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

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 5:03 am
From: Rob Morley

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:59:01 +0000 (UTC)
gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:

> Peter wrote:
>
> > If you paid by cheque then you cannot do this - you are quite right.
>
> However if you pay by check, and send the check via the mail, it
> becomes mail fraud, which is agressively persued in the US by the
> Post Office police.
>
Is this not also the case with wire fraud?

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 5:19 am
From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson)

Rob Morley wrote:
> Is this not also the case with wire fraud?

I don't know who investigates wire fraud, but it is NOT the Postal Police.

AFAIK PayPal was setup to avoid being regulated and covered by any laws.
They found a loophole and took it.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 5:19 am
From: "Trev"

In news:70figrF3vqr1U1@mid.individual.net,
<oss108no_spam@bangor.ac.uk> Willy Eckerslyke bashed on keyboard and
typed:
> Peter wrote:
>
>> Interestingly I have just done a new Ebay listing and as far as I
>> could see, Paypal is not a mandatory payment option.
>
> So did you actually try listing without offering Paypal? Or are you
> just refering to the option to untick a box?
>
>> I thought it was.
>
> I listed a car trailer the other day without offering Paypal (some car
> categories are exempt from mandatory Paypal), but when I then listed a
> camera without remembering to change my accepted payment methods, eBay
> wouldn't allow me to complete the listing until I'd provided a Paypal
> account number. The message that came up said that it _is_ mandatory.

Perhaps they think you cant send a trailer though the post unseen

--
Trev
Nobody is perfect.
But Being a Yorkshire man is as close as you can get.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 6:06 am
From: Rob Morley

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:19:01 +0000 (UTC)
gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> > Is this not also the case with wire fraud?
>
> I don't know who investigates wire fraud, but it is NOT the Postal
> Police.

I meant that it's a federal offence, and thus taken quite seriously.
>
> AFAIK PayPal was setup to avoid being regulated and covered by any
> laws. They found a loophole and took it.
>
Why does that not surprise me?

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 8:51 am
From: Peter

Willy Eckerslyke <oss108no_spam@bangor.ac.uk> wrote:

>Peter wrote:
>
>> Interestingly I have just done a new Ebay listing and as far as I
>> could see, Paypal is not a mandatory payment option.
>
>So did you actually try listing without offering Paypal? Or are you just
>refering to the option to untick a box?

The latter.

>> I thought it was.
>
>I listed a car trailer the other day without offering Paypal (some car
>categories are exempt from mandatory Paypal), but when I then listed a
>camera without remembering to change my accepted payment methods, eBay
>wouldn't allow me to complete the listing until I'd provided a Paypal
>account number. The message that came up said that it _is_ mandatory.

I stand corrected. Next time I will pay closer attention.

I think Paypal is a very convenient means of payment, but it is too
risky to allow buyers located in certain places when one is selling
pricey items.

I've just cancelled a bid from a Hong Kong bidder who obviously did
not read my description which clearly states 'no bidders from outside
Europe'. Fortunately Ebay allows one to cancel bids.

x----------x

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 9:05 am
From: Rob Morley

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:51:30 +0000
Peter <peter0o0o0o@peter2-0-o-0.c0.uk> wrote:

> Fortunately Ebay allows one to cancel bids.
>
But you have to spot it before the listing closes ...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Invisible Pics on CompactFlash Card
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4facf1cb2ce2e74d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 5:07 am
From: "Roy G"

"Searcher7" <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
news:db487eac-9fe9-47df-ad4b-a79f4ed89488@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>I have a Canon Powershot G2 with a Sandisk Ultra 2 2GBCompactFlash
> card.
>
> I took about a dozen pics and took the card out and inserted it into
> my reader so I could transfer the pics to my desktop.
>
> Unfortunately, for some reason even though I could scroll through all
> the pics while the card was still in the camera only certain pics now
> show up in the folder when in the card reader.
>
> Basically, I cannot transfer what I cannot see.
>
> Does anyone have any idea what the problem is,.as well as a solution?
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Darren Harris
> Staten Island, New York.

It might be a faulty card, so try a different one in the camera.

Sandisk cards usually come with a "recovery" program on a mini-cd, so if you
still have it, give that a try.

Roy G

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 5:54 am
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:38:33 -0800 (PST), Searcher7
<Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote:

>On Feb 22, 11:12 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:45:12 -0800 (PST), Searcher7
>>
>>
>>
>> <Search...@mail.con2.com> wrote:
>> >I have a Canon Powershot G2 with a Sandisk Ultra 2 2GBCompactFlash
>> >card.
>>
>> >I took about a dozen pics and took the card out and inserted it into
>> >my reader so I could transfer the pics to my desktop.
>>
>> >Unfortunately, for some reason even though I could scroll through all
>> >the pics while the card was still in the camera only certain pics now
>> >show up in the folder when in the card reader.
>>
>> >Basically, I cannot transfer what I cannot see.
>>
>> >Does anyone have any idea what the problem is,.as well as a solution?
>>
>> >Thanks a lot.
>>
>> Any chance you have the camera set to .jpg+RAW? The .jpgs will show,
>> but the RAW files will not unless you are opening them with something
>> that reads RAW. When I stick a card with 100 RAW images on it in my
>> card reader, my Windows Scanner and Camera Wizard pops up to tell me
>> there are no files on the card. I close that and go to Bridge to open
>> them.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
>What do you mean, "go to Bridge to open them."?

Bridge is an Adobe program that opens RAW files. It's part of the
Photoshop CS program.

If you do have your camera set to .jpg+RAW, you will get two images
every time you press the shutter. One will be a RAW image, and one
will be a .jpg image.

>There were a few pics already on the card. Then out of about a dozen
>more I took, the first four did show. But not the others.
>
>I tried taking a half dozen more pics, and they show up on the camera,
>but not when the card is plugged into the reader.
>
>I didn't change any camera settings during all this.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - ignore the troll Re: CHDK & Canon SD1000
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d8e9cc9534d067dc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 5:54 am
From: -hh

John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Carl Ashley" wrote:
> > Thanks for posting all that proof that you are nothing but a delusional and
> > desperate internet fag-stalker, hell-bent on trying to get attention from
> > some gay guy that will never have anything to do with you. LOL!
>
> > Go get a man in real life, you need a good fisting. That'll cure you.
>
> Pot, Kettle....

Simple and to the point, although the little trollboy won't grok it.
Nor this:

Good grief, the parade of idiocy from this lame troll never ends.

1. Because it drives the lame troll up the wall as he's too amazingly
stupid to figure out why he's being mocked, at least parody is
slightly more entertaining to the rest of us who have to tolerate his
lame cries for attention.

2. Resident posters reveal themselves ...gosh, by posting! The lame
troll then knows who to beg for attention from. Of course, when his
Mommy lets them, lame troll tries to find 'friends' on the net,
despite the troll having no real social skills. The troll tries to
laugh it off when they receive advice, since they don't want to admit
that they're a loser with no life.

3. A troll always claims that he has his allies. Of course, claims of
friends, followers, 'mindless' or otherwise, is merely delusions of
grandeur. The troll is invariably alone, with no one to come to his
aid, except the occasional army of self-created sockpuppets...gosh,
how "clever!".

4. How many times has the lame troll tried to hide their name? Since
employers now screen perspective employees, take a guess. Afterall,
being able to eat is overrated. And the ego of trying to claim to be
clever enough to 'hide' is reserved for the terminally insecure that
someone might actually find out who one is, which threatens the
minimum wage job down at McBurger's.

5. Lame trolls claim: 'I don't need any reason to back-up my claims
when I'm cleverly nymshifting all the time.' Its that simple. Of
course, an unsubstantiated claim from someone with a negative
credibility is always safely ignored.

6. What good is a real name online, besides credibility? Some real
posters have actually been invited to dinner, and even if one brought
wine instead of beer, it can still be a real friendship. Mister lame
troll doesn't have 'idiots' in his personal life, nor does he have
'friends', either...losers are invariably alone.

7. The lame troll tries to claim that he gets some degree of
entertainment for himself, evidence of psychiatric problems. What's
really happening is that he's falling apart in real life and his
posting is merely an attempt at escapism. Despite all of his
egotistical bravado, the schmuck is a loser...and he knows it. By
creating a windmill to tilt, he has tried to give himself a reason to
exist...but note the word 'tried'.

8. The lame troll claims to "not so insecure that I need your
recognition nor the recognition of anyone"...yet he continues to
insecurely act up in an attempt to gain attention. Similarly, he
tries to pull himself up by pulling others ('stupid", etc) down. Both
are psychiatric signs of extreme insecurity and a lack of self
esteem.

9. Trolls like to think that they are 'crafty' and have perfected the
art of deception, but its actually self-deception, and being a useless
pretender. It's amazing the degree to which they will debase
themselves just to get any attention. While it is tempting to say
that they could end their misery by committing suicide, the reality is
that since the lame troll is also a coward, he isn't brave enough to
bring himself to that.

10. The lamest of the lame trolls are "one hit wonders". Naturally,
they'll invent excuses that try to claim otherwise, but Occam's Razor
applies: the lame troll simply lacks the intelligence to actually be
creative and multi-dimensional.

11. Louis Ferron (1942-2005): "When beauty fails, stupidity makes
its entrance".

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 9:17 am
From: Edward T

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:36:08 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"Carl Ashley" wrote:
>
>> Thanks for posting all that proof that you are nothing but a delusional and
>> desperate internet fag-stalker, hell-bent on trying to get attention from
>> some gay guy that will never have anything to do with you. LOL!
>>
>> Go get a man in real life, you need a good fisting. That'll cure you.
>
>Pot, Kettle....

So the emotionally desperate Mark Thomas fag-stalker is the same as those
that he's been stalking for years? You are as insane as the other
virtual-photographer trolls in this newsgroup. You've just proved it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anyone have a Sandisk Extreme III card?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/53ddc24865f14241?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 5:57 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
> That's quite true. System space isn't the significant
> difference between OS's, though it is true that Unix
> variations have always made an effort to minimize the
> amount of space used. (Things like reducing the amount
> of swap space necessary by making executables
> non-writable, which allows the executable binary to be
> paged in only as needed. Because of that the program
> area of a executable need never be written to swap.)

Also true in Windows, I believe, where non-writeable portions of the
executable are not written to swap.

> The historical difference between disk useage on Unix
> and Windows had to do with file system block allocation.
> Microsoft was never one to look ahead and design today's
> OS with the idea in mind that tomorrow's hardware would
> be different. Unix on the other had was designed right
> from the start by people researching how to write an OS
> to match tomorrow's needs. Hence when a large
> Winchester disk was 10Mb, MSDOS used a filesystem that
> divided up a 10Mb disk very nicely... and Unix used a
> filesystem that could divide up a 2G disk very nicely.
> When 500Mb disks became available those MS filesystems
> were horrible at allocating space efficiently (the first
> byte allocated caused a huge block to be locked up).

Although today's file system from Microsoft, NTFS, no longer has that
limitation.

> One of the things I recall getting a chuckle out of was
> a fellow from SGI explaining how, as they were trying to
> take over the computer imaging market 15 years or so
> ago, they realized that at some point they would have...
> *5 Gigabyte* filesystems! And of course that meant
> programs like /fsck/ (the File System CHeck utility)
> needed to be rewritten simply because as the originally
> worked it would take literally all day to reboot a
> crashed system if it had two or three 5 Gig filesystems
> that required checking. (Today a 50 Gig filesystem can
> be checked with fsck in a few minutes at worst.)

Yes, it was bad enough with a 500MB disk - UNIX took about 45 minutes to
reboot!

>> At least disk storage space is cheap now - I hate to think how much
>> I paid for my first hard disk in 1978 (?) - a top of the range 16MB
>> or 20MB unit IIRC!
>
> Lordy yes! And just imagine what we'll be using in
> another decade. Mind boggling...

.. and what /will/ we be storing there? The change I've seen in my own
use if that disk is now so cheap that I use disk for backup. There's no
longer the need to clean off old stuff to make way for the new, and you
can use simple, external, portable USB disks for backup. I recently got a
320GB one for a good price. All the photos I've ever taken don't more
than half fill that disk, to a first order. I still do backup onto DVD,
but I wonder for how much longer.

Cheers,
David

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 6:16 am
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-02-23 00:08:17 -0800, D-Mac <alienjones@y7mail.com> said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2009-02-14 22:40:17 -0800, Robin Hood <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> said:
>
>>>
>>> This is just information. I do not have this on my computer and I did
>>> not steal it. Information is not illegal.
>>
>> You might want to ask Scooter Libby about that...
>>
>> In theory, Nikon could successfully sue you for lost business and
>> prosecute you for industrial espionage, copyright violation (the serial
>> numbers themselves are copyrighted), racketeering and aiding and
>> abetting a crime. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
>>
>
> You're a little off in your claims there mate.
> Serial numbers cannot be copyrighted if they did not exist when the
> software was copyrighted.

To the contrary, the serial number is copyrighted when created. It does
not have to be attached to any software. A copyright does not have to
be registered to be valid.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 6:17 am
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-02-23 00:31:27 -0800, Robin Hood <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> said:

> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:51:25 -0800, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-02-14 22:40:17 -0800, Robin Hood <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> said:
>>
>>> Hi Group
>>>
>>> Here is another freebie just for you!
>>>
>>> 1- Download the 60 day trial at Nikon USA:
>>>
>>> http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=61
Scroll

down
>>>
>>> to the 60 day trial and download.
>>>
>>> 2-Use universal serial below and register in your name etc.
>>>
>>> 46634-46875-57018-15942-30739
>>>
>>> You MUST block Capture NX with your firewall and it will work fine. If
>>> you do not block, it will reject your serial number.
>>>
>>> WooHoo!
>>>
>>> This is just information. I do not have this on my computer and I did
>>> not steal it. Information is not illegal.
>>
>> You might want to ask Scooter Libby about that...
>>
>> In theory, Nikon could successfully sue you for lost business and
>> prosecute you for industrial espionage, copyright violation (the serial
>> numbers themselves are copyrighted), racketeering and aiding and
>> abetting a crime. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
>
> Wrong! Serial numbers are not copyrighted. Show me any proof of your
> allegation that they are copyrighted. As far as the rest of your BS ie
> racketeering and aiding and abetting a crime. You are talking through
> your hat. Man are you du-uumb! Another sidewalk lawyer I presume?
> To you sir I say Pffft!
>
> Robin Hood
>
> PS. Stay tuned for many more free programs!!

You are a lawyer, then? Odd, since you claim to live in a country that
does not have the rule of law.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 6:56 am
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:16:49 -0800, C J Campbell
<christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2009-02-23 00:08:17 -0800, D-Mac <alienjones@y7mail.com> said:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> On 2009-02-14 22:40:17 -0800, Robin Hood <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> said:
>>
>>>>
>>>> This is just information. I do not have this on my computer and I did
>>>> not steal it. Information is not illegal.
>>>
>>> You might want to ask Scooter Libby about that...
>>>
>>> In theory, Nikon could successfully sue you for lost business and
>>> prosecute you for industrial espionage, copyright violation (the serial
>>> numbers themselves are copyrighted), racketeering and aiding and
>>> abetting a crime. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
>>>
>>
>> You're a little off in your claims there mate.
>> Serial numbers cannot be copyrighted if they did not exist when the
>> software was copyrighted.
>
>To the contrary, the serial number is copyrighted when created. It does
>not have to be attached to any software. A copyright does not have to
>be registered to be valid.

I don't understand this. How can a number be copyrighted? I
understand copyrighting the program, but how can "234XGi2405" be
copyrighted unless that is used as a name or title? The show "24"
probably owns copyright "24", but only when it is used as a title of
an entertainment product.

You cannot copyright an idea. You can only copyright a discrete
application of an idea. Since serial numbers are individually unique
and associated solely with specific instances ("234XGi2405" is
specifically associated one copy of a program), I would not consider
the serial number to be a discrete application.

I don't normally challenge people to provide a cite to back-up a
claim, but I would like to see something that validates this one.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 7:13 am
From: Chris H

In message <gnu59q$1p3$1@aioe.org>, U*U <nobody@dizum.org> writes
>
>"Robin Hood" <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> wrote in message
>news:con4q4hvbpkp99ft4r120sdlrtafq4l857@4ax.com...
>> >
>> BTW: there is information on the net on everything from how to make
>> Ricin poison to bomb making and more. None of this information is
>> illegal and it's protected by the constitutional right of free speech
>> in your country. I don't live in the U.S.of A-holes and my country has
>> no real copyright laws.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>Not true, usenet is commercial speech,
No it is not

> and therefore not public

Yes it is.

> and as such
>is not protected under the Consistution.

Which constitution?

> Copyright infringement is not
>speech. You have violated copyright with your posting of the serial numbers.

>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Which constitution and whose jurisdiction?

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did the Canon boat sink?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b0dfb9b4ed431024?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 6:38 am
From: "bowser"

Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra batteries?
Still no stock I can find.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 7:18 am
From: "U*U"

"bowser" <wh@tisgoing.on> wrote in message
news:49a2b47f$0$5041$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra batteries?
> Still no stock I can find.
In Canada stores can only order them if they have a customer pre-order on
them. In Ontario, Canada the Sony A900 is exclusive to Henry's.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vivitar is back
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d2b614348aa7ac8c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 7:11 am
From: measekite

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:25:13 -0800, RichA wrote:

> http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm
>
> Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's:
> • Vivitar Series 1 Lenses for Digital SLRs (SRP $149.95 to $399.9),
> including an 85mm F1.4A spherical lens for portraits plus 500mm and
> 800mm f/8.0 mirror lenses – all usable with both film and digital SLR
> cameras.

Vivitar is really not back. Some new business just got the rights to the
Vivitar name but the company is long gone.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 7:36 am
From: Dave Cohen

RichA wrote:
> http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm
>
> Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's:
> • Vivitar Series 1 Lenses for Digital SLRs (SRP $149.95 to $399.9),
> including an 85mm F1.4A spherical lens for portraits plus 500mm and
> 800mm f/8.0 mirror lenses – all usable with both film and digital SLR
> cameras.

I had a Sakar

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 7:40 am
From: Dave Cohen

Dave Cohen wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm
>>
>> Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's: • Vivitar Series 1
>> Lenses for Digital SLRs (SRP $149.95 to $399.9), including an 85mm
>> F1.4A spherical lens for portraits plus 500mm and 800mm f/8.0
>> mirror lenses – all usable with both film and digital SLR cameras.
>
> I had a Sakar (and I pressed wrong button). What I intended to add
> was it seemed to work well, couldn't see any difference between that and my
fixed canon lenses. Only problem was when camera hung on my neck, zoom
would creep. This was on a canon slr film camera quite a long time ago now.
Dave Cohen

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 8:48 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-02-23 07:36:58 -0800, Dave Cohen <user@example.net> said:

> RichA wrote:
>> http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm
>>
>> Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's:
>> ¥ Vivitar Series 1 Lenses for Digital SLRs (SRP $149.95 to $399.9),
>> including an 85mm F1.4A spherical lens for portraits plus 500mm and
>> 800mm f/8.0 mirror lenses Ð all usable with both film and digital SLR
>> cameras.
>
> I had a Sakar

I understand you can get medication for that. ;-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Concrete of war
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a0d5ae512bf867f2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 7:41 am
From: Silverdolphin

Bunkers at present day, those defensive pillbox were built to encumber
Allied forces advancing in Italy during World War 2. Their careless
presence is an attestation which reminds us of the horrors of war in
the indifference of every way life.

Comments and suggestions will be appreciated.

http://www.giuliobrantl.com/concrete.htm

--
-----------------------------------------------------
My last photos: http://www.giuliobrantl.com/hiroshima.htm

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 7:48 am
From: John McWilliams

Silverdolphin wrote:
> Bunkers at present day, those defensive pillbox were built to encumber
> Allied forces advancing in Italy during World War 2. Their careless
> presence is an attestation which reminds us of the horrors of war in
> the indifference of every way life.
>
> Comments and suggestions will be appreciated

> http://www.giuliobrantl.com/concrete.htm

Nice; thanks. I'd like to see the images at least 50% larger.

--
John McWilliams

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 8:15 am
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:41:56 -0800 (PST), Silverdolphin
<iannik@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bunkers at present day, those defensive pillbox were built to encumber
>Allied forces advancing in Italy during World War 2. Their careless
>presence is an attestation which reminds us of the horrors of war in
>the indifference of every way life.
>
>Comments and suggestions will be appreciated.
>
>G
>
>http://www.giuliobrantl.com/concrete.htm

Unless there's a way I missed to enlarge these on the screen, the page
is a disappointment. They could be interesting shots. I can't tell
from what I saw.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: DPR's full D3x review
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b0c85f4ecb60c84b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 23 2009 9:24 am
From: "Dimitris M"

>> Why Nikon wouldn't introduce a dust-removal system in an otherwise
>> excellent camera is beyond me, especially considering that dust removal
>> systems are now available in many entry level models.
>
> I don't see that it helps at all with my D700.

If you had not the dust removal system, you will see it. In my D70 I had to
clean the sensor at least every 6 lens changes (by air, not wipe). In D300
and D700, after thousent changes, never needed to clean the sensor.

If you have problem in the D700, then it must be from moistured dust
particles or droplets that sticks to the filter and they can not removed by
shaking.

BTW, the shaking MUST be performed every time the camera switced on and off.
If you leave the dust for long in the filter, it will be not easy to remove.
--
Dimitris M

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

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

Monday, February 23, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic