Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cool new digital photography site
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/632c08a48d334e88?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 6:14 am
From: suZanmillerrag@aim.com

Please check out this cool site with lots of digital photography:

http://susiemilaniphoto.com

please let me know what you think

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 7:37 am
From: ray

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 06:14:28 -0800, suZanmillerrag wrote:

> Please check out this cool site with lots of digital photography:
>
> http://susiemilaniphoto.com
>
> please let me know what you think

1) quite slow to load - even on a DSL connection.
2) does not properly validate according to w3c standards (see html
validator at www.w3c.org). My not be important to you, but users of
palmtop devices probably won't see the page rendered as you had intended.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:07 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

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

> Please check out this cool site with lots of digital photography:
>
> http://susiemilaniphoto.com
>
> please let me know what you think

How many times are you going to pat yourself on the back here?

--
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: Photoshop CS & RAW files from a Sony A300 dslr ARW file
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e1e04970096ba705?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 7:18 am
From: "boothmarcus@hotmail.com"

I know CS2 does not accept RAW files, but there is a download that
you
can get. Adobe do not appear to have a plugin foe CS2. CS3 onwards
yes.

Running Vista sp1. Sony only has a raw plugin for Windows

Can anyone help

Thanks in advance

Marcus Booth

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 7:31 am
From: nospam

In article
<5ce6479a-2c19-491d-8f25-8908e9ae7a19@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
<"boothmarcus@hotmail.com"> wrote:

> I know CS2 does not accept RAW files,

it most certainly does.

> but there is a download that
> you
> can get. Adobe do not appear to have a plugin foe CS2. CS3 onwards
> yes.

you need camera raw 4.4.1 or later. camera raw 4.x works with cs3 and
5.x works in cs4.

for photoshop cs2 and earlier, you can use adobe's dng converter to
convert the raw to dng and then edit the raw that way.

or you can use a variety of other software that supports the camera.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 7:34 am
From: ray

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 07:18:41 -0800, boothmarcus@hotmail.com wrote:

> Hi
>
> I know CS2 does not accept RAW files, but there is a download that you
> can get. Adobe do not appear to have a plugin foe CS2. CS3 onwards yes.
>
>
> Running Vista sp1. Sony only has a raw plugin for Windows
>
>
> Can anyone help
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
> Marcus Booth

You might try ufraw - it's usually quite up to date and allows basic
editing along with the conversion.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ted's a Naughty Boy (was : Mexico is Wherever ...)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c39e8728ae9d537c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 8:02 am
From: Brian Whatcott

wismel@yahoo.com wrote:

>> Hispanics #1!: You guess the field: youngest grandmas; ....

> ted

Ted,
I warned you your Mommy will smack you on the arm
if you don't play nicely with the other kids.
Run along now.

Brian W

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cool new photography website
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/08c02ba0d220a98d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 8:35 am
From: "Neil Harrington"

"alvey" <alvey@play.com> wrote in message
news:yrymcm7c9p51$.ynqc4o8ytst9$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 05:10:35 -0600, HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>
>>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>
> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the US nowadays.

It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still regard it as the
most valid view of government. As Thoreau said, "That government is best
which governs least."

This idea is, of course, anathema to those who think their happiness and
well-being is best served by Big Daddy in Washington.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:00 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

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

>>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>
> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the US
> nowadays.
>
But, it soon WILL be! People like to drink the poison Kook-Aid of
"free" government services especially if they pay NO taxes as some
42% of ALL Americans do NOT pay today. At NO time in our history, and
certainly NOT during FDR's New Deal, did spending money bring us back
to prosperity. Worse still, when the government has to BORROW said
money, even more problems are created. But, if you're still not
convinced, look into what is in the $1.2 TRILLION stimulus package
(counting interest) and decide for yourself if it will or won't help
YOU.

Our country was ripe for a major change for a number of reasons, some
good, most bad. There is an unrealistic euphoria right now as to what
President Obama and the new Democratic super majority can do. I think
we can see by the number of stumbles the president has made in less
than 3 weeks that it is MUCH harder to govern than it is to campaign,
and people WILL be calling on him to deliver on some 570 promises he
made. How SPENDING money on social engineering will revive the
economy is beyond me.

I stand by Reagan's notion - BIG, Far Left Loon Government IS the
problem, and is NEVER the solution.

--
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

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:06 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>
>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the
>> US nowadays.
>
> It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still
> regard it as the most valid view of government. As Thoreau said,
> "That government is best which governs least."

It was Thomas Jefferson that said that. See my sig.

> This idea is, of course, anathema to those who think their
> happiness and well-being is best served by Big Daddy in
> Washington.
>
Right now, 42% of ALL Americans pay ZERO IRS income taxes. Once the
tax cuts and wealth redistribution in whatever stimulus package is
eventually signed into law takes effect, it is estimated that OVER
52% of ALL Americans will pay NO tax at all. So, it should be
crystal clear to understand WHY so many people are beating the drum
for what is NOT an economic stimulus package at all, but simply a
Liberal social spending bill. Easy example: what in Hell does some
$200 MILLION for abortions in Europe have anything to do with OUR
economy, or the multiple MILLIONS slated for ACORN, a known radical
group that engages in voter fraud on a massive scale, or why are we
spending $600 MILLION for new cars for the Federal government in
some vain attempt to be more green, especially when the type of
cars the president wants do NOT even exist?! I could go on, but I
think people get the idea.

The reason that President Obama is in such a RUSH to jam this bill
through Congress is that he KNOWS that the American people will be
outraged once they learn what's in it, just as the people are
outraged about last year's TARP waste. As we speak, every day that
goes by, the number of people who OPPOSE the president and Nancy
Pelosi's attempt at Socialism rises but I'm sure we'll still go
down in flames.

--
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

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 11:11 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

alvey <alvey@play.com> wrote:
> HEMI-Powered wrote:

>>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>
>I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the US nowadays.

It's also an out-of-context quote that misrepresents what Reagan was
actually saying. Of course, the full meaning runs contrary to the
rightard agenda so they don't include the rest.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our
problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been
tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be
managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is
superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one
among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has
the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and
out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek
must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher
price.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 11:12 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Neil Harrington <not@home.today> wrote:
>"alvey" <alvey@play.com> wrote in message
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 05:10:35 -0600, HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>>>problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>>
>> I'm guessing that the above dogma isn't barked so much in the US nowadays.
>
>It's more common sense than dogma, and many of us it still regard it as the
>most valid view of government. As Thoreau said, "That government is best
>which governs least."

Because anarchy really is the best form of government.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Recent climate in your area?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aedb1e425101ef5d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 8:51 am
From: "Neil Harrington"

"mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gmkg27$6vd$1@news.motzarella.org...

>
> It will be interesting to learn what the rest of the world has been like
> over the past one year. Anyone willing to provide some inputs?

Bitterly cold here in Connecticut (southern New England, or the southern
part of the northeast if you're not familiar with the U.S.) through January
and early February, temps mostly in the 20s F and sometimes in the single
digits. It's just now turned much warmer, temp 48 F just before noon and
supposed to get up to 53 this afternoon. Highs forecast for the next 10 days
mostly around the 40s, pretty warm for February which is often our coldest
month.

It's warmer near the shore and colder inland.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 9:03 am
From: "Neil Harrington"

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns9BAB8F4A3ADF3ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...

>>
> We suffer from severe global warming where I live. Interestingly,
> it is NOT from humans spewing too much CO2 into the atmosphere
> using those outrageous coal-fired electrical power plants or those
> obscene gas-guzzling big cars. No, it is from MEAT cattle, pigs,
> chickens and the like, known to be the BIGGEST emitters of damaging
> greenhouse gases of ANY source currently known. In fact, PETA
> estimates that just beef and pork producers emit MORE greenhouse
> gas annually than ALL the world's transportation systems and ALL
> the world's electrical generating plants using fossil fuels.

That's interesting.

I've seen studies indicating that while global warming was a fact all right,
it had little if anything to do with the man-generated greenhouse gases that
environmentalist zealots get so exercised over. Rather, it has to do with
solar activity -- the more solar activity the more global warming. Published
graphs show a better correlation with solar activity than with anything
else, as far as global temperature is concerned. Solar actvity goes through
cycles (about which there's obviously nothing we can do), and has been high
in recent years but at present appears to be going lower, resulting in
global cooling.

I'm sure this makes Al Gore very unhappy.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:15 am
From: SMS

Neil Harrington wrote:

> I've seen studies indicating that while global warming was a fact all right,
> it had little if anything to do with the man-generated greenhouse gases that
> environmentalist zealots get so exercised over. Rather, it has to do with
> solar activity -- the more solar activity the more global warming. Published
> graphs show a better correlation with solar activity than with anything
> else, as far as global temperature is concerned. Solar actvity goes through
> cycles (about which there's obviously nothing we can do), and has been high
> in recent years but at present appears to be going lower, resulting in
> global cooling.
>
> I'm sure this makes Al Gore very unhappy.

You being an idiot doesn't make Al Gore happy or unhappy.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:20 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Neil Harrington added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> We suffer from severe global warming where I live.
>> Interestingly, it is NOT from humans spewing too much CO2 into
>> the atmosphere using those outrageous coal-fired electrical
>> power plants or those obscene gas-guzzling big cars. No, it is
>> from MEAT cattle, pigs, chickens and the like, known to be the
>> BIGGEST emitters of damaging greenhouse gases of ANY source
>> currently known. In fact, PETA estimates that just beef and
>> pork producers emit MORE greenhouse gas annually than ALL the
>> world's transportation systems and ALL the world's electrical
>> generating plants using fossil fuels.
>
> That's interesting.
>
> I've seen studies indicating that while global warming was a
> fact all right, it had little if anything to do with the
> man-generated greenhouse gases that environmentalist zealots get
> so exercised over. Rather, it has to do with solar activity --
> the more solar activity the more global warming. Published
> graphs show a better correlation with solar activity than with
> anything else, as far as global temperature is concerned. Solar
> actvity goes through cycles (about which there's obviously
> nothing we can do), and has been high in recent years but at
> present appears to be going lower, resulting in global cooling.
>
> I'm sure this makes Al Gore very unhappy.
>
In case you think I'm nuts, take a look at these two links or
simply Google for "beef and pig effect on global warming":

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A40029
http://www.agweb.com/discussionboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4057

I've chewed my cud on the myth/hoax of global warming a number of
times but the essence is that changes in the mean temperature of
our planet are tri-cyclic meaning they rise and fall in cycles of
100-150 years, 800-1,200 years, and 10,000 to 20,000 years. The
last time we had a drop was in the mid-1970s and idiots of that day
actually wanted to explode nuclear bombs under the polar ice cap to
warm things up!

There was a so-called Little Ice Age in Northern Europe that began
in about 900 AD and first caused the Vikings to abandon Greenland.
A few hundred years later, there was MASSIVE starvation from
climate-caused famine, especially in the early 17th Century which
had several "years with no summer." And, the last time temps really
rose was about 10,000 years ago when mean temps rose a staggering
29 deg C. Exactly how much Methane or CO2 from humans caused THOSE
changes?

The gist of the REAL reason for fluctuating mean temperatures was
shown more than 100 years ago by astronomers and astro-physicists
who noticed that the elipical orbit of the Earth around the Sun
precesses as it moves through time so that the mean distance from
the Earth to the Sun changes dramatically on about a 10,000 year
timetable.

You are right about RECENT mean temps actually dropping. Russia
just published a major study report showing that temps have dropped
about 2 deg C in the last 30 years, almost EXACTLY coinciding with
the NEXT minor cycle on the 100-150 year end of the scale. What
frightens me the most is that should the world succeed in adopting
Der Fuhrer of Der Green Nazi Al Gore's recommendations and cutting
greenhouse gases by 2020, we MAY actually accelerate the next
Little Ice Age. If that were to happen, WHAT would the Far Left
Loons say we should do then?!

Incidently, when temps rose so much 10,000 years ago, the really
large mega mammals were all killed off. But, mankind benefited by
their extinction because they were no longer in fear of being
attacked and killed and could change from being primative hunter-
gatherers into farmers and ranchers, setting up the rise of what is
now considered modern civilizations in places such as what is now
the Middle East and even southern Europe.

I do NOT say that the entire notion of man damaging the planet is
nonsense, I just think that in our rush to fix something we really
don't understand, we MAY cause more damage than we fix, at such
stupendous cost it make wreck the world's economy. Climate experts
who buy into the Gore plan estimate that the MINIMUM cost of
turning greenhouse gas emissions around will be nearly 30 TRILLION
dollars, but the all-up expense over say, the next 50-75 years MAY
be in the range of $150 TRILLION. Now, since the developming
countries actually do more damage than us dumb ass Americans, how
do you suppose THEY will cough up their fair share?

--
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

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:21 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

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

> Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>> I've seen studies indicating that while global warming was a
>> fact all right, it had little if anything to do with the
>> man-generated greenhouse gases that environmentalist zealots
>> get so exercised over. Rather, it has to do with solar activity
>> -- the more solar activity the more global warming. Published
>> graphs show a better correlation with solar activity than with
>> anything else, as far as global temperature is concerned. Solar
>> actvity goes through cycles (about which there's obviously
>> nothing we can do), and has been high in recent years but at
>> present appears to be going lower, resulting in global cooling.
>>
>> I'm sure this makes Al Gore very unhappy.
>
> You being an idiot doesn't make Al Gore happy or unhappy.
>
Ah, yes, YOU must be one of those Green Nazi Loons. Why don't YOU
explain why YOU think Der Fuhrer is right and why YOU think we should
all drive shit bucket itty bitty cars?

--
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

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:27 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

Ï "mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:gmkg27$6vd$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Although I don't post very often, rpd is my most regular stop on Usenet,
> so I hope I can be forgiven for making an OT post.
>
> The climate in my part of the world is generally mild and temperatures
> normally range from somewhat below 10 deg C on winter nights to a little
> over 30 on summer afternoons (say 45-90 deg F). These are my own estimates
> of normal variations and not official extremes.
>
> Last summer and this winter have been particularly mild. The thermometer
> on the porch of my unheated house never went below 12 deg C (53.6 F) when
> I read it in the small hours of the morning on what felt like the coldest
> nights of this season. It was about 15 C (59 F) at 2:40 am last night. And
> it seldom touched 30 deg (86 F) last summer.
>
> It will be interesting to learn what the rest of the world has been like
> over the past one year. Anyone willing to provide some inputs?
>
>
It's been a very mild winter here, 20 deg C while normally we have 15 deg C
and the lowest is, maybe, 8 deg C. Little rain but a lot of snow on the
mountains (Psiloritis-tallest mountain of Crete).Little rain, which we
desperately need, and no snow, which is a 25 year event in Iraklion. In
south prefecture of Iraklion, where my holiday home is, temp went to 6 deg C
at night, which makes good heating compulsory. Here, we hardly fired our
wood stoves at all, we normally need 2 tons of logs every winter, this
winter we hardly used half a dozen of sacks of logs, up till now.

Just my 2 cents....

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Question about Nikon D40
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06fb30193e57f5b5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 9:55 am
From: shalomtou@gmail.com

Easy question: how do you get the monitor to work as the view
finder? I assumed this was possible, but maybe I am wrong. I'm
trying to use my D40 with a telescope and using the view finder is
very difficult. Thanks,

Jeff

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:03 am
From: Alex Singleton

On 8 Feb, 17:55, shalom...@gmail.com wrote:
> Easy question: how do you get the monitor to work as the view
> finder? I assumed this was possible, but maybe I am wrong. I'm
> trying to use my D40 with a telescope and using the view finder is
> very difficult. Thanks,

The viewfinder isn't designed to provide a live view, I'm afraid.
However, if the problem is that the viewfinder appears to be giving
out of focus images, there's something to adjust it with just to its
right.

--
Alex Singleton
http://www.alexsingleton.co.uk/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Socialist Britain turning more toward old Soviet tactics
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1c80d027d87bfc99?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:09 am
From: "jaf"

The US is becoming a police state. It's for our own good.
Congress is infested with liberals left over from the revolution.
They are same as commies except they deny they are commies.
Liberals create laws that apply to everyone except themselves.
It's kind of like a mommy complex. Do as I say, not as I do.
They think because they got elected spending other peoples money, that they are supposed to spend other peoples money.

When the pending depression gets rolling good we will have to purge the liberals out of the population.
Or maybe the pandemic will only affect the liberals. That would be nice. It would save me a lot of bullets for other things.

John

"DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message news:498e61f4$0$23931$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "jaf" <me@here.com> wrote in message
> news:WN2dnQAa-fbgbhDUnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@giganews.com
>> Alan,
>> You missed the point.
>> The spineless subjects of the crown have always been spineless.
>> Always will be spineless.
>> Always will be subjects of the crown.
>>
>> They don't have the wherewithal or the backbone to become free.
>>
>> That's why we threw them out of here 235 years ago.
>
> And why you spineless subjects of Bush's imperial presidency passed the
> Patriot Act.
>
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:20 am
From: Paul Heslop

jaf wrote:
>
> The US is becoming a police state. It's for our own good.
> Congress is infested with liberals left over from the revolution.

that's about as much idiotic crap as one person can spew in a couple
of lines.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 10th anniversary
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ea2c8e54f27d05c6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:40 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

? "Gary Edstrom" <GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> ?????? ??? ??????
news:rmlto4t9j9qvv050pdom5bgsg8m6vadmnp@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 22:47:32 -0500, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:52:39 -0800, Gary Edstrom
>><GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, I am approaching the 10th anniversary of my first digital camera
>>>purchase in 1999. During that time, I have taken 40,314 digital images.
>>>For comparison, in the 25 years prior to that, I only took 3,497
>>>pictures with my 35mm Nikon F-2 that I purchased in 1974 while I was
>>>stationed on Midway Island.
>>>
>>>The end of my film days came in 2001 after a return visit to Midway
>>>Island. I took both my 35mm Nikon, and my 4MP Olympus E-10 along on the
>>>trip. Although the Olympus was only 4MP, I liked the results just as
>>>well as the results from the Nikon. It is RARE that I want enlargements
>>>bigger than 8x10 anyway. That was the last time I ever shot a frame of
>>>film.
>>
>>The advantages of digital are many.
>>
>>Today, Saturday, I went to an event where I thought I could get some
>>good shots. I shot 97 images. I downloaded* them tonight and
>>reviewed them. While I was able to get three decent shots out of the
>>group - which is about what my goal was - I could return to the same
>>event tomorrow and re-shoot based on what I saw tonight.
>>
>>Back in the film days, I would have shot less and had to wait a few
>>days to see the results. The weekend event would be over.
>>
>>In this case, it was an event with crowds of people and a great deal
>>of clutter in the scene. Most of the 97 shots were from moving around
>>a bit to minimize the background and clutter problems.
>
> Yes, there are many things you can do with a digital camera that you
> would probably never attempt with a film camera due to the cost of film
> and processing.
>
> One thing that I have always been disappointed about is how few pictures
> there are of the back woods cabin in the U.P. of Michigan that my father
> grew up in. We only have 2-3 pictures that show the cabin at all, and
> they were all taken from the same side of the place from the distance.
> There is only 1 interior shot which really doesn't show much of the
> cabin itself. It is of my father sitting at his short-wave radio back
> in 1922. The only memory I have of the interior of the place is from a
> 1956 trip when I was only 8 years old.
>
> I was determined that the same thing was not going to happen with my
> parent's house that my mother lived in for 42 years until she died 2
> years ago. I went WAY overboard in the opposite direction. I have over
> 1,500 pictures of the place taken inside and out. Few of these will
> ever be printed, but that was not the point. I have pictures taken from
> every corner of every room, plus close ups of every piece of furniture
> and every other significant object. The exterior of the house and yard
> has been shot from every conceivable angle. I doubt that there is much
> of anything of significance either inside or out that doesn't appear in
> at least one picture. It will be a good visual record of what we had in
> the place.
>
> When my mother died, I became the keeper of the old pictures, documents,
> letters, and other papers. I told my sister that she could have all of
> the furniture and nick-knacks she wanted. I just don't have room for
> them here in my condo. She moved a bunch of stuff to her place in
> Oklahoma and packed them into a couple of self-storage units where they
> will probably never see the light of day again.
>
Not to mention the wet darkroom, which I am very, very glad to leave behind.
While printing a (good) jpeg with a photo printer is absolutely foolproof
(My canon Pixma has exif print) in the film days you needed a whole
afternoon and evening preparing the hot baths to keep temperature constant,
remembering to take the photo paper out of the fridge, and then spend all
the evening doing proofs and try to find the colour cast and reading the
theory from the book how to correct it. All I've got from that era are a
couple RA-4 8 X1 0" s and a cibachrome print that shows me on a tree in
front of snow-capped mountains here, in Crete. Not to mention the
frustration of trying to print correctly form FP-4 or tmax 100, with so many
variables, exposure, filter (multigrade papers) developing time.... While I
have printed, literally, thousands of photos on my Canon, and the only thing
to worry is ink cost which is still negligible to the cost and effort of a
wet colour darkroom.

Just my 0.02 euros....

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 11:10 am
From: Alex Singleton

Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> wrote:
>
>The end of my film days came in 2001

Perversely, I temporarily went back to film around then. I'd been using
a terrible compact digital camera - the Kodak DC215 Zoom - and wanted to
get a digital SLRs but they were too expensive at the time, so I got a
Canon EOS film camera.
--
Alex Singleton
http://www.alexsingleton.co.uk/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Stealth photography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bc18e971f8f9298d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 8 2009 10:54 am
From: Grimly Curmudgeon

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Chris Malcolm
<cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> saying something like:

>It's been commonplace playground and street slang in Scotland all my
>life. I'd be surprised to find a local Scot who wasn't familiar with
>it.

I've never heard it used in Scotland meaning 'to steal'. That doesn't
mean it isn't used that way, but I'd suggest it's a very localised
usage, perhaps near a barracks where a regiment brought the word back
with them after Indian service, perhaps many decades ago, and it stuck.

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

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