From: Operaomniofilo

http://flickr.com/photos/arcovariante/

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 12:49 am
From: Paul Heslop

frank wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 1:18 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > 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_Police...
> > 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
>
> Interestingly, Chicago Trib ran a photo of a demonstration by a few
> hundred photogs at a UK police station all taking photos in protest of
> the law. Interesting expression on the female police officer's face
> that was watching it all.
>
> No doubt there are others out there on the web. Enough of those
> protests and the government will probably cave and write something
> more useful. Say, prohibitions on what would be SWAT teams in the US
> or narcotics officers working undercover. - both pretty much protected
> over here for obvious reasons.
>
> Governments forget working WITH the press is much easier than working
> AGAINST them.

It IS supposedly to be to keep the identity of undercover cops out of
the papers. Problem over here is they have a habit of using these laws
to do what they want. Our local councils are using anti-terror
legislation to spy on people who let their dogs foul the pavement etc.
They have crazy rules about protests and so forth and are about to or
have already virtually made it impossible to protest against stuff
like nuclear facilities. If memory serves me right they were even
going to remove the rights of local councils to object to them in
their own regions, so the govt can force through any facility and
there will be nothing anyone can do about it.

--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 8:32 am
From: Bruce

frank <dhssresearcher@netscape.net> wrote:

>Interestingly, Chicago Trib ran a photo of a demonstration by a few
>hundred photogs at a UK police station all taking photos in protest of
>the law. Interesting expression on the female police officer's face
>that was watching it all.

That wasn't just "a police station", it was New Scotland Yard, the
headquarters of the Metropolitan Police, which is responsible for
policing Greater London and for taking the lead in anti-terrorist
operations across the whole country.

>No doubt there are others out there on the web. Enough of those
>protests and the government will probably cave and write something
>more useful. Say, prohibitions on what would be SWAT teams in the US
>or narcotics officers working undercover. - both pretty much protected
>over here for obvious reasons.
>
>Governments forget working WITH the press is much easier than working
>AGAINST them.

In the UK, Governments have no need to work with the press. Governments
have routinely silenced the press for decades using D-Notices.

D-Notices are a form of instant censorship. Once a notice has been
issued in respect of a particular story or situation, the media must not
make any further reference to it until the D-Notice is lifted. In
theory, compliance is voluntary, but enormous pressure is brought to
bear on publications or broadcast media who do not obey.

In the last year or so the system has been made even stricter, and I
think the D-Notice name has been replaced by something else.

A recent application of the system was to prevent reporting of many
extensive and highly effective demonstrations on UK college campuses
against Israel's military operation in Gaza. I read about the
demonstrations on CNN, where they made the Top 10 News for several days.
Trying to find any reference in the UK media was a thankless task; I
tried over 20 new web sites including all the national daily newspapers
and several TV and radio stations - nothing. But as CNN reported, these
were by far the biggest student demonstrations in the UK since 1968.

Presumably reports were censored to avoid upsetting Israel - the UK
having a Jewish foreign secretary may have something to do with this.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Beware of Rocky Cameras, UK + Paypal
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/422cde92582b6a98?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 1:00 am
From: Peter

tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote

>Half the posts complaining about either eBay or PayPal say there is
>not enough human presence at either. The other half says the fees for
>both are too high, and that is undoubtedly caused by spending too much
>money on payroll.

Or making too much money :)

There is zero doubt that PP favours buyers - that much is clear from
their refund policy.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 1:38 am
From: Willy Eckerslyke

tony cooper wrote:

> Half the posts complaining about either eBay or PayPal use
> pulled-from-the-ass statistics (like 98%), and the other half use
> wild-ass-guess statistics (like 2%).

So you're saying that 50% of posts use pulled-from-the-ass statistics,
while the other 50% use wild-ass-guess statistics?

50%?

You sure about that?

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 5:07 am
From: Grimly Curmudgeon

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "me" <nospam@formeta.com> saying
something like:

>You think thats bad, check this git out, reported to ebay and they have done
>NOTHING
>
>http://toolhaus.org/cgi-bin/negs?User=bobob_uk&Dirn=Received+by&ref=home

And they never will - he generates too much income for them.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 6:19 am
From: tony cooper

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:38:23 +0000, Willy Eckerslyke
<oss108no_spam@bangor.ac.uk> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> Half the posts complaining about either eBay or PayPal use
>> pulled-from-the-ass statistics (like 98%), and the other half use
>> wild-ass-guess statistics (like 2%).
>
>So you're saying that 50% of posts use pulled-from-the-ass statistics,
>while the other 50% use wild-ass-guess statistics?
>
>50%?
>
>You sure about that?

I know it's a cheeky thing to say, butt I checked my sources. I
wouldn't want to give you a bum steer.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 7:58 am
From: John McWilliams

tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:38:23 +0000, Willy Eckerslyke <oss108no_spam@bangor.ac.uk> wrote:>> tony cooper wrote:

>>> Half the posts complaining about either eBay or PayPal use
>>> pulled-from-the-ass statistics (like 98%), and the other half use
>>> wild-ass-guess statistics (like 2%).
>> So you're saying that 50% of posts use pulled-from-the-ass statistics,
>> while the other 50% use wild-ass-guess statistics?
>>
>> 50%?
>>
>> You sure about that?
>
> I know it's a cheeky thing to say, butt I checked my sources. I
> wouldn't want to give you a bum steer.

I can't find a crack in tony's logic.

--
lsmft

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Abstract paintings of Will Dockery
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/eb3e469fc2f0a98e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 2:10 am
From: Will Dockery

On Feb 16, 7:15 am, "msifg" wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" wrote:
> > 0x0000 wrote:
>
> >> Amazing. You fell for Pollack hook, line, and sinker. Sounds like
> >> you're not really qualified in the area of criticism of Art, DMH. At
> >> least, you've failed to establish any creds for yourself with /that/
> >> paragraph of "suck-up-to-the-faggy-new-york-art-crowd-at-the-expense-
> >> of-local-folk-artists" drivel. Thanks for playing. Hope you do
> >> better next time...
>
> > I guess all those years of being top student at an Art School, studying
> > the history and the practice of art, plus having spent only my entire
> > lifetime creating art of various sorts just didn't pay off.
> >
> > dmh
>
> "top student."
>
> and look at you now:
> top asshole.
>
> i guess being at the top of something is
> pretty important for you.
>
> congratulations on the whole "top" thing.
>
> let me top it off by mentioning that you're
> now a top dipshit nobody who's opinion means
> about as much as a pimples opinion on a dogs
> ass.
>
> how's that for a "top?"

Oh, Dale Houstman finds himself "charmed" at whatever position he
finds himself... heh.

--
"Ozone Stigmata", by Will Dockery & Henry Conley, guest mandolin by
Brian Fowler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxfl_7KvFcc

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Swedish girls and manuals for Konica Minolta
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/17f2ff97de49ae6f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 2:28 am
From: "David"

check out my hompage: http://darg.mine.nu/foto/p/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 24 megapixels versus 12, substantial diff.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/20d2a006a3524f6e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 2:32 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
> Ehmmm... a lens does not have a resolution in megapixel. Both formulas
> make no sense.

Alfred,

It makes sense if you use the same spatial units, whether that be microns
or megapixels, and then use the appropriate formula. But you are right
in that using one figure for lens performance may simplify things too
much.

David

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 7:26 am
From: Alan Browne

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <343ff82d-3d4d-4d11-89eb-6d81df77c4a2
> @g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Scott W says...
>> On Feb 17, 1:11 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
>> wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> Simulation of D3x against a D300's output. I shot 4 frames with the D300,
>>>> combined and cropped them down to 24 (actually 26.5) megapixels and also
>>>> took one shot for 12 megapixels. The detail increase is more noticeable
>>>> than I'd have expected. I figure this is pretty much like going to the
>>>> D3x, at least at lower ISOs. Images look best at top screen resolution (at
>>>> least 1680 x 1050). Likely a true 24 meg image from the D3x would yield
>>>> more detail still, owing to the fact you aren't dealing with lens edge
>>>> quality in the middle of the frame from combining four shots.
>>>> 12 Megapixels:
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265567
>>>> 24 Megapixels:
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109265645
>>> 1/res_out = 1/res_lens + 1/lens_sensor.
>>>
>>> eg: you're neglecting lens resolution losses.
>> I think you meant to write 1/res_out = 1/res_len + 1/res_sensor, you
>> had lens_sensor.
>>
>> But the real equation is closer to 1/res_out = sqrt(1/res_len^2+1/
>> res_sensor^2)
>
> Ehmmm... a lens does not have a resolution in megapixel. Both formulas
> make no sense.

"megapixels" is not a resolution - it is a quantity.

Resolution is in typically in lp/mm for such a case.

--
-- 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.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 7:27 am
From: Alan Browne

David J Taylor wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> []
>> Ehmmm... a lens does not have a resolution in megapixel. Both formulas
>> make no sense.
>
> Alfred,
>
> It makes sense if you use the same spatial units, whether that be
> microns or megapixels.

Megapixels is a count over a surface area, so not too useful - lp/mm
would be the 'typical' unit.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 8:42 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Alan Browne wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> []
>>> Ehmmm... a lens does not have a resolution in megapixel. Both
>>> formulas make no sense.
>>
>> Alfred,
>>
>> It makes sense if you use the same spatial units, whether that be
>> microns or megapixels.
>
> Megapixels is a count over a surface area, so not too useful - lp/mm
> would be the 'typical' unit.

In both cases one is simplifying things by assuming a single linear
measure (pixel effective size or lens point-spread function), and then
applying an RMS-style addition of these values to produce an effective
system resolution. This may work well if all the system MTFs are
Gaussian, but not so well otherwise. For a given sensor size, you could
express the lens resolution as "megapixels", or you could express the
sensor resolution as line-pairs per mm. All approximations, of course.

David

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 10:31 am
From: Alan Browne

David J Taylor wrote:

>> Megapixels is a count over a surface area, so not too useful - lp/mm
>> would be the 'typical' unit.
>
> In both cases one is simplifying things by assuming a single linear
> measure (pixel effective size or lens point-spread function), and then
> applying an RMS-style addition of these values to produce an effective
> system resolution. This may work well if all the system MTFs are
> Gaussian, but not so well otherwise. For a given sensor size, you could
> express the lens resolution as "megapixels", or you could express the
> sensor resolution as line-pairs per mm. All approximations, of course.

Check my math, but I believe using the area (megapixels) simplifies the
equation to 1/tot=1/len+1/sens. Just convert the lens to mpix as
res^2*48*72 (where the lens res is in lp/mm). eg: a 100 lp/mm lens
comes out to about 20 Mpix "resolution" equivalent.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 3:40 am
From: dj_nme

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.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 4:28 am
From: "mianileng"

dj_nme wrote:

> Something like the Panasonic DMC-G1 could be described as an
> EVIL
> camera: combination of EVF and interchangeable lens.

I like that. And *not* in a derogatory sense.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon Capture NX2.10 $180 US No Way!! Free!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bca540d539eacbc2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 5:01 am
From: Father Guido Sarducci

In message news:499baf7a$0$1640$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net, rfischer@sonic.net
(Ray Fischer) said:

> Father Guido Sarducci <don@novello.com> wrote:
>>In message
>>news:a2b7ab3d-30da-4643-a0be-c378091c7d78@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>>Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Feb 16, 5:54 am, Father Guido Sarducci <d...@novello.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> > "I shouldn't have to work for anything unless I feel like it" is
>>>> >> > the oldest excuse in the world for taking something that doesn't
>>>> >> > belong
>>> to
>>>> >> > you.
>>>>
>>>> >> No, it's the unofficial Obama campaign theme.
>>>>
>>>> > You lost.
>>>>
>>>> So did you.
>>>
>>> One day an extremist (doesn't matter *which* extreme, either) will
>>> read a dictionary and discover the differences between the words
>>> "opinion" and "fact".
>>>
>>> Alas, this has yet to occur.
>>
>>Your household's share of the Obama porkulus bill is $10,500.
>
> Which, coincidentally, is just about what Bush's war in Iraq cost.

I didn't support the Iraq war. I don't support the Iraq war. Why is Obama
supporting the Iraq war?

> The key difference that offends the right-wingers

I'm not a "right-winger". Save your invective for someone more
simpleminded. Such as, oh, YOU.

> is that the Iraq war
> was intended to kill people and help Iraqis, while Obama's plan is
> intended to help the very Americans

By putting them $10,500 more in debt? The number of Americans that Obama's
plan will help is ZERO.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 5:04 am
From: Father Guido Sarducci

In message news:61eeef41-646f-4dc5-85d9-
ccc47e0d2c46@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com, Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com>
said:

> On Feb 17, 8:06 pm, Father Guido Sarducci <d...@novello.com> wrote:
>
>> > First, tell us where you were while Bush and friends sank us into this
>> > economic hole for 8 long years
>>
>> I have never voted for a Bush for any office, and I am an A-List voter.
>
> An "A-List voter"? You're making up freehand designations and
> expecting them to mean something to the rest of humanity?

Call your local board of elections and ask them to explain the term, Bunky.

>> Anyway, Bush is out of office, in case you haven't noticed.
>
> So what? His after-effects linger on like a bad tuna salad sandwitch
> on it's way back up the esophagus.

There is no apostrophe in the possessive "its."

>> And his replacement is more of the same.
>
> Well, yes, in the sense that he's also a male human being.

And likes to wage undeclared wars and likes to spend hundreds of billions
of dollars we don't have.

>> > -declaring a budget-busting war on the
>> > wrong country, just for starters- and yet you only began complaining
>> > about the problem when Obama started spending money.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> You must have been doing so rather quietly, then.

When the student is ready to learn, the teacher will appear.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ed Hardy Rhinestone Tiger Pink Cap & Hat - Fashion
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/51221f07c6648e42?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 7:14 am
From: hclchanglinghuang@gmail.com

Our Ed Hardy Rhinestone Hat,most popular are ed hardy hat Tiger,is
available my many colors like pink ed hardy hat,
we have Ed Hardy Man hats and Ed Hardy womens Hats.
Please Feel free to browse our store for buying.

Please see them :
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/ED-Hardy-Hat-28.html
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/ED-Hardy-Hat-27.html

Our Ed Hardy Cap & Hat are fine quality.

And find more new fashion cloth,shoes and apparels please view :
http://www.luxury-fashion.org

Welcome check our other pages or feel free contact us.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 9:17 am
From: Focus

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

Stop posting and reading in aus.photo

--
----
Focus

Flying with Windows 7

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 10:05 am
From: carp

On Feb 17, 1:34 am, Jürgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> carp <yee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I would like to photograph a reflection in a mirror. The camera is
> >pointed head on at the reflection, lets say 40cm away from the mirror.
>
> >1) From which point of my lens should I measure the distance to the
> >mirror?
>
> From the focal point of the lens, which depending on the design of the
> lens is often but not always in the last third or quarter of the lens.
>
> But why are you interested in the distance to the mirror? I though you
> wanted to get a picture of the relection, not the mirror?
>
The reflection is in my eye. The reflection is on the mirror. I am
lost between these two.

> >2) When trying to accurately measure the distance to the image (the
> >reflection) what range should I manually enter into the camera, if I
> >don't use auto-focus?
> >3) Would auto-focus work? (I want to get an un-blurred image of the
> >reflection.)
>
> Ultrasound measurement will not because if will measure the distance to
> the mirror. Infrared, and any optical system should work without a
> problem.
>
>
>
> >4) If I am aiming at 30 degrees to the mirror, rather than straight at
> >it, will that effect the calculation?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 10:29 am
From: carp

On Feb 17, 8:24 am, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <9s6kp4p7h3jq0a9muk6qc6tt16k0m1r...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> writes
>
> >I recently photographed a mirror. I wanted a shot of me taking a
> >picture. I had the camera on a tripod, swiveled it just enough to
> >allow the autofocus to focus on the frame, held the shutter half-way
> >down, and swiveled the camera back to straight-on and fired the
> >camera. Worked fine.
>
> But you were only in focus because of the depth of field! Had you used
> a fast aperture with shallow depth of field then that method would have
> resulted in a sharp image of the mirror frame, smudges and dirt on the
> mirror surface, but not of you!
>
> You need to focus on the image of the reflection, if that is what you
> want in prime focus, and that is the distance from the camera to the
> mirror added to the distance from the mirror to the subject. If you and
> the camera are the subject then it is twice the distance from you to the
> mirror - NOT the distance to the mirror or its frame!
>
> You can see this for yourself just by looking at the mirror - your eyes
> change focus when you look at the frame and then at your reflection,
> especially if you are close to the mirror in dim light, but not dark,
> where the depth of field of your eye is less.

What a clear explanation of the problem! Thank you :)

> --
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another Hockey Pic
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06da5ea2ccd3c9ed?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 18 2009 10:30 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Viperdoc" <jnino@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RCKml.4712$PE4.4559@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Hockey is just hard to shoot without strobes. Rinks are surprisingly dark,
> and shooting through the glass, even at an NHL rink also introduces
> distortion.
> The best is to figure the frequency the pros are using for the overhead
> strobes and synch them to your camera with a radio trigger!
>
>
>

We're just talking about a neighbourhood skating rink, here, where minor
hockey games are played, figure skating lessons given, etc. I doubt there
are any overhead strobes installed...

I'm just using it to practice shooting in adverse conditions.

Take Care,
Dudley

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

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic