Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Camera enthusiasts
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ffe47c9820c0c1b3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:35 am
From: Marvin

Charles wrote:
> It seems that only a few camera enthusiasts are photographers.
>
> Is it just me?
>
>
Yf you mean professional photographers, hey were part of
this NG in the past, but they seem to have moved to another
discussion group.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 9:13 am
From: Don Stauffer

Charles wrote:
> It seems that only a few camera enthusiasts are photographers.
>
> Is it just me?
>
>
I think there is a mix. I have friends who perport to be photographers
who are really camera collecters- they rarely photograph anything. But
I think the majority of folks in groups like my camera club are more
photographers than camera collectors. The mix varies, but there are
both types in most areas.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 10:55 am
From: George Kerby

On 3/15/09 10:05 AM, in article 724jqbFo72sjU6@mid.individual.net, "ray"
<ray@zianet.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:08:38 -0700, Ockham's Razor wrote:
>
>> In article <722v2eFn6traU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:26:50 -0400, Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems that only a few camera enthusiasts are photographers.
>>>>
>>>> Is it just me?
>>>
>>> Might be able to tell you better if you'd tell us what you mean. Do you
>>> mean 'camera enthusiasts' just buy cameras to sit on the shelf while
>>> 'photographers' actually take photos?
>>
>> I think it is like gun fondlers. They masturbate their guns and
>> worship the Second Amendment. But they do not know how to use them.
>
> Seems kind of messy to me. I suspect a competent psychiatrist could help
> you a lot.
Maybe prevent him from using his razor that caused the mess in the first
place?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Going To The Other Side Of The Tracks With The D3x!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/142d287410ebfbcf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:39 am
From: Paul Furman

Larry Thong wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>>>> ...What did you really take this photo with?
>>>
>>> You tell me?
>>
>> Couldn't. You continually remove the exif information from pictures
>> that you post and the quality is usually so low that they could have
>> been taken with cell phones. Of course, I only post low resolution
>> pics, too, so that is not meant as a criticism.
>
> To the point, does it really matter since I know what I'm shooting with?

I'm reading this in rec.photo.EQUIPMENT.35mm so unless there's something
else you want to demonstrate, yes withholding that info kills the
discussion. Or the point is that a D3x can take web snapshots?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kill Deer Along The Shoreline With The D3x!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7c1993484d84af7c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:46 am
From: me@mine.net

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:54:21 -0400, in rec.photo.digital "Neil Harrington"
<not@home.today> wrote:

>
>Thank goodness for Google. I'd never heard of the killdeer before.

If you have any interest at all in regard to birds you might wish to
bookmark the Cornell Labs All About Birds web site.

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 9:39 am
From: me@mine.net

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:50:31 -0400, in rec.photo.digital "Neil Harrington"
<not@home.today> wrote:

>
>Nice shot, but I don't get the "kill deer" part.

Common plover in the US,
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Killdeer.html

Lowly early morning D300 shot from last month near Jamestown, VA.
file:///G:/Edwardgruf.com/2009-02-14_james_am/slides/_DSC0198.html

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 9:42 am
From: me@mine.net

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:50:31 -0400, in rec.photo.digital "Neil Harrington"
<not@home.today> wrote:

>
>Nice shot, but I don't get the "kill deer" part.

Common plover in the US,
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Killdeer.html

Lowly early morning D300 shot from last month near Jamestown, VA.

Let's try that again,
http://Edwardgruf.com/2009-02-14_james_am/slides/_DSC0198.html

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 10:44 am
From: George Kerby

On 3/15/09 8:59 AM, in article t62qr45tujd9h97fupcgj3tuchb84oijhb@4ax.com,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:54:21 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <not@home.today>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
>> news:2009031418323816807-savageduck@savagenet...
>>> On 2009-03-14 17:50:31 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <not@home.today> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:t_GdnS8ilYGloiHUnZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>> It should be banned!! Fortunately the old D3x was able to document the
>>>>> carnage at 700mm from a safe distance.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Killdeer.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> Nice shot, but I don't get the "kill deer" part.
>>>
>>> Also a nice play on words, "Killdeer" or Charadrius vocifeus.
>>
>> Thank goodness for Google. I'd never heard of the killdeer before.
>>
>> Of course, "Charadrius vocifeus" -- how could I not have known that? ;-)
>>
> The Killdeer, a member of the Plover family, is a common shore bird in
> the US. I can see why Rita/Larry has an attachment to them. They are
> known as the tricksters of birddom. They fake a broken wing to lead
> predators away from their nests.

Just like this one did...

<http://www.divshare.com/download/6817733-273>

But I got too close to her nest and she ran over to guard her eggs. Quite
protective:

<http://www.divshare.com/download/6817734-9fd>

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 10:50 am
From: George Kerby

On 3/15/09 11:39 AM, in article rkbqr4h2jhgfufn71hs4o9cvlvd49qt00l@4ax.com,
"me@mine.net" <me@mine.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:50:31 -0400, in rec.photo.digital "Neil Harrington"
> <not@home.today> wrote:
>
>>
>> Nice shot, but I don't get the "kill deer" part.
>
> Common plover in the US,
> http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Killdeer.html
>
> Lowly early morning D300 shot from last month near Jamestown, VA.
> file:///G:/Edwardgruf.com/2009-02-14_james_am/slides/_DSC0198.html
>
In my previous post on this, I think the first shot wasn't a "broken wing",
but more like what I just read from your reference: "The Killdeer uses a
quite different display, fluffing itself up, displaying its tail over its
head, and running at the beast to attempt to make it change its path."

She sure has her tail up, but looks like 'the beast' was too dumb to change
paths...

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 11:06 am
From: Paul Furman

me@mine.net wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:50:31 -0400, in rec.photo.digital "Neil Harrington"
> <not@home.today> wrote:
>
>> Nice shot, but I don't get the "kill deer" part.
>
> Common plover in the US,
> http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Killdeer.html
>
> Lowly early morning D300 shot from last month near Jamestown, VA.
> file:///G:/Edwardgruf.com/2009-02-14_james_am/slides/_DSC0198.html

fixed from local disk link:
http://www.edwardgruf.com/2009-02-14_james_am/slides/_DSC0198.html

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 1:00 pm
From: me@mine.net

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:50:18 -0500, in rec.photo.digital George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>In my previous post on this, I think the first shot wasn't a "broken wing",
>but more like what I just read from your reference: "The Killdeer uses a
>quite different display, fluffing itself up, displaying its tail over its
>head, and running at the beast to attempt to make it change its path."
>
>She sure has her tail up, but looks like 'the beast' was too dumb to change
>paths...

Would tend to agree with you on this.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/29afe4bf434fb93b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:51 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net

In rec.photo.digital ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
| On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:47:05 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:
|
|> In rec.photo.digital ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote: | On Sat, 07 Mar 2009
|> 00:44:58 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote: |
|> |> In rec.photo.digital ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote: |>
|> |> | So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent
|> |> Kodak | camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any
|> |> personal | experience at all.
|> |>
|> |> It's based on how they are marketed, who they are marketed to, |>
|> specifications, and reviews. No ONE person can try all cameras. That's
|> |> what these methods of making decisions are for. Once Kodak earns a
|> |> reputation for good cameras, and makes models that serve my needs,
|> then |> I will look again.
|> |
|> | I see. I guess that makes perfect sense - to you. So no one looks at |
|> Kodak until they earn a good reputation. How are they supposed to earn a
|> | good reputation if no one will look at them?
|>
|> I'd hear about it, I'm sure. Some reviews would be reporting "Kodak
|> Komeback".
|
| If no one looks at them, who is going to report it?

I would expect reviewers would look.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:53 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net

In rec.photo.digital ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
| On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:48:45 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:
|
|> In rec.photo.digital ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote: | On Sat, 07 Mar 2009
|> 08:18:20 +0000, Bruce wrote: |
|> |> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
|> |>>So, in other words, you've not tried a P series or any other recent
|> |>>Kodak camera. You've simply decided they are all junk without any
|> |>>personal experience at all.
|> |>>
|> |>>At least that puts yours remarks in perspective. |>
|> |>
|> |> I'm a professional photographer. Kodak doesn't offer any digital |>
|> cameras that are suitable for professional work. |>
|> |> Why on earth would I be interested in trying any of Kodak's |>
|> consumer-grade junk?
|> |
|> | So, as a professional photographer, why are you wasting time in |
|> rec.photo.digital? I had assumed 'rec' implied recreation rather than |
|> profession.
|>
|> There isn't a "pro" top level group. So we had to crash the party on
|> "rec".
|
| Well and good. I just don't appreciate being told that all Kodak cameras
| are junk because they don't make a 'professional' level camera - that
| seems to be the argument here.

The bottom half of consumer cameras are junk ... by definition. Junk cameras
go to the bottom ... by definition.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Field of view
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4e2ddd5ce0344a1b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:57 am
From: ASAAR

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:58:00 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

>>> You might like to consider how a 24mm lens on a 4:3 and a 28mm
>>> lens on a 16:9 aspect ratio sensor compare....
>>
>> Umm ... are you suggesting that you know something that I don't,
>> or that I might not have considered? See "superior knowledge",
>> above. When discussing FOV earlier you mentioned only two of the
>> sensor's dimensions. You might like to also consider its diagonal,
>> as some occasionally do.
>
> All I'm saying is that sometimes vertical FoV matters, sometimes
> horizontal FoV, depending what you are trying to photograph. The
> different aspect ratio will also affect the appearance of the final image.

Yes, sometimes it does and more often than not, landscape
photographers are more interested in the horizontal FOV and
architectural photographers may be more evenly split. And all I was
saying (well, we both were saying more) was that this wasn't
sufficient reason to disparage calculations using crop factors,
especially when there was no good reason to assume extreme accuracy
was desired by the OP as shown by his modest request. After all,
you didn't just say "This is another way to calculate FOV that may
be preferable if you need great accuracy", you said instead,
suggesting more omniscience than was warranted, "Ignore crop factor,
and use the actual active area dimensions of the sensor.".

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 11:36 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <421qr45pm4golt80kc0t6gt6qpa62ega8g@4ax.com>, ASAAR says...

> I'm sure that you have used those formulas, but really, what kind
> of accuracy is really needed by casual photographers, as opposed to
> engineers or those doing scientific research. How many digits of
> precision did you require. How many do you think the OP needed?

Sorry, what exactly is the problem in using the simple formulas which
David kindly posted?

FoV (H) = 2 * ArcTan (sensor-semi-width / focal-length)

FoV (V) = 2 * ArcTan (sensor-semi-height / focal-length)

These are simple formulas which give accurate results, which anybody who
has been at school easily understands.
Using the crop factor is unnecessary and less accurate than these simple
formulas.

If the accurate formulas were complex and required a significant
computational effort, I'd be in favour of using the crop factor
approximation, but these formulas are plain simple.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AC chargers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/93fdc2521f559b28?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:58 am
From: tnom@mucks.net

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:19:02 -0700, Miles
<mileschap@REMOVEMEpacbell.net> wrote:

>I have 2 chargers for my Nokia phone: One is a Nokia that charges 500
>mA and the other is a BS that charges at 800 mA. FYI, the batteries
>being charged are Samya BL-4C which is rated at 550mAh and a Nokia BL-4C
>which doesn't provide the info, however I have another old Nokia charger
>(European style plug) that reads 800mAh.
>
>Presumably the BS charging rate is slower. Difference in battery wear
>and tear? Is there any harm in using a higher mAh rate, and if so, up
>to what rate?
>
>Miles

The Nokia BL-4C is a 720mah battery. You can use either charger.
The battery being charged will only take the current it needs as the
voltage between the two chargers is the same.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 8:59 am
From: me@mine.net

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:19:02 -0700, in rec.photo.digital Miles
<mileschap@REMOVEMEpacbell.net> wrote:

What counts is the rating of the charger. Theoretically, the slower the
better. Batteries heat up during charging and heat is the killer. In
practice you also need to balance how long it takes to charge with battery
life. There is no easy answer.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7694b9e85e8630b7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 9:03 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net

In rec.photo.digital rpd <remailer@reece.net.au> wrote:

| In an interview at the PMA (Photo Marketing Association)
| show in Las Vegas, Olympus SLR boss Akira Watanabe
| confirmed what we have known for a long time: That more
| pixels doesn't mean better pictures. Speaking to ZDNet,
| Watanabe said that "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough
| for covering most applications most customers need. We have
| no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System."

Translation: we're not going into the high-end or pro market.

For the rest, I'd agree, 12 MP is enough.

| Watanabe also thinks that SLR focusing is set to change.
| Instead of having a separate focus module as is done today,
| he predicts that soon systems using the image sensor will
| take over. Right now, this method is used by compact
| cameras and SLRs in live view mode. As you may have
| noticed, it's slow. Watanabe thinks that it will soon be a
| lot faster.

This is a sign that camera manufacturers understand the value of a flipping
mirror is much less with electronic sensors. With film, you had to be sure
that the film never got exposed until the shot was taken. That plus through
the lens focusing meant having a focal plane shutter and a flipping mirror.
Since the electronic sensor doesn't have the requirement of avoiding any light
until the picture is taken, the focal plane shutter and mirror is no longer
a requirement. They can be used. But a system with in-the-lens leaf shutter,
with electronic viewfinder, and electronic focus (even if manually operated),
is the future of cameras.

| We can only say "well done" to Olympus. The company has a
| history of innovation. Perhaps now the megapixel race is
| finally over, we'll get some fun new toys to play with.

No. They just aren't going into the high end. The high end market will be
hard competition from Canon, Hassleblad, Leica, Nikon, etc. Why bother in
a losing fight. 12 MP is enough for computer backgrounds and printed photos.
Pros will need more. Hobbyists will want more. There will be more. They
will cost more, too.

We'll have a wide variety of cameras with a wide range of pixels sizes, with
12 MP probably being the base for most consumers.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 11:39 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <gpj8sf2207t@news1.newsguy.com>, says...

> Translation: we're not going into the high-end or pro market.

Accurate translation: we are not going into the market of people who
need a camera with a large sensor.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 11:42 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net

In rec.photo.digital T.Adler <tadler@infoforall.org> wrote:

| I know plenty of pro photographers that will jump ship in a heartbeat if
| some unknown company with even zero market-shares comes up with some better
| innovations instead of the tired and old mechanically noisy slow-sync crap
| designs from last century.

You mean the camera architecture designed for the limitations of the old
chemical based photography?

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 11:43 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net

In rec.photo.digital Keith Nuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

| Question: At 12mp has the camera sensor hit the electron tunneling wall
| that the cpu manufactures hit a couple of years ago?

In terms of efficient photon conversion, not even close. But in terms of
cheap ways to shift out pixels, probably.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 11:46 am
From: phil-news-nospam@ipal.net

In rec.photo.digital semoi <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote:

| Unlimited megapixels for creating more utterly pointless images at ever
| higher resolutions that no one cares about and will be viewed through a
| medium, print or online, where all those megapixels are utterly irrelevant
| and largely discarded.

So I wonder why it is that people are still stitching together non-wide-angle
photos to make wide and panorama photos at high resolution.

The fact is, most consumers have no need for more for what they do. The pros
and hobbyist do things that can use the extra resolution. They will need the
lenses that can do it, too.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Should I crop this photo?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/31c487f3c36a16fb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 9:35 am
From: me@mine.net

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:30:20 -0400, in rec.photo.digital M-M
<nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote:

>Or otherwise enhance it? Or just leave it as is?
>
>This is full-frame but reduced to 30% of original 10 MP size.
>
>Opinions welcome.
>
>http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_6118dt.jpg

As posed this is a totally unrestricted question. As probably with any
photo, especially wildlife, who is your intended audience when you ask this
question and how do you intend to present it? Birders will probably prefer
a crop which maximizes bird detail in some context which adds to the total
scene. If the scene dosn;t really add then a close crop of the birds might
be preferred. I looked at a close 4hix3wide crop such as the tree is not
centered, nor were the birds, going a bit along with David's suggestion.
The horizontal center of the crop was near the middle bird's beak. Hard to
say it really was better.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: LCD Screen Protector
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6430a2bcfd95e218?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 10:05 am
From: "Miguel"

"Irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:6zym2yb3ong0$.e1n6fhww7g8m$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:26:09 -0500, Miguel wrote:
>
>> Hello:
>>
>> According to your experiences, to clean of internal form the Protector of
>> the Screen LCD of a compact camera, Could It be some problem if I
>> dismantle
>> that part of the Camera or It must be did only by a person with this
>> experience?
>>
>> I'd like to approach to know your comments of my last photos:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/sets/72157614932141160/
>
> Your pictures are very nice, especially for indoor photos.
> Leave the LCD alone, it is not affecting the picture quality at all.

Thanks for the answers. These are the last photos of the next moment:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/sets/72157615245915120/

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New photos,looking for imput
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d546d6286796e06?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2009 12:49 pm
From: snapshot_1124

Hey everyone ,
I'm Kaitlin and I put a post up about a month ago and asked for
comments on a few of my pictures.
Everyone's comments helped so much and I just wanted to thank you
all .
I've put a few new pictures on my flickr site.

Here's the link to my photostream : http://www.flickr.com/photos/snapshot1124/

I went online looking for help on how to improve my pictures and
everything that you all said that I need work on .

I found an amazing site and the instructor is great. If anyone wants
the website then email me and I will gladly give it to you. I see such
an improvement with my photos and know much more about how to use my
camera.

my email is woahhbabii...@ymail.com

Thanks,
Kaitlin

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

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