Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 15 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Strange camera "healing"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6979e21142cbf833?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:36 am
From: "Focus"

"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:-JednbGUZqvvgxXUnZ2dnUVZ8gOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Focus wrote:
>> My sister wrote me this:
>> "I told you it was showing only black with some color streaks in the LCD
>> monitor. And then, if I took a picture, it would be just like whatever
>> the monitor showed (no picture).
>> I put new batteries in, but that didn't help. Every so often the monitor
>> would suddenly be normal again.
>>
>> So, I was looking at it one day and began to rub the plastic shield on
>> the monitor.
>>
>> Low and behold, the black and streaks disappeared and I could see what my
>> camera was pointing at.
>>
>> It's worked fine since (knock on wood).
>>
>>
>>
>> So how could this happen? What's going on?
>>
>> Huh? Is it taking the picture from the LCD monitor and not the
>> viewfinder? That's weird."
>>
>> The camera is an old Canon Powershot, I believe 4 MP.
>>
>> Anyone have a clue what this was?
>
> Yeah. Dodgy contact on the CCD. It's a return-to-maker fault.
>
> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=221&modelid=8774
>

Thanks a lot!
I'll send the link to my sister, she'll be very happy!

--
Focus

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Maximum size SD card for my camera?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5210f5a494924fb2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:43 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Daguerreotype type" <nospam@no.invalid> wrote in message
news:31ado49l13etu5ibd18f6d3b1tt0nujj3q@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:08:49 -0000, "Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>>....
>>Shooting with one big card is just plain dumb; you're testing (tempting)
>>the
>>odds.
>
> I'm not a professional phtographer, I'm not even an amateur
> phtographer. Of course I'd really not like to lose photographs because
> of a SD card failing on me, but I'd also lioke to not have to swap
> cars all the time.
>
> Could people tell me how often they've personally had a SD or SDHC
> cards fail on their own, as opposed to getting lost or stepped on or
> something?

Had one SDHC card fail, well 3 for the 28 images couldn't be copied back
from
the camera, think I used a card reader to get the remaining 25 off as the
camera
couldn;t access any of them It was a 1Gb scandisk, is a HP327, a real chheap
camera
in fact so cheap we got it free with when buying a £60 printer !
Reformated the card and it seems ok.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:53 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Wally" <Wally@luxx.com> wrote in message
news:bmveo4l3ravfvhas7d6mjaj6d0uetm4utl@4ax.com...

> Whether you have several small cards or one big one is up to you
> (obviously). What is scarier to you, losing pics due to failure of the
> card because of some glitch in the card, or losing pics due to
> accidents having to do with changing cards?
>
> In my experience it is always an awkward moment when I change cards,
I used to have a similar problem with film.

> like in a crowded street in a foreign city, or in a field where it
> would be bad to drop the card, or at the VERY moment when the nude
> model is striking the most provocative poses.
I'd probably drop more than the card ;-)

>So I prefer big cards so
> I'm always ready to shoot, and don't have to take it out till I'm
> safely at my computer.
I guess that also applies to the memory card ;-)

> What is the chance of failure of the card? Published mean time between
> failures seem to be several million hours, and write cycles are around
> 10,000 to 1,000,000. Sounds pretty safe to me.
>
> I've got a 16 GB card in my XSi. That means I will run out of battery
> before I run out of memory. So I bought a spare battery! But most of
> the time I am pretty sure I will be home or back at my hotel room to
> recharge the battery before it runs out. There is still an advantage
> (IMHO) to keeping the same card in the camera for maybe a week or more
> when I'm travelling.
>
> Wally

I agree but I like to have a spare card, my prime card 4GB currently is kept
in
the camera an older 1GB card in the shirt pocket, not in case the opther
fails
but in case that nude model pops out and I need extra space. :)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Communication is posted!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/884818656f02af72?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:42 am
From: "bowser"

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:RNNhl.15234$YU2.9836@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> bowser wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/communication
>>
>> Not a bad collection for a mandate that was more difficult than I
>> thought. I must have scared some shooters away, I guess. NP. Briefly, my
>> own (Bowser) shots were:
>>
>> 1. Patrick Henry giving his famous "Give Me Liberty of Give Me Death"
>> speech. OK, not really Patrick Henry, but an actor performing the speech
>> at Colonial Williamsburg, a living museum located in Virginia, USA.
>>
>> 2. Yes, I actually used to type on this thing. Before I could get my
>> hands on the Selectric, this was what I used for some papers in high
>> school. It was ancient back then (ca 1972) and really old now.
>>
>> 3. Modern communications in my town are not interrupted bya little snow.
>> The mail and paper still get through.
>>
>> Fire at will!
>
> You missed mine... which is alright, the one I submitted yesterday
> sucked... I just sent another which is at least interesting <g>.

Got them. Just forgot to download from the e-mail, sorry.

>
> Jim stole my idea for B&W with the LCD closeup... which I forgot to submit
> on time last month <g>.
>
> --
> Paul Furman
> www.edgehill.net
> www.baynatives.com
>
> all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:44 am
From: "bowser"

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b7f9bde2-1dfd-4b9d-8420-074f036ff437@r38g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 2, 7:48 pm, "bowser" <w...@tisgoing.on> wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/communication
>
> Fire at will!

>What'd I tell ya? Boring pics of modems!
>I did like Kramer's Macro shot of his monitor though.
>When I got my MP-E lens that was the first thing I shot.

And your shot of a bird shitting off an antenna? That's why you bought the
Mark II?

Don't complain, shoot! Show us how it's done!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pinging Stephen Bishop: Photography questions for you, ON-topic for a
change
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7f04a0b3ecd2b9b4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:52 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Good morning again, Stephen.

Say, in all of the political crap we've engaged in I've lost track
of what you said your current digital camera was. Maybe you never
did and we just started talking in the Palestinian attack thread,
can't really remember.

I've got a Canon Rebel XSi which I really love. I previously used a
Rebel XT but decided to upgrade to the XSi even though it was only
an incremental change because it has a much larger LCD on the back,
finally adopted a noise reduction feature, and I could learn to
quickly use it because the ergonomics are almost identical.

My primary photographic interest is cars. I particularly enjoy the
major Mopar outdoor shows in my area, as well as the annual
Woodward Avenue Dream Cruise. And, we've got two great museums near
me for cars, the Walter P. Chrysler Museum and the Henry Ford
Museum.

If you're at all familiar with what is properly called The Henry
Ford, it is comprised of a really large museum with cars, trains,
steam engines, farm implements, guns, furniture, electrical
devices, airplanes, and a wide variety of general exhibits. I enjoy
all that stuff.

I've summarized my work background in the past but in case you
missed it, I worked my entire 33 year career at Chrysler, beginning
in 1969 as an entry level engineer, branching out into CAD and
utility programming, then later when I went over to the Dark Side
of management, I was responsible for all CAD and PC support for
Chrysler Engineering. I retired in 2002 which gives me plenty of
time to explore not only my photographic interests but the time to
watch lots of cable news and Google to stay on top of current
events and the political climate.

I've lived in SE Michigan all my life, currently in a NNW suburb of
Detroit. If you feel comfortable with it, I'd like to at least know
what region of our great country you hail from so I can have a
greater appreciation of your background and how you may have
developed your views.

Just one bit of politics in what I intended to be a fully ON-topic
post for a change: I describe myself as right of center but I DO
take ideas and platform planks from the left of center as well. As
I've said, all meaningful valuable social legislation has pretty
much occurred during Democratic eras while building up the
military, altering tax policy for the better, and adhering to
traditional family values usually occurs only during Republican
times. If I had my druthers, I'd like to be able to select items
from each party's platforms, I think we'd be a better country if we
could more directly influence our elected officials true agendas.
For example, my bent toward such things as pro-life runs in
conflict with conservative/Republican ideas on the believed right
of gun ownership. Likewise, good ideas like stem cell reseach paid
for by the government is somehow opposed by the Republicans.

Enough of that, let's get back to photography and see what
interesting things we can learn from each other about that.

And, have a great Tuesday!

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:53 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <878wonc1z9.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> It doesn't make *any* sense to have a raw converter that
>> >> >> requires invoking something the size of Photoshop.
>> >> >
>> >> >why? what would the user do with the output? open them in photoshop
>> >> >and edit? seriously, what's the goal here?
>> >>
>> >> Batch processing raw files to quickly produce
>> >> previewable full size images.
>> >
>> >although not ideal, photoshop can batch process them, but why not just
>> >use an image cataloguing app that could read the raws directly? for a
>> >preview, the conversion need not be perfect. it only needs to be good
>> >enough to decide if further processing is warranted. it could even use
>> >the embedded jpegs.
>>
>> Exactly. No need for Photoshop. You're catching on real fast...
>
>that's why they wrote lightroom. :)
>
>creating previews doesn't justify running camera raw as a standalone
>utility to batch convert into jpeg. also, managing two sets of files
>is worse.

Ahh, I see... don't run Camera Raw, just get a _third_
program...

Why not just use two programs and make it easy.

>there are much, much better ways to handle previews, namely by using a
>catalogue app that manages it for you. therefore, there's not much of
>a need for camera raw to be a standalone utility.

So you need three programs instead of two! Besides, a
"catalogue app" doesn't necessarily do what was
suggested, nor is it at all likely to be fast.

For example, at least one raw converter allows
interactive use that generates only the XML
configuration file without actually writing the image
files. That can be useful if you have 500 or so TIF
files to generate. The XML configuration file can be
done interactively without waiting for long file writes
to finish, and then the raw converter be run in batch
mode to actually do the conversions and write the files,
while the user goes off for coffee, dinner or other
productive work. It works rather nicely and greatly
reduces the amount of actual user time spent with the
processing.

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

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 7:03 am
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>> > 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.

>> If your image editor is not able to use it's saved nondestructive
>> editing steps on any image, then it is obviously badly designed.

> i don't see an answer to my question.

Your problem.

-Wolfgang

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 7:00 am
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg

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

>> Use a non-destructive image editor that (and that's not
>> necessessarily given) saves its steps. Case solved.

> Even if such a software exists (please name a few),

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.

> you still have the
> problem that that you end up with two settings files for each RAW file -
> one for the RAW converter and one for this non-destructive image editor.

a) So you have 2 sidecar files. Terrible. The world ends.
b) So what's the reason shared e.g. XML files --- with each
program using their own subpart --- are impossible to have?

> 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. Next you'll
be complaining that it's not all done in camera, because
shooting and then manually converting are two steps you have
to apply in sequence, and which are undoubtedly messy and
time consuming and using much more space than your common
out-of-camera JPEG --- "which does everything".

> 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.

> while others
> are more efficient when applied at the RAW conversion stage.

Name a few that need direct access to non-demoasiced RAW data.

-Wolfgang

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/75383ce6b288a1df?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 3:57 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

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

>>>I have pointed out biased statements where they exist.
>>
>>That's a lie. You have made wild accusations of bias INSTEAD of
>>pointing out actual, certifiable bias.
>
> He maintains that Israel has no right to exist. That is actual,
> certifiable bias. Where have you been?

This is the essential part of the entire debate - namely that for
reasons really hard to fathom, much of the world and certainly almost
ALL of the Arab/Muslim countries and regions hate Israel so much as
to actively and vocally advocate it's total destruction starting with
the premise that Jews have no right to even have a homeland. This is,
of course, absurd on it's face and so biased, racist, bigoted, etc.
that it shouldn't need to be clarified - but apparently it still does
as so many seem to miss this important piece of the puzzle.

--
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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 4:10 am
From: Chris H

In message <2c8go4dlo7l7tfda8d02cckjdun3eo5e19@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On 03 Feb 2009 03:57:52 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>On 01 Feb 2009 22:42:07 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Not biased. After careful non-biased study it is the only sensible
>>>>>>arrangement. Remove the aggressors. Israelis behaviour from day 1 has
>>>>>>shown it does not deserve to keep the land it has taken from the
>>>>>>Palestinians
>>>>>
>>>>>Like I said, you are biased.
>>>>
>>>>So far you've accused everybody posting here who disagrees with of
>>>>being biased, as well as the UN, the BBC, and everybody else critical
>>>>of Israel.
>>>
>>>I have pointed out biased statements where they exist.
>>
>>That's a lie. You have made wild accusations of bias INSTEAD of
>>pointing out actual, certifiable bias.
>>
>
>He maintains that Israel has no right to exist. That is actual,
>certifiable bias. Where have you been?

That is NOT Bias but a reasonable conclusion drawn from the facts.

BIAS is what Stephen does. Only looking at information from one side and
discounting anything that agrees with it.

More to the point Stephen takes the data from one side and says that is
the only accurate source. The rest are wrong.

The rest of us look at multiple sources and a range of inputs. From the
Hamas propaganda through the independent sources to the Israeli
Propaganda.

On that basis Israel is the criminal and aggressor in all this. Stephen
finds small (almost insignificant) events of retaliation and claims that
as justification fro the next wave of war crimes.

>What a fool you are. Read what I said. I said "showing equal
>outrage" at what the other side is doing.

And there is proportional equal outrage for what Hamas is doing. I am
as outraged when Hamas kills a civilian as when the IDF does...

Though as the IDF are doing it at a rate of 500 to 1 and using illegal
weapons and tactics an order of magnitude worse than Hamas who are
defending, not the aggressors.

What sort of unbiased equality do you want?
Making deliberate war crime killing 1500 equal to un-intentional
killing of there civilians?

> Asking for equal treatment
>is not bias.

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE GETTING

>That is the opposite of bias. YOU are the biased one
>for constantly harping on the evils of one side while excusing the
>other.

Not at all. If you started being objective and unbiased you would get a
better argument.

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 4:04 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:y2jhl.11620$W06.8848@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:56:28 +0000, Alan Smithee wrote:
>
>> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>> news:R49hl.11573$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.

in yea olde days I used a yellow, orange or red filter over the lens (with
black & white film)
which increased contrast, darkened the sky and brought out the clouds etc..

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 4:17 am
From: "pawihte"

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2009-01-31 12:55:37 -0800, "pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid>
> said:
>
>> 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 like the 18-200 lens. Trouble is, my wife will not let me
> have it
> back. It will work just fine on the D90.
>
> I would ignore the comments about lens quality. Yes, it makes
> some
> trade-offs to get its fantastic zoom ratio. Yes, this lens is a
> heck
> of a lot of fun. The image quality is extremely good, all
> things
> considered. The way some people talk around here you would
> think that
> all your pictures will be unrecognizable distorted blurs.

I understand that some people can go a bit overboard in pointing
out minor shortcomings in a product. I've read the reviews and
scrutinized the test shots of this lens, and the image quality,
though not flawless, is quite satisfactory for my present
purpose.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 4:25 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Frank H" <gacksakura-unsubscribe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lar9o4hov94p170dupstba6or4bk82er7k@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:01:24 +0100, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Given the planned longevity and obsolescence of the camera, that would
>>be the least of my worries.
>
> Yes Bertrand, you are probably right.
> Although, I really liked the feel of that cam, and I have not heard
> too many bad things about it, this battery kind of makes me shy away
> from it. On the cheaper S3 IS and perhaps also on the S5 IS, I can
> change that battery in under 25 seconds.

any idea how long that battery is supposed to last ?
as I have a G10 and didn't/haven't worried about it.
Perhaps the expected lifetime of this battery in the G10 is 5 years or so
while
the sony is 2 years.

> So, in other words, I am still looking for a good travel camera. One
> that I can along on hikes, and to Europe in June this year.

I find it a little on the heavy and large size for what I assume a travel
camera should be,
but I do carry it most of the time, and for me one of the only reasons to
travel
is to take photos so for me a travel camera would be a DSLR with load's of
lenses and stuff to hike about with. In fact my photo stuff would probably
take up more space than clothes, but maybe that's because I'm male ;-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can you see this Flash site?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/445c408900fc3a17?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 5:00 am
From: "Focus"

A few people complained that they couldn't see my site or nothing happened.
It's a 3D castle with some pictures in it.
Can you tell me what happens and what web program you use?
Thanks:

http://atlantic-diesel.com/Station/

--
Focus

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 5:18 am
From: "Gadi Ben-Avi"

After I installed Shockwave, it looks like it works.
I use windows XP pro SP3, Avant Browser and IE7.
Works OK in Chrome and FireFox.

Gadi
"Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote in message
news:6LWdnb_FLeZlohXUnZ2dnUVZ8q7inZ2d@novis.pt...
>A few people complained that they couldn't see my site or nothing happened.
>It's a 3D castle with some pictures in it.
> Can you tell me what happens and what web program you use?
> Thanks:
>
> http://atlantic-diesel.com/Station/
>
>
>
> --
> Focus
>

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 5:29 am
From: pboud

Focus wrote:
> A few people complained that they couldn't see my site or nothing happened.
> It's a 3D castle with some pictures in it.
> Can you tell me what happens and what web program you use?
> Thanks:
>
> http://atlantic-diesel.com/Station/
>
>
>
Requires flash player 11.. Once installed, works fine..

XP home, Ie 8

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 5:58 am
From: tony cooper

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:00:38 -0000, "Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote:

>A few people complained that they couldn't see my site or nothing happened.
>It's a 3D castle with some pictures in it.
>Can you tell me what happens and what web program you use?
>Thanks:
>
>http://atlantic-diesel.com/Station/

Using a PC, WindowsXP, and Firefox, it loads after updating Flash, but
takes forever to load...and I'm on cable. Muddy, dark images, but it
works.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 5:15 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4986286a$0$1677$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

>
> 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'
has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
Suppose I told you that I have the adobe collection, does this mean you
can't
get a stiffy any longer, or perhaps it gives you AIDS or is it just plain
old fashioned
green eyed jealousy. ?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 5:23 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:362087d7-4c2c-4031-9c40-a47ae4ee7d59@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> [1950's]
>> I suspect I could now match the entire productivity of both
>> rooms with one off-the-shelf PC.
>
> IMO, you probably could have done that with a PC from around ten years
> ago.
>
> I can recall working on a project in the early 1980s to replace an old
> host mini being used for Analog-->Digital data collection. We
> specc'ed out two candidate replacement systems. The one was IIRC an
> HP-1000 host mini. The other was an Apple ][e with all of its
> expansion slots filled.

here in the UK there are the royal institute lections put on basically for
school, kids
this year it was about computers and the main speaker was some bloke from
Microsoft and he said that the 'computer chip' on chip and pin cards
was 30 times faster than the computers that landed man on the moon
and the chip and pin had 1000 times the memory capacity too.
Not too sure how accurate it was to say that but I guess good enough for a
kids lecture.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 7:14 am
From: Don Stauffer

whisky-dave wrote:

> here in the UK there are the royal institute lections put on basically for
> school, kids
> this year it was about computers and the main speaker was some bloke from
> Microsoft and he said that the 'computer chip' on chip and pin cards
> was 30 times faster than the computers that landed man on the moon
> and the chip and pin had 1000 times the memory capacity too.
> Not too sure how accurate it was to say that but I guess good enough for a
> kids lecture.
>
I think that is pretty conservative. The Apollo and Lunar Lander
computers were really small memory units.

Even today anything that operates in space has a very small memory by
comsumer computer standards. The problem is radiation in space, and the
need for rad hard (radiation hardened) chips, especially memory chips.
The higher the memory density, the easier it is to be affected by
radiation, so the chips have very large memory cells. Features are
larger on the CPU chips also.

Plus, especially for man rated stuff like Apollo, the development of
failure statistics required stuff to either have been in use awhile, or
subject to accelerated life testing, and folks were not too sure of the
validity of accelerated life testing. The result was they went very
conservative on the technology used.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: cheap 35mm film scanner - is it any good?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/12171e6e1aa39375?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 5:25 am
From: tmonego@wildblue.net

On Feb 2, 8:03 pm, anira...@gmail.com wrote:
> I just saw it was advertised in our local store. It costs around $100.
> It is an Optex Digiscan, dedicated for 35mm negatives and slides. It
> comes with a software.
> See brochure athttp://www.gentec-intl.com/GentecInc/Press/digiscan_release.pdf
> My question is how good is it?. Is it worth to get, rather than to
> scan the colour prints. They said that it has a 5 MP sensor and can
> get a 2592x1680 resolution JPG files.
> I know that dedicated 35mm scanner made by Canon, Nikon or Epson is
> expensive (price $600 and up). Some has a fancy cleaning tool,
> recognizing a tiny spot in a negative IS a major factor when you scan
> negatives. So, is a $100 a waste of money, or can it make reasonable
> digital photos out of this machine? Anyone use this before or similar
> cheap 35mm scanner ( this is a new product by Optex, came out in Dec
> 2008)?. I heard that there are other negative scanners around this
> price at some camera stores, or Costco. Is it worth it, or should I
> stick to my old Canon flat bed scanner and use my old photo prints?
>
> Thanks for the info.

Not a scanner at all but a small sensor 5mp digital camera. Hardly the
best choice, you'd do better with a second hand macro lens on your
digital camera. Would a cheap scanner do better, maybe maybe not, go
up to a an Epson V500 or Canoscan 8800 and you'll probably do better.

Tom

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Got <140 db DR Image? (corrected from bit to db)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/00d043919be94bfd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 6:18 am
From: BradGuth

On Jan 31, 10:36 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d1863fb6-9359-49e3-b54c-f76a5a37f14f@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >Such as a 200 DB cmos imager
> >> >using 2.5-µm pixels could happen within another year or so.
> >> But will average people readilly accept a liquid helium cooled camera?
> :-)
> >I would, as would anyone looking for brown dwarfs.
>
> Just as I said, highly specialised fields only. Lets not confuse it with
> general photography however.
>
> >Trust me, sufficient DR of cmos imagers exist as is, and it isn't even
> >all that spendy.
>
> I suggest you find out what is actually necessary to produce a 200dB range
> of output from such a sensor!
> I can't see it happening anytime soon. Multiple scan is the accepted
> practical method of obtaining such a range.
> But do let us know when you actually purchase an imager with a single pass
> 200dB range :-)
>
> MrT.

200 db image sensors are already off the shelf, and using a dual 16
bit ADC doesn't seem so terribly spendy or complex. Even liquid
helium or more likely stacked thermoelectric Peltier cooling isn't all
that insurmountable for extending the cmos or ccd peak sensitivity
into the near IR range.

Camera firmware and/or software already offers up to 256 scans per
image.

~ BG

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

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:15:06 -0600, TruthSquad@hope.com wrote:

> This post is offered

Hey, AssClown, did you enjoy your entree' into alt.comp.freeware, you
know, the posts where everyone claimed you are an assclown, AssClown?

lol

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
iQA/AwUBR/qGPRv8knkS0DI6EQLqQQCfYI/+jhW28/0AaBVgq58mnuYYo2AAnRMP
r/ChOzrJkKnGHZcngwRffPMG=2EPtASSCLOWNISANASSSCLOWN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 3 2009 6:19 am
From: "k"

"Sir John Howard" <sirjohnhoward@gmail.con> wrote in message
news:0197cb11$0$20669$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
| C J Campbell wrote:
| > On 2009-02-02 11:59:33 -0800, "Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> said:
| >
| >> http://atlantic-diesel.com/Miniferrari.jpg
| >>
| >> Of course the picture was taken with a normal lens. With PS, without
| >> filters, you can create this effect quite easily.
| >> Here's one tutorial:
| >>
| >>
http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/photoshop/tutorials/TiltShiftTutorial.htm
l
| >>
| >>
| >> If you Google Fake shift tilt, you can find some very funny,
interesting
| >> pictures. Specially those taken from above look like it's some
miniature
| >> street or scene.
| >
| > This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
| > lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
| > Photoshop with a single image.
|
| A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
| controls depth of field.

i think he meant plane of focus

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

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

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 15 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic