Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 11 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which smart phone has the best camera?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3e794fdc9ddb4e13?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 25 2009 11:33 pm
From: Richard Anacker

Am 25.02.2009 23:11, schrieb Paul Furman:
>> Sony-Ericsson K-type-mobiles haver nice build-ins-cameras. The k810
>>
>> http://www.sonyericsson.com/cws/products/mobilephones/overview/k810i?lc=de&cc=de
>>
>>
>> is a quite nice one.
>
> Yes I recall mention of their nice camera. Is it any good for web & email?

Yes, of course

richie

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Opinions Sought on P&S
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/302a59f0bbbc7513?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 12:24 am
From: Ron Hunter

D-Man wrote:
> Hi All -
>
> I'm pretty happy with my current DSLR setup but find myself wanting a decent P&S to keep in my pocket for those times when taking the DSLR along isn't practical.
>
> My budget is about $280
> I'm not overly concerned about manual control (if I really need 'em, I'll bring the DSLR)
> Having a decent zoom is reasonably important
> Being able to take decent pictures in low-light without a flash is important (but I realize that this is a challenge for pretty much all P&S's)
>
> My search thus far has led me to strongly consider the Panasonic DMC-TZ5K and so I was hoping to get the opinions of anyone here who might have experience with this camera. I'd also be interested in other recommendations that match the general criteria I've outlined above.
>
> Thanks in advance for your replies - they are GREATLY appreciated!!
>
>
> --------------= Posted using GrabIt =----------------
> ------= Binary Usenet downloading made easy =---------
> -= Get GrabIt for free from http://www.shemes.com/ =-
>
If you want low light performance, you will want to make sure your model
has a focus assist lamp. Beyond that, anything less than 4X optical
zoom isn't going to be enough. Of course, being used to a DSLR, you
will want a model with optical viewfinder.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 2:00 am
From: Rich

"D-Man" <never@mind.com> wrote in
news:49a57eaa$0$32493$6c36adad@news.usenetserver.com:

> Hi All -
>
> I'm pretty happy with my current DSLR setup but find myself wanting a
> decent P&S to keep in my pocket for those times when taking the DSLR
> along isn't practical.

What times would those be?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tiny old pancake lens in modern DSLR camera - What a contrast!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a3efd7a0d81d3bfa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 1:49 am
From: Rich

Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:20090225030755.61e6df5f@bluemoon:

> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:26:01 +0000
> Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Industar prices are rising, but still very low
>> relatively.
>
> The popularity of M42 prime lenses for DSLR use has really inflated
> the prices over the last year or two - I used to pick them up for
> a couple of quid to use on my film cameras. There's also a glut of M42
> bodies on eBay. :-)
>

Film bodies are near worthless. I've purchased at least two bodies just to
get the lenses they had on them.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 3:37 am
From: Rob Morley

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:49:24 -0600
Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> news:20090225030755.61e6df5f@bluemoon:
>
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:26:01 +0000
> > Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Industar prices are rising, but still very low
> >> relatively.
> >
> > The popularity of M42 prime lenses for DSLR use has really inflated
> > the prices over the last year or two - I used to pick them up for
> > a couple of quid to use on my film cameras. There's also a glut of
> > M42 bodies on eBay. :-)
> >
>
> Film bodies are near worthless. I've purchased at least two bodies
> just to get the lenses they had on them.

You and many others, which is why there's a glut of bodies going
begging.

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 1:54 am
From: Rich

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:Hakpl.12832$8_3.9582
@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com:

> bowzer wrote:
>
>> I would question the intelligence of anyone with a Nikon camera using
>> Canon lenses.
>
> Indeed, since while Nikon lenses can be used on Canon cameras with a
> converter, there's no way to use a Canon lens on a Nikon camera because
> the Nikon lens mount is so much smaller (which causes Nikon problems in
> other ways as well as has been pointed out here many times).
>
> I know when Canon came out with their full frame digital cameras you
> could buy gently used Nikon digital bodies and lenses very, very
> cheaply as professionals and prosumers moved en-masse from Nikon to
> Canon (at that time Nikon insisted that there was no need for full frame
> and that they had no plans to come out with full frame, but this was
> more due to their lack of a full frame sensor than anything else).
> Craigslist from back then was full of ads for D70 and D100 outfits and
> there were some amazing bargains to be had. Ditto for the used lenses at
> places like B&H. Now the fire sale on used Nikon glass is over since
> pretty much everyone that wanted to switch already has done so, and
> since Nikon is almost caught up with Canon in all but the high end
> professional full frame bodies, and super high end lenses.
>

Canon's advantage in lenses is minimal now. They have cheap f4 teles/zooms
and some unique lenses like that 5x macro unit.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 1:57 am
From: Rich

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:Fh2pl.11271$hc1.9149
@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com:

> bowser wrote:
>
>> If I bought a D700 body, I wouldn't be able to produce a single
>> exposure. The only gear I have that would work with it would be the CF
>> cards. I'm not buying any camera that can't use my 24-105.
>
> The problem with the D700 is that it's too low resolution for most
> professionals. It's a good prosumer camera, and a good entry into the FF
> market for Nikon, but they still have a long way to go to catch Canon.
>
> The good thing about Canon is that their lenses tend to hold their value
> far better than Nikon lenses, especially the older lenses, since any EOS
> lens will work on any EOS camera (not the case with Nikon F lenses).
> Look at the used lens prices from some of the dealers of used equipment,
> the difference is stark.

And yet I've seen some fast Canon glass going for peanuts. Best thing
would be to look at Ebay past pricing for a handful of lenses and compare
it to Nikon's lenses. Canon still has a huge user base so demand alone
(lens quality aside) would mean they "should" hold some value.
But Canon users are also (because of Canon DSLR's ability to mount other
brands) responsible for huge prices on some pretty old Olympus, Zeiss and
Nikon glass.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 2:43 am
From: "David J Taylor"

SMS wrote:
[]
> Indeed, since while Nikon lenses can be used on Canon cameras with a
> converter, there's no way to use a Canon lens on a Nikon camera
> because the Nikon lens mount is so much smaller (which causes Nikon
> problems in other ways as well as has been pointed out here many
> times).

"so much" smaller? A few millimetres in forty, perhaps

The Nikon lens mount has not caused me, nor many other photographers, any
problems whatsoever in lens selection - Nikon have a more than complete
lens range for my usage.

David

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 5:33 am
From: "J. Clarke"

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk>
wrote in message news:jnupl.42$Lc7.12@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> SMS wrote:
> []
>> Indeed, since while Nikon lenses can be used on Canon cameras with a
>> converter, there's no way to use a Canon lens on a Nikon camera
>> because the Nikon lens mount is so much smaller (which causes Nikon
>> problems in other ways as well as has been pointed out here many
>> times).
>
> "so much" smaller? A few millimetres in forty, perhaps

Further the problem is that in the relevant dimension (flange distance) the
Nikon mount is _larger_.

> The Nikon lens mount has not caused me, nor many other photographers, any
> problems whatsoever in lens selection - Nikon have a more than complete
> lens range for my usage.

When you see brainless Nikon bashing it's generally the result of religious
fervor. Best to just tune it out and let the cultists go engage in a
circle-jerk.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to take photos of killer bees?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/29db2647f8e00418?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 1:59 am
From: Rich

"Argon" <Argon@Argon.Argon> wrote in news:go1hgd$v5k$1@aioe.org:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> I want to take photos of killer bees.
>
> How can I do that?
>
>

Go to a hive and when they come out, breath heavily as they like C02.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Varible ND Filter?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8904ae47b960431e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 2:01 am
From: Nicko

On Feb 25, 9:42 pm, "Daniel" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Looking for advise on shooting helicopters at air shows using a one lens/one
> body setup.
>
> Basically, when shooting jets I stick it in AV or manual and there's no
> problem. However, the problem comes when switching to shutter priority and
> a much slower shutter speed to shoot helicopters/prop aircraft (to get
> motion blur on the rotors/props). If there's decent light it means that the
> lens then has to stop itself way down for correct exposure even at ISO 100
> and therefore you're faced with diffraction limitation and also even the
> smallest amount of sensor dust is visible against the sky.
>
> Obviously, I could stick a ND filter on the lens when shooting helicopters,
> but it's not ideal to keep screwing it on and off throughout the weekend. I
> was thinking of maybe a quick release ND filter that just clips on and off
> the front of the lens (sort of like the expodisc does), but couldn't find
> one. I did come across a variable ND filter that ranges from 2-8 stops,
> which looks like a good idea (http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html), but
> it's a bit on the pricy side and also because it would be on the lens all
> the time it will effect AF performance when tracking jets due to the 2 stop
> loss of light, especially if I'm also using a TC at the time. Any other
> suggestions?

If this is not a troll, it should be.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 2:20 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Daniel <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Looking for advise on shooting helicopters at air shows using a one lens/one
> body setup.

> Basically, when shooting jets I stick it in AV or manual and there's no
> problem. However, the problem comes when switching to shutter priority and
> a much slower shutter speed to shoot helicopters/prop aircraft (to get
> motion blur on the rotors/props). If there's decent light it means that the
> lens then has to stop itself way down for correct exposure even at ISO 100
> and therefore you're faced with diffraction limitation and also even the
> smallest amount of sensor dust is visible against the sky.

If you're using only one lens dust shouldn't be a problem -- just
clean the sensor if necessary before fitting the lens.

Is this just speculation or have you actually tried this? Given
typical numbers for a sunny day exposure and blurring rotor blades I
don't see you getting into problematically diffracted territory. But
you haven't specified the sensor size or target print/display size,
how much rotor blur you want (complete circle?), and the shutter speed
you're using to achieve it.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 3:14 am
From: "Daniel"

"Toby" <kymarto@oyahooo.com> wrote in message
news:49a610b2$0$243$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...

>> Looking for advise on shooting helicopters at air shows using a one
>> lens/one body setup.
>>
>> Basically, when shooting jets I stick it in AV or manual and there's no
>> problem. However, the problem comes when switching to shutter priority
>> and a much slower shutter speed to shoot helicopters/prop aircraft (to
>> get motion blur on the rotors/props). If there's decent light it means
>> that the lens then has to stop itself way down for correct exposure even
>> at ISO 100 and therefore you're faced with diffraction limitation and
>> also even the smallest amount of sensor dust is visible against the sky.
>>
>> Obviously, I could stick a ND filter on the lens when shooting
>> helicopters, but it's not ideal to keep screwing it on and off throughout
>> the weekend. I was thinking of maybe a quick release ND filter that just
>> clips on and off the front of the lens (sort of like the expodisc does),
>> but couldn't find one. I did come across a variable ND filter that
>> ranges from 2-8 stops, which looks like a good idea
>> (http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html), but it's a bit on the pricy side
>> and also because it would be on the lens all the time it will effect AF
>> performance when tracking jets due to the 2 stop loss of light,
>> especially if I'm also using a TC at the time. Any other suggestions?

> Even with an 8x ND your autofocus should have plenty of light, especially
> since you have sharp edges and high contrast in your subjects.

True.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 3:39 am
From: "Daniel"

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:70n8nnFfnv1gU1@mid.individual.net...

>> Looking for advise on shooting helicopters at air shows using a one
>> lens/one
>> body setup.
>
>> Basically, when shooting jets I stick it in AV or manual and there's no
>> problem. However, the problem comes when switching to shutter priority
>> and
>> a much slower shutter speed to shoot helicopters/prop aircraft (to get
>> motion blur on the rotors/props). If there's decent light it means that
>> the
>> lens then has to stop itself way down for correct exposure even at ISO
>> 100
>> and therefore you're faced with diffraction limitation and also even the
>> smallest amount of sensor dust is visible against the sky.

> If you're using only one lens dust shouldn't be a problem -- just
> clean the sensor if necessary before fitting the lens.
>
> Is this just speculation or have you actually tried this? Given
> typical numbers for a sunny day exposure and blurring rotor blades I
> don't see you getting into problematically diffracted territory. But
> you haven't specified the sensor size or target print/display size,
> how much rotor blur you want (complete circle?), and the shutter speed
> you're using to achieve it.

Tried it plenty of times. On a normal summer day it meters about 1/60, f/22
@ ISO 100.

1/60 may sound a bit slow, but it gives the perfect amount of rotor blur and
with a slow helicopter and IS, it's not a problem. Diffraction limiting
starts to cut in at about if/11 on my 8MP 1.6 cropped sensor.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 5:41 am
From: "Daniel"

"Daniel" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:qpWdnQPNQtwl5DvUnZ2dnUVZ8v-WnZ2d@pipex.net...

>>> Looking for advise on shooting helicopters at air shows using a one
>>> lens/one body setup.
>>>
>>> Basically, when shooting jets I stick it in AV or manual and there's no
>>> problem. However, the problem comes when switching to shutter priority
>>> and a much slower shutter speed to shoot helicopters/prop aircraft (to
>>> get motion blur on the rotors/props). If there's decent light it means
>>> that the lens then has to stop itself way down for correct exposure even
>>> at ISO 100 and therefore you're faced with diffraction limitation and
>>> also even the smallest amount of sensor dust is visible against the sky.
>>>
>>> Obviously, I could stick a ND filter on the lens when shooting
>>> helicopters, but it's not ideal to keep screwing it on and off
>>> throughout the weekend. I was thinking of maybe a quick release ND
>>> filter that just clips on and off the front of the lens (sort of like
>>> the expodisc does), but couldn't find one. I did come across a variable
>>> ND filter that ranges from 2-8 stops, which looks like a good idea
>>> (http://www.singh-ray.com/varind.html), but it's a bit on the pricy side
>>> and also because it would be on the lens all the time it will effect AF
>>> performance when tracking jets due to the 2 stop loss of light,
>>> especially if I'm also using a TC at the time. Any other suggestions?

>> Even with an 8x ND your autofocus should have plenty of light, especially
>> since you have sharp edges and high contrast in your subjects.

> True.

Actually, it's got me thinking. Why do Canon disable AF over f/5.6 min
aperture?

Say you have an f/4 lens and stick a X2 converter on it, why disable AF when
you could be shooting a well illuminated subject with lots of contrast? Are
they just trying to make it fool proof so that someone doesn't try to shoot
with a min aperture of f/8 in a poorly lit condition?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Suggested name change for P&S's
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3f27fbfb1f649c26?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 2:03 am
From: Rich

PofS.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 2:16 am
From: Paul Heslop

Rich wrote:
>
> PofS.

it seems to be becoming an obsession. You won't change anything by
going on about it all the time.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Check out this image flaw
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6669abebd55b53b6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 2:21 am
From: Rich

This appeared in only one shot from yesterday. Don't know if it's sensor
related or a write error with the CF card. Hasn't recurred.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109600683/original

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 4:39 am
From: Gary Edstrom

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:21:04 -0600, Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:

>This appeared in only one shot from yesterday. Don't know if it's sensor
>related or a write error with the CF card. Hasn't recurred.
>
>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109600683/original

I have taken close to 50,000 digital images over the last 10 years with
5 different cameras. Last week, I had the first glitched image ever.
The image on the flash chip is non-recoverable and shows a CRCC error
when you try to read it. I have no idea if it was due to a flaw on the
flash chip, or a flaw in the camera electronics, but it only happened to
a single image and hasn't happened again.

Just 1 glitched image in almost 50,000 pictures...I wish the statistics
from my old film days were just as good!

Gary

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 5:23 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-02-26 02:21:04 -0800, Rich <none@nowhere.com> said:

> This appeared in only one shot from yesterday. Don't know if it's sensor
> related or a write error with the CF card. Hasn't recurred.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109600683/original

Aaah! it appears "Pontiac" is rendered as "Lexus" on that CF card.

Fascinating. :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 5:55 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-02-26 05:23:01 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net> said:

> On 2009-02-26 02:21:04 -0800, Rich <none@nowhere.com> said:
>
>> This appeared in only one shot from yesterday. Don't know if it's sensor
>> related or a write error with the CF card. Hasn't recurred.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/109600683/original
>
> Aaah! it appears "Pontiac" is rendered as "Lexus" on that CF card.
>
> Fascinating. :-)

OK!
Seriously, the only thing I can think of is a write error from the
buffer memory.

If the problem is repeatable with a different CF card, even if
intermitant, I would look to the sensor or camera electronics as the
source of the problem.

Good luck.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to take photos of man-eating sharks?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6e82a79338961560?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 2:37 am
From: bugbear

Xenon wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> I want to take photos of man-eating sharks, because I'm a shark-lover.
>
> What do I need to do this?
>
>

Killer bees.

BugBear

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 3:23 am
From: Neil Ellwood

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:59:56 +0100, Xenon wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> I want to take photos of man-eating sharks, because I'm a shark-lover.
>
> What do I need to do this?

A large plate.

Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

==============================================================================
TOPIC: And on and on it goes...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/690e5c6701256988?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 5:24 am
From: RichA

PDN:

http://tinyurl.com/c4jq2t

Robert Taylor was arrested February 12 after taking this photograph of
a 2 Train in The Bronx.
Last week in New York City, a fan of trains was arrested for
photographing a train. It might be funny if it didn't keep happening.

Robert S. Taylor of Brooklyn was taking photos for fun last Thursday
in a subway station. Police saw him and cited him for unauthorized
photography, disorderly conduct/unreasonable voice and impeding
traffic.

The charge of unauthorized photography – a crime that doesn't exist –
has already been dropped, Taylor says.

"It's almost embarrassing," Taylor says. "It was a waste of
everybody's time."

His summons reads "[Police officer] observed respondent taking photos
from the [southbound] platform of incoming/ongoing trains without
authority to do so by [the Transit Authority]." The citation cites
section 1050.9(C) of the MTA rules of conduct. Ironically, that's the
rule that permits photography "in any facility or conveyance."

Adding further irony, Taylor is an employee of the MTA, which operates
the New York City Subway. He was off duty at the time.

Photo advocacy groups have been complaining for years about police
harassment of photographers in public places such as train stations.
The problem surged after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and continues
today, despite several recent cases that ended in settlements for the
photographers.

"It's not just New York City Transit, it's across the country," says
newspaper photographer Todd Maisel, who serves as Region 2 director
for the National Press Photographers Association and vice president of
the New York Press Photographers Association. "The problem is police
officers are not being properly trained."

Taylor's run-in with transit police happened Thursday afternoon.
Taylor had time to kill before a dinner date in Times Square, so he
rode the subway to Freeman Street, a lightly used elevated station in
the Bronx.

"That station comes in off at a curve. It's a nice little shot,"
Taylor says. Taylor uses a Nikon D80 to take pictures in his spare
time for use as wallpaper on his computer and his cell phone.

After he photographed a train, a police officer on the platform asked
Taylor to stop taking pictures. "He tells me pictures aren't allowed,
and I told him that's not true," Taylor says.

As they debated the rule, a second officer arrived from another
platform and supported the first. Taylor asked to speak to a
supervisor. A transit police sergeant arrived and backed up the two
other officers. "I said, 'If I'm wrong, write the summons and I'll
fight it in court,'" Taylor says.

The police officers were unimpressed. They handcuffed Taylor and took
him to a transit police district for processing, where he was held a
short time and released. The photography charge was dropped, but
Taylor has a court date to answer the other two charges in April.

"I've been stopped before, but in the previous stops everything has
gone well," Taylor says. This time, "It's bad. Look what I have to go
through."

In 2004, the MTA proposed a ban on photography in the subway,
justifying it as a way to protect the subway from terrorists. The
proposal died after an outcry from photographers and the public.

From Taylor's case, it's clear photographers are still being stopped.
Taylor wrote an account his arrest on the Subchat, a message board
popular with subway fans. The story made its way to two photography
blogs, War on Photography and Photography is not a Crime, and
ultimately to The New York Times, which published a story about Taylor
on Wednesday. "I'm not used to this attention," Taylor says.

Several photographers in New York City have collected settlements in
recent cases where they were wrongfully arrested.

One recent case concerned photographer Duane Kerzic, who was arrested
last year by Amtrak Police while taking pictures of trains on the
lower platforms of New York Penn Station.

Kerzic's case was even the subject of a comedy sketch earlier this
month on The Colbert Report. Maisel, of the NPPA, and Kerzik were both
interviewed for the TV show.

"The day after that segment aired, Duane Kerzic got a five-figure
settlement," Maisel says.

Last year, New York City settled a lawsuit with a student who was
detained while working on a project to photograph every subway stop,
according to The New York Times. The student, Arun Wiita, was arrested
on a public sidewalk and was the subject of a lawsuit filed with
support from the New York Civil Liberties Union.

In 2007, the NYPD paid a $14,000 settlement to filmmaker Rakesh
Sharma, who was arrested filming on a public sidewalk near Grand
Central Terminal. That case, also led by the NYCLU, led the city to
draft a set of clearer rules about when permits are required for
public photography and filming.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 6:21 am
From: "Daniel"

"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a94f975c-d23b-4661-a6cc-2db557c8b1be@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
PDN:

http://tinyurl.com/c4jq2t

Not that I have ever had a problem, but with the recent publicity I've been
racking my brains to try and work out why the photography restriction is
being so heavily enforced under the terrorism regulations, when Google and
Geomapping seem to do what they want. The conclusion I have come to is that
there must be a reason for it, so just co-operate, after all it's only a
photo. For me, yeah ok, it would up*ss me off, but it's not the end of the
world.

The freedom fighters will get the hump with the above statement, but
remember it's only a photo. For those people, I would urge you to consider
that it's possible that they may know something that you don't? Who knows?
But I can guarantee you that you sure won't.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: cameras with built in GPS
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a307891b045195c6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 26 2009 6:36 am
From: Pioneer42

_aperture wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What are the cameras out there with a built in GPS so that the photos
> get geo-tagged? I am looking for a compact camera - not an SLR.
>
> What are the other ways (software, perhaps) of getting the longitude/
> latitude information into the image EXIF?
>
> tia,
> bala

You can use Microsoft's Pro Photo Tools to geotag photos using a .gpx
track file from any GPS receiver. It coordinates the time stamps of the
photos with the time data of the GPS track.

http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/tools.aspx

You can also use Picasa/Google Earth for manual geotagging, but it will
not coordinate the timestamps automatically.

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

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