adobe.photography
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en
adobe.photography@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Be VERY Afraid … - 11 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/cf82f66e37b5ce25?hl=en
* Panorama advice sought - 8 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/f90c1f4673be69b6?hl=en
* So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath? - 6
messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/df98f10b5350a14c?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Be VERY Afraid …
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/cf82f66e37b5ce25?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 18 2009 10:39 pm
From: Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com
there is no reason for adobe to use any image posted on the forum for
any apparent reason
Agreed.
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 4:59 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
Peter they can write what they want but if they do not define the terms in a specific way it ha no meaning.
Take a look at a photo models release it makes clear the intent without any bars held.
Trying to cover you ass without specifying your intent means you are being deceitful and on purpose and therefore has no meaning.
They can scale it as they say but in order to scale it they cannot ruin your photo so they may only be able to scale it down.
They cannot no what ever they like no matter what they write.
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 5:22 pm
From: twocans@adobeforums.com
can any one recomend another nntp news group that we can all move over to, I
cannot understand why adobe is doing what its doing, I use outlook express
for checking posts etc, the notion of having to login to there site etc lol
any way
if any one knows of a good nntp fourm please let me know
k
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 12:36 pm
From: Laurentiu_G_Todie@adobeforums.com
try this one:
<http://adobeforums.adobe.com/community/design_development/photography>
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 12:55 pm
From: twocans@adobeforums.com
can i use rss in outlook express
k
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 6:40 pm
From: Ozpeter@adobeforums.com
My understanding is that the wording is intended, whatever it looks like, simply to enable them to display a photo posted on the forum whenever anyone goes to that page.
I've suggested putting in words like "in the context in which is was posted on the forum" so that if they display the photo, they have to do it in the forum - which is what is wanted, no?
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 6:58 pm
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
The TOS wording itself simply MUST be cleaned-up or clarified.
A court of law would judge it on what it actually SAYS and not by what they might have intended us to think that they meant!
putting in words like "in the context in which is was posted on the forum"
so that if they display the photo, they have to do it in the forum - which
is what is wanted,
Exactly! But it needs to be worded with precision in the TOS by Adobe Legal so that there is no margin of error nor leeway for them to construe its meaning in any other way.
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 7:02 pm
From: pfigen
Oz,
What is needed is language that clearly states that Adobe does not own any copyright, cannot modify images, sublicense, or use the images in ANY other manner without the express written consent and license from the original author. Anything less is really unacceptable.
While Adobe does host this site, they also are very clear that it's a USER to USER forum, and not an official voice of Adobe. For Adobe to maintain that premise while saying that they basically own everything (even non-exclusively) is an attitude that can only cause suspicion of their motives.
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 7:31 pm
From: Fred_Nirque@adobeforums.com
Just watch management and the legal boffins wreck what was one of the better places for information exchange on the Web......
I expect questions on the use of gaming mice, steroidal graphics cards and giant plasma screens to be the standard for the new Adobe forums.
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 7:47 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
It's hard to understand why a forum as well thought out as this one has to be replaced. I guess people feel that they must make changes.
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 8:13 pm
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
Who knows what hidden agenda really fuelled this: but the "official" story is that WebCrossing (who power the present Adobe Forums) doesn't have the ability to merge and support the old Macromedia ones with the Adobe ones.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Panorama advice sought
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/f90c1f4673be69b6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 4:53 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
The D3 camera takes individual photos then stacks them, digital cameras cannot really successfully take multiple exposure as is traditionally known when you capture it on film on one frame. The noise level for doing one extra exposure would be off the chart I understand.
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 6:28 am
From: Lawrence_Hudetz@adobeforums.com
The images produced in camera are also discreetly produced. Then they are stacked so that the total output for the information part = 1. So, if you shoot, say 4 shots, each shot generates 1/4 the information.
The key is that the information is coincident, that is, there is no variation between the information content except for the amplitude. If there is any difference at all, that difference will be seen as noise.
When C3 Extended came out, there was a routine by which one could do a series of shots with fixed camera location but certain variations such as cars or people or ??? which do not repeat from frame to frame. Summing all those frames in the tool provided would magically remove those elements, but not perfectly. That is the process. When you are stacking the star photos, I don't think you want to remove anything at all from the frames because you are exposing over a pretty long time frame and the individual frames are not identical. When I want to remove noise, the noise is the element that differs frame to frame, in a Gaussian distribution (hopefully!), but the information, say a building,is identical. Obviously, you need a firm platform so I only try this with tripod shots. I'm sure that an algorithm can be derived to do this with hand held images but the noise reduction would suffer.
Essentially, this is an analog process, so the digital implementation has to account for that.
The key to understanding is to ask yourself: What is signal (information) and what is noise, and how do I maximize information? Indeed, how do I know at all what is and if there is information in the data stream.
In the original Star Trek series, there was an episode where the crew had to deal with a hidden renegade, and could not be found with conventional means. So they contrived to set the sensors to read heart beats, and the crew had each of their heart patterns recorded, so that they could be nulled out ie, theirs were "noise". Eventually, only one beat was left and voila! (or is it viola? Ramon?? )
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 8:47 am
From: Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com
images produced in camera are also discreetly produced
:D
Voilà!
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 8:50 am
From: Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com
discreetly
dis·creet (d-skrt)
adj.
1. Marked by, exercising, or showing prudence and wise self-restraint in speech and behavior; circumspect.
2. Free from ostentation or pretension; modest.
[Middle English, from Old French discret, from Medieval Latin discrtus, from Latin, past participle of discernere, to separate, discern; see discern.]
dis·creetly adv.
dis·creetness n.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 8:52 am
From: Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com
Wade,
The D3 camera takes individual photos then stacks them
Up to how many? ;)
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 9:09 am
From: Lawrence_Hudetz@adobeforums.com
Hmmm, the spell check flagged it that way! I didn't check the spell check.
Discrete is what I intended!
But then there is also Descrete.
descrete
Discrete
Descreete
Discreet
All valid terms.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 10:22 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
I think 7 or 9. I forget.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 11:06 am
From: Lawrence_Hudetz@adobeforums.com
I haven't check the D90 yet either.
When I get home....
==============================================================================
TOPIC: So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/df98f10b5350a14c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 12:27 pm
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
What can one do but move on is this a good or bad thing!?
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 1:17 pm
From: Laurentiu_G_Todie@adobeforums.com
soros likes it
(he seems to be a trendsetter)
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 1:24 pm
From: Ramona_Dear@adobeforums.com
.. sure hope not!
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 5:23 pm
From: Silkrooster@adobeforums.com
If it is, you guys are always more than welcome to use the forum on my website. its pretty much dead do to the spammers. It took to long to get an update to the forum. So it's there if you want it. silkrooster.com
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 6:44 pm
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
John Cornicello who was personally involved in setting up this Forum in the first place needs to look into this whole question — and quickly too!
My feeling is that Adobe are unlikely to go raiding our images that are hosted on Pixentral or on our own web sites; but the language used in the TOS does appear to give them the right to do so.
John posted a picture of a Harbour Seal on the Test Site for the New Forums yesterday and that Seal photograph is hosted on his own site — all of which can be viewed (and could be raided) from the Link that he posted in the Forums.
His site contains a lot of high quality and valuable imagery which I am sure that he does not wish Adobe to be able to grab if they feel like it!
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 19 2009 7:51 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
John Cornicello who was personally involved in setting up this Forum in
the first place needs to look into this whole question — and quickly too!
And it is the finest, most user friendly and well laid out forum I have ever used. Kudos to John and whoever else set these forums up.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobe.photography"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adobe.photography+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment