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: Sebago shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bc5b64e22ccf034f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 11:20 pm
From: fgadfghafgafdg@163.com

Footwear (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Paul Smith shoes
Jordan shoes
Bape shoes
Chanel shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
D&G shoes
Dior shoes
ED hardy shoes
Evisu shoes
Fendi shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Gucci shoes `
Hogan shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Lv shoes
Prada shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Timberland shoes
Tous shoes
Ugg shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Ice cream shoes
Sebago shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Lacoste shoes
Air force one shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
TODS shoes
AF shoes

Footwear (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Paul Smith shoes
Jordan shoes
Bape shoes
Chanel shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
D&G shoes
Dior shoes
ED hardy shoes
Evisu shoes
Fendi shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Gucci shoes
Hogan shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Lv shoes
Prada shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Timberland shoes
Tous shoes
Ugg shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Ice cream shoes
Sebago shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Lacoste shoes
Air force one shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
TODS shoes
AF shoes

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do Chinamen think camera users buy a lot of clothes?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c407c989e62860c9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 1:48 am
From: Chris H

In message <KdOdne_QZKKeCCzUnZ2dnUVZ_i0LAAAA@giganews.com>, Rich
<none@nowhere.com> writes
>Would explain all their posts.

I think the opposite is true.. They think most people involved with
photography NEED cloths... Most of the pictures I see are people who
seem to have lost all theirs :-)

(all in the best possible taste of course :_)))

I have notices a huge increase in spam of late in the NG's Trouble is
it is difficult to know how to stop it. I think it will eventually it
will lead to the demise of Usenet.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Please, check out my digital art website
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/492263660129e835?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 1:53 am
From: "Marcin"

Very good job,

Best Regards
Marcin
www.gorgolewski.com

U¿ytkownik "Michael" <michaelwh@verizon.net> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:aOVxl.1679$6%.637@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I've been uploading new artwork at www.PixelKat.com Always interested
> in feedback. I get to use my friends 5D occasionally for the pieces.
> Webbuilding skills are not my strong suit so please forgive... :-)
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 2:12 am
From: George

Michael wrote:
> I've been uploading new artwork at www.PixelKat.com Always interested in
> feedback. I get to use my friends 5D occasionally for the pieces.
> Webbuilding skills are not my strong suit so please forgive... :-)
> Thanks,
> Michael
>

I HATE CATS!

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 4:16 am
From: "Pete D"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vfkgs49s051opk8a3v6n22ti0gi9u1457u@4ax.com...
> On 24 Mar 2009 02:57:52 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:27:50 +0000, Michael wrote:
>>
>>> I've been uploading new artwork at www.PixelKat.com Always
>>> interested in feedback. I get to use my friends 5D occasionally for the
>>> pieces. Webbuilding skills are not my strong suit so please forgive...
>>> :-) Thanks,
>>> Michael
>>
>>1) having to click to enter a site is obnoxious. Every additional click
>>looses potential viewers.
>
> Yet it didn't loose (sic) you.
>

How the freaking hell do you navigate around a site without clicking Ray?
And amazingly he managed to get the whole site tested, freaking amazing Ray,
truly wonderous.

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 4:37 am
From: Pat

On Mar 23, 11:54 pm, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:24:50 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
> > On 24 Mar 2009 02:57:52 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:27:50 +0000, Michael wrote:
>
> >>> I've been uploading new artwork atwww.PixelKat.com Always
> >>> interested in feedback. I get to use my friends 5D occasionally for
> >>> the pieces. Webbuilding skills are not my strong suit so please
> >>> forgive... :-) Thanks,
> >>> Michael
>
> >>1) having to click to enter a site is obnoxious. Every additional click
> >>looses potential viewers.
>
> > Yet it didn't loose (sic) you.
>
> Actually, it did - that's as far as I went.
>
>
>
> >>2) it does not validate to the w3c standards (seewww.w3c.org- html
> >>validator). This may limit access to recent palm top devices which will
> >>probably not render properly.
>
> > You mean those little-bitty screens that wouldn't show the artwork to
> > any advantage? Probably a good thing for Michael.
>
> Not good if you'd like a presence with younger folks and travelers.

Sorry, but this is a PHOTO newsgroup, not a web design one. So while
it is okay to make comments on the website design, you 're supposed to
actually take a look at the pictures. You have succeeded in not
seeing the forest through the trees.

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 7:05 am
From: "Michael"

wow. obviously this is the dumbest group to get intelligent feedback from.
sheesh dudes...what a stupid bunch of post.
thanks anyway.

"George" <george@tiscali.net> wrote in message
news:49c8a40c$0$3336$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org...
> Michael wrote:
>> I've been uploading new artwork at www.PixelKat.com Always interested
>> in feedback. I get to use my friends 5D occasionally for the pieces.
>> Webbuilding skills are not my strong suit so please forgive... :-)
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>>
>
> I HATE CATS!

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 7:49 am
From: ray

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:37:23 -0700, Pat wrote:

> On Mar 23, 11:54 pm, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:24:50 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>> > On 24 Mar 2009 02:57:52 GMT, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:27:50 +0000, Michael wrote:
>>
>> >>> I've been uploading new artwork atwww.PixelKat.com Always
>> >>> interested in feedback. I get to use my friends 5D occasionally for
>> >>> the pieces. Webbuilding skills are not my strong suit so please
>> >>> forgive... :-) Thanks,
>> >>> Michael
>>
>> >>1) having to click to enter a site is obnoxious. Every additional
>> >>click looses potential viewers.
>>
>> > Yet it didn't loose (sic) you.
>>
>> Actually, it did - that's as far as I went.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>2) it does not validate to the w3c standards (seewww.w3c.org- html
>> >>validator). This may limit access to recent palm top devices which
>> >>will probably not render properly.
>>
>> > You mean those little-bitty screens that wouldn't show the artwork to
>> > any advantage? Probably a good thing for Michael.
>>
>> Not good if you'd like a presence with younger folks and travelers.
>
> Sorry, but this is a PHOTO newsgroup, not a web design one. So while it
> is okay to make comments on the website design, you 're supposed to
> actually take a look at the pictures. You have succeeded in not seeing
> the forest through the trees.

Geez - I guess I missed that when it said "check out my digital art
website" rather than "check out my photos".

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 7:50 am
From: ray

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:16:13 +1100, Pete D wrote:

> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:vfkgs49s051opk8a3v6n22ti0gi9u1457u@4ax.com...
>> On 24 Mar 2009 02:57:52 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:27:50 +0000, Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been uploading new artwork at www.PixelKat.com Always
>>>> interested in feedback. I get to use my friends 5D occasionally for
>>>> the pieces. Webbuilding skills are not my strong suit so please
>>>> forgive... :-) Thanks,
>>>> Michael
>>>
>>>1) having to click to enter a site is obnoxious. Every additional click
>>>looses potential viewers.
>>
>> Yet it didn't loose (sic) you.
>>
>>
> How the freaking hell do you navigate around a site without clicking
> Ray? And amazingly he managed to get the whole site tested, freaking
> amazing Ray, truly wonderous.

Obviously, you don't navigate around without clicking. But when you go to
the site you should enter the site rather than be presented with the
equivalent of 'click here to enter'.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 8:12 am
From: John McWilliams

ray wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:16:13 +1100, Pete D wrote:

>>>
>> How the freaking hell do you navigate around a site without clicking
>> Ray? And amazingly he managed to get the whole site tested, freaking
>> amazing Ray, truly wonderous.
>
> Obviously, you don't navigate around without clicking. But when you go to
> the site you should enter the site rather than be presented with the
> equivalent of 'click here to enter'.

Where is this written as an absolute??

Michael-

Agreed that your thread generated more heat than light.

You have some nice work in there, but I am speaking only of the
retouching/fixing of other photog's mistakes or models that need
touching up. (Only 'cause I don't care for digital art; it may be superb.)

I have specific questions on specific photos, but perhaps this isn't the
time or place.

--
John McWilliams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How convert camera's bloated Motion Jpegs to MPEG-1?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/81df20a1782ca2be?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 4:20 am
From: "Marcin"

You can use Image Ready (adobe) to make animations (frames are made from
your photos, drawings),
VirtualDub is a great tool as Bob said,
personally I use VirtualDub for video without sound,
prepare the sound with CDex (eg mp3 format) and add the soundtrack to video
with NanDub.

Best Regards
Martin
www.gorgolewski.com

U¿ytkownik "janice smith" <smith@mail.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:gq5asf$68c$1@news.albasani.net...
> Is there any free software which will do a reasonable job of
> compressing my bloated AVIs to MPEG-1?
>
> They are from my little Casio Exelim still camera. It records
> movie clips as AVIs containing "Motion JPEG" but these AVIs are
> huge. A 100MB file plays for only 2 minutes!
>
> I haven't tried this before, can you suggest some good settings
> for a start with the software?
>
> My Motion JPEGs are 640x480 at 30 frames/sec. I thought to go
> MPEG-1 but any movie format is ok if it plays easily on most
> equipment.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: My D80 & D90 gallery has moved
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4fb9bb1c3bb5f561?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 4:41 am
From: Pat

On Mar 22, 12:56 pm, eNo <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> New URL ishttp://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.

I'm sorry, but what relevance does D80 or D90 have to anything. No
one (except maybe Rich) gives a darn what camera you use. It's all
about the images not the process.

Don't believe me? Then just answer this one question: What brand
paint did Rembrandt use?

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 4:44 am
From: Pat

On Mar 22, 11:39 pm, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:56:39 -0700, eNo wrote:
> > New URL ishttp://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
>
> FWIW - it does not come close to meeting standards. See the HTML
> Validator atwww.w3c.org.

Ray, do you have any interest in photos at all or are you just
interested in the web sites? I've never seen anyone ignore the
content just to comment on the technique. Seems kind of weird.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 6:08 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-03-24 04:41:54 -0700, Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us> said:

> On Mar 22, 12:56 pm, eNo <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> New URL ishttp://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
>
> I'm sorry, but what relevance does D80 or D90 have to anything. No
> one (except maybe Rich) gives a darn what camera you use. It's all
> about the images not the process.
>
> Don't believe me? Then just answer this one question: What brand
> paint did Rembrandt use?

Dutchboy :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 6:31 am
From: eNo

On Mar 23, 8:30 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:34:29 -0700 (PDT), eNo <grandepat...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 23, 1:29 pm, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:25:54 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
> >>>> ray wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:08:22 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
> >>>>>> ray wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:56:39 -0700, eNo wrote:
> >>>>>>>> New URL ishttp://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
> >>>>>>> FWIW - it does not come close to meeting standards. See the HTML
> >>>>>>> Validator atwww.w3c.org.
> >>>>>> Since it works fine in Safari, there's not any worth to the standards
> >>>>>> to this viewer.
> >>>>>> Is it seriously broken in any browser or platform?
> >>>>> There certainly is a "worth to the standards". It will most likely work
> >>>>> on most full computer systems. It will most likely not render properly
> >>>>> on the newer generation palm devices. Up to you how much audience you
> >>>>> want to loose.
> >>>> In theory, yes. In this specific case, really, how broken is the site?
> >>>> If it works for most people and "does not come close to meeting
> >>>> standards", then the standards are a bit arbitrary, no? Why did you feel
> >>>> the need to point that out?
> >>> Well shit, I don't know. Maybe because anything worth doing is worth
> >>> doing right? Believe it or not, standards are there for a reason.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> Hey, ray, man. Easy. I'll fix it, okay?
>
> > Validators will pick up deprecated tags, but deprecated tags still
> > work.
>
> > eNo might prefer to follow the rule of "If it ain't broke, don't fix
> > it" and spend the time taking more photographs.
>
> > What I can't understand is why someone is so dweebish that they run
> > validators on pages they have no personal interest in. It's like
> > re-adding some stranger's grocery check-out tape just because they
> > know where to find a calculator.
>
> You do know how to create great analogies, tony. Well done! I dunno if
> it was dweebish or not, but it sure was gratuitous........
>
> --
> john mcwilliams

LOL. Thanks for the support, guys. Before I went a-fixin' my page, I
went around and entered a few of my favorite Websites (Flickr,
DPReview) into the validator... I'm feeling pretty good about my site
now.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 6:35 am
From: eNo

On Mar 24, 4:41 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 12:56 pm, eNo <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > New URL ishttp://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
>
> I'm sorry, but what relevance does D80 or D90 have to anything. No
> one (except maybe Rich) gives a darn what camera you use. It's all
> about the images not the process.
>
> Don't believe me? Then just answer this one question: What brand
> paint did Rembrandt use?

Did you go to my Website. If you go there you'll see that it is not so
much an altar to these two cameras as it is a venue for my images.
BTW, the jump in logic from camera used to saying is not about the
process leads you to, well, a pretty bad conclusion. Even Rembrandt
would tell you it is very much about the artistic process, and I'm
very sure he didn't use crappy paint in that process, either.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 6:38 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Pat wrote:
> On Mar 22, 12:56 pm, eNo <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> New URL ishttp://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
>
> I'm sorry, but what relevance does D80 or D90 have to anything. No
> one (except maybe Rich) gives a darn what camera you use. It's all
> about the images not the process.
>
> Don't believe me? Then just answer this one question: What brand
> paint did Rembrandt use?

He made his own. Commercial artists' colors didn't become available until
about two centuries after Rembrandt died.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 7:20 am
From: John McWilliams

eNo wrote:
> On Mar 23, 8:30 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:34:29 -0700 (PDT), eNo <grandepat...@gmail.com>

>>> eNo might prefer to follow the rule of "If it ain't broke, don't fix
>>> it" and spend the time taking more photographs.
>>> What I can't understand is why someone is so dweebish that they run
>>> validators on pages they have no personal interest in. It's like
>>> re-adding some stranger's grocery check-out tape just because they
>>> know where to find a calculator.
>> You do know how to create great analogies, tony. Well done! I dunno if
>> it was dweebish or not, but it sure was gratuitous........

> LOL. Thanks for the support, guys. Before I went a-fixin' my page, I
> went around and entered a few of my favorite Websites (Flickr,
> DPReview) into the validator... I'm feeling pretty good about my site
> now.

Well, now, there's that time you drove 7 miles over the speed limit
downtown, and then........

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Teleconverters and Telescopes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32556fde56fd3d37?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 11:46 am
From: Twibil

On Mar 23, 10:36 pm, Troy Piggins <usenet-0...@piggo.com> wrote:

> Oh, make sure you don't take too much time between composition
> and shooting. You'd be surprised how quickly the moon moves at
> those sort of focal lengths.

Hint: read up on your Galileo.

~Pete

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus admits a try at "pro" would gut their 4/3rds system
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8ef3252b6bf18872?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 11:51 am
From: SMS

RichA wrote:
> I think that pretty much sums up what it would cost Olympus if they
> made a go for the professional market in meaningful way. The end of
> 4/3rds as a viable sensor format.

But it also means the end of Olympus as a viable digital camera company.

While it seems like it's far too late for them to try to catch up with
Canon, Nikon, and Sony, the no-go scenario is even worse, they clearly
can't build a viable business on 5% market share of 4:3.

By stopping at 12 megapixels, they're essentially going into harvest
mode. They'll make minimal investments in new products, with just minor
tweaks for new models, and sell what they can. No big investments in
sensors or development of a professional system.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 12:52 pm
From: Alan Browne

SMS wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> I think that pretty much sums up what it would cost Olympus if they
>> made a go for the professional market in meaningful way. The end of
>> 4/3rds as a viable sensor format.
>
> But it also means the end of Olympus as a viable digital camera company.
>
> While it seems like it's far too late for them to try to catch up with
> Canon, Nikon, and Sony, the no-go scenario is even worse, they clearly
> can't build a viable business on 5% market share of 4:3.
>
> By stopping at 12 megapixels, they're essentially going into harvest
> mode. They'll make minimal investments in new products, with just minor
> tweaks for new models, and sell what they can. No big investments in
> sensors or development of a professional system.

As Lee Iacocca used to say:

"Lead, follow or get out of the way."

Looks like they've picked the third option. They are no longer in the
35mm format world and can't grow much further within their 4/3 world.

Honestly, they could make a strong push for the news photojournalist
world (web, newspapers, magazines) as the more compact system (and
perhaps esp. micro-4/3) should make that set of pj's happier and 12 Mpix
is 3 - 4 times what is typically needed for web and newspapers and
adequate (and then some) for most magazines.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 2:03 pm
From: SMS

Alan Browne wrote:

> Looks like they've picked the third option. They are no longer in the
> 35mm format world and can't grow much further within their 4/3 world.

Hence the term "harvest mode." A lot of semiconductor companies have
lines of products that they make no investment in in terms of updated
products, or sales and marketing, but that provide steady revenue long
after the initial investment has been paid back. You can sometimes build
a pretty good business on these products, there just isn't any growth
opportunity.

> Honestly, they could make a strong push for the news photojournalist
> world (web, newspapers, magazines) as the more compact system (and
> perhaps esp. micro-4/3) should make that set of pj's happier and 12 Mpix
> is 3 - 4 times what is typically needed for web and newspapers and
> adequate (and then some) for most magazines.

They don't have the necessary lenses for many photo-journalist tasks.

The wonderful thing about a full-line manufacturer is that you're not
constantly being constrained by "well most users will rarely need such a
lens (or other piece of equipment)." If you need an odd piece of
equipment it's out there, either to buy or rent. There's no
rationalization necessary.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: the Netherlands - Kenya March 2009 Travel Pictures Country next to
Country
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b58201049e6ed610?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 1:04 pm
From: BoBi <1kdg@scarlet.be>

Dear,

This website the Netherlands-Kenya displays several pages each one
containing two comparative (similar, contrastive, ...) photos. Let
your thoughts flow freely and enjoy:
http://www.dongo.org/the_netherlands-kenya/list_11_en/a_dutch_church_and_a_kenyan_mosque.html
Click the "-->"-button on the page opened for the following pictures.

Best regards, BoBi

Annex: overview of the photos:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon G10 & how to get the most IQ
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aef7d13c8b6659bb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 1:43 pm
From: Kulvinder Singh Matharu

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:27:36 +1300, "Colin.D" <nospam@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT), mail@potd.com.au wrote:
[snip]
>> I'm not sure I'd use DXO, but PTLens and PS4 (both of which I already
>> own) should do the job perfectly.
>
>The point about DxO Optics is the program is completely automatic once
[snip]
>The really big thing is, you show it the folder full of images, tell it
>to start, and it automatically corrects every image without further
>intervention. On my computer, a 3 GHz P4 machine with a gig of memory,
>it processes an image in about 40 seconds, and will process three images
>at once, so an average of about 14 seconds per image. The biggest run I
>have done was about 800 raw images of Hong Hong, which I let run overnight.
[snip]
>PTLens and PS4 work, but as I understand it PTlens is a manual
>operation. I guess you might set up an action in PS to automate it, but
>then it is not able to correct the many other aspects that DxO does.

Sorry, I meant Photoshop CS4, not PS4! DxO sounds good...I don't
batch many photos, preferring to work on each individual photo.
Running PTLens is no big step as a Photoshop filter as part of my
workflow.I've got something that works for me now, and I don't feel
the need to update at the present time. Perhaps in the future! Do DxO
have a trial version? Definitely worth a look.

Thanks.
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Calibrating the monitor of an iMAC
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b1441ff4c6737789?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 1:56 pm
From: "Mark2149@cox.net"

On Mar 23, 5:40 pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <gq8317$mkf$1@qmul>, whisky-dave
>
> <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> > back to the present I've noticed that we also have the options for the
> > printer to
> > manage the colour, and there are options for setting the type of paper
> > which defines how much ink is placed on the paper.
> > I've often wanted to get a 'perfect print' and be able to test this sort of
> > thing
> > by trying different papers and inks.
> > i.e does an Espson printer really need epson ink and epson paper to do the
> > job....
>
> using alternate inks can sometimes be better and it can also be worse.
> some inks are more likely to clog the printer, for instance. if you
> get quality inks, that probably won't happen, but the colours can be
> different since the replacement inks won't be identical to what epson
> ships. thus, you will need a new printer profile.
>
> > I've yet to answer these things and probably never will have them answered,
> > but with so many having different characteristics from the ink to the
> > printer to
> > screen, and then the human eye, I actually had someone over who said they
> > couldn't
> > read the on-line instructions because the text was black on red and they
> > were colour blind
> > I'm just wondering just how important such calibration is unless you're a
> > pro.
> > or doing a scientific study/experiment.
>
> it's very useful and it's not hard to do (or have done).

Thanks for the spirited discussion on this topic. I learned things.
The 20" iMAC is probably not the best instrument on which to do color
prints. But that's what I have. I finally remembered that the
Spyder3PRINT software has a provision a the end for adjusting the
printer profiles you make. These adjustments are still ad hoc, but
will probably be sufficient to get reasonable prints made. The lesson
is that professional quality work requires professional quality
equipment. Mark Schupack

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

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