Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jamestown Eagle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0f9b2c4417cbb568?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 10:00 am
From: Rich

me@mine.net wrote in news:58e8s49ilt7o6l7nq0ij68m7kr5s8aulfn@4ax.com:

> Bald eagle on the eastern shore of the James River a few miles south of
> historic Jamestowne, VA.
>
> http://edwardgruf.com/2009-02-14_james_am/slides/_DSC0235.jpg
>
> http://edwardgruf.com/2009-02-14_james_am/slides/_DSC0237.jpg
>
> http://edwardgruf.com/2009-02-14_james_am/slides/_DSC0238.jpg
>

Very nice shots.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 10:05 am
From: Rich

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:erMxl.4080$Lr6.574@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:

> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <4%Qwl.14767$W06.12508@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>>
>>> 4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS
>>> film.
>>
>> It matters to all those who want to have a smaller camera with a
>> large sensor and excellent lenses (due to the telecentric design).
>>
>> Smaller sensors allow that. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge
>> and heavy full-frame DSLR. Volume and weight of lenses go up with the
>> cube of the (linear) sensor size.
>
> First you say people want smaller cameras with larger sensors, then
> you say that smaller sensors allow smaller cameras. You're very
> confused.

Small DSLRs are limited in one sense, they are not comfortable to hold with
larger lenses. We need compact interchangeable lens cameras (like
Olympus's proposed u4/3rds models) but have to work within their
constraints, which means menu-driven commands and small lenses.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 2:33 pm
From: Kennedy McEwen

In article <pqudnfp4ctvDXFrUnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com>, Rich
<none@nowhere.com> writes
>
>Small DSLRs are limited in one sense, they are not comfortable to hold with
>larger lenses.

Quite the opposite actually, since with large lenses you (or at least I
and many others) support the lens in one hand by the zoom ring, with the
other hand on the shutter release. That way, the size of the camera
body doesn't make any difference at all. Now, with a small wide angle
prime or pancake lens, both hands are usually on the camera and that can
seem difficult if you aren't used to it.

I used full frame Olympus OM film bodies that were smaller than any of
today's DSLRs (OM-1, OM-2, OM-4, OM-2n, OM4Ti, OM-1n, OM-2SP, OM-3 in
that order of acquisition) with some pretty large lenses for over 30
years without any discomfort at all. With the body being that small,
all your attention was on the lens - the body just needed to "click" on
command.

Of course, Olympus OM cameras had one significant ergonomic advantage
which helped holding the small camera as described, although many
newcomers found it difficult to get used to: the shutter speed control
was around the lens barrel. So all of the exposure functions were
controlled by the lens hand.

I for one, would love a full frame OM sized camera - even one from
Olympus.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 3:09 pm
From: nospam

In article <HUmLqMBABAyJFwuU@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy McEwen
<rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I for one, would love a full frame OM sized camera - even one from
> Olympus.

i'd love an om-4 digital. that (and it's siblings) are the only
cameras that i know of that implemented spot metering where it was
actually useful.

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 10:20 am
From: isw

In article <slrngsdhcr.2ja.justin.0903@Macintosh.local>,
Justin C <justin.0903@purestblue.com> wrote:

> In article
> <eeff20e1-b358-407c-92cb-feaa5901f033@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Mark2149@cox.net wrote:
> > I have an iMAC about a year old. I am trying to calibrate the monitor
> > to assist in making photos. I have used the Spyder3 software and
> > colorimeter in the process. The problem is that the prints all come
> > out noticeably darker than the image on the screen. The Spyder people
> > say this is Apple's fault. The brightness control (really the
> > backlighting control) on the display will not sufficiently reduce the
> > brightness to get an accurate calibration. The only work around I see
> > is to reduce the brightness in Photoshop below what looked good on
> > the
> > screen and hope the printer responds by yielding a print of the
> > correct brightness. But this adjustment is completely ad hoc and is
> > just the kind of fiddling I hoped to avoid using the calibration
> > routines.
> > Two questions: 1) Does anybody have a better way to use Spyder3 to
> > compensate for this problem? 2) If not, what alternative calibration
> > system might be used that will avoid (or at least mitigate) this
> > problem? I read good things about the Macbeth systems, but will they
> > run into the same problem?
> > Thanks for the help.
>
> I'm not familiar with the spyder. The art dept at work used to use a
> Pantone Huey and ended up dumping it because it screwed with what he'd
> go used to, compensating naturally for the change in the light.
>
> Have you calibrated your printer?
>
> If the shot you take is correctly exposed as per a light meter, and it
> looks right on the screen, then it's your printer that's making a mess
> of it.

Far better than looking at it on the screen (even IF you've done a
calibration) is to use the measuring tools in an app such as Photoshop:
do areas that you know should be white (and black) measure that way?
Because if they do, the rest of the picture is probably OK too.

Then, if the printer prints the "white" areas as any other color, the
printer has a problem.

Isaac

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 1:40 pm
From: D-Mac

Ray Fischer wrote:
> isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
>> In article <gq6nq4$737$2@news.albasani.net>,
>> D-Mac <alienjones@y7mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <gq6bje$mvk$1@news.albasani.net>, D-Mac
>>>> <alienjones@y7mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Your problem is in the monitor set-up. Apple (for some odd reason) use a
>>>>> gamma of 1.8 for their screens when every other computer on the planet
>>>>> uses 2.2. Try setting your Gamma to 2.2 (The screen will darken) and
>>>>> then calibrate it again.
>>>> they *used* to use 1.8, which started long ago so that the screen
>>>> matched the old laserwriter printers. they now use 2.2, but it really
>>>> makes no difference as whatever setting it's at is incorporated into
>>>> the display profile.
>>>>
>>>>> Almost 100% of Apple monitor calibration problems are because the
>>>>> starting point has nothing to do with colour. You need the get the gamma
>>>>> right before you start.
>>>> nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>> Unless you paid $2000 plus for the monitor alone, it is not a backlit
>>>>> monitor and you have no control over that function.
>>>> all lcd displays are backlit.
>>>
>>> You are so full of bullshit, nospam, I thing you ought have a bowl scan
>>> for the pox.
>> Which parts are wrong, please -- I'd really like to know.
>
> So would I. Sure, some B&W LCD displays are not backlit but all of
> the ones that serve as TVs and computer monitors are.
>

For you who walk around with eyes closed.

"The XL20's LED-based backlighting system is another in a long line of
technology firsts". Read the whole story here:

http://www.samsung.com/au/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=5064&gltype=

Just because a cheap monitor has a light behind the screen to let you
see an image in the dark does not mean it is a "Backlit" monitor.

If idiots who think they know it all bothered to do some research before
dribbling off at the mouth, they might gain a grain of knowledge. It's
hard to imagine your pea brain having enough space to do that Ray, but
at least try occasionally would you?

If you got your head out of your ass for a while and washed your face,
you'd realise you ain't that cool dude with sunnies you thought you were.

D-Mac.info

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 2:36 pm
From: nospam

In article <gq8s48$33t$1@news.albasani.net>, D-Mac
<alienjones@y7mail.com> wrote:

> "The XL20's LED-based backlighting system is another in a long line of
> technology firsts". Read the whole story here:
>
> http://www.samsung.com/au/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=5064&gltype=

that refers to *led* backlighting as opposed to cold cathode
fluorescent tubes.

> Just because a cheap monitor has a light behind the screen to let you
> see an image in the dark does not mean it is a "Backlit" monitor.

then what does it mean? front lit?

> If idiots who think they know it all bothered to do some research before
> dribbling off at the mouth, they might gain a grain of knowledge. It's
> hard to imagine your pea brain having enough space to do that Ray, but
> at least try occasionally would you?

so not only do you not understand what backlit means, you spew insults
too.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 2:40 pm
From: nospam

In article <gq8317$mkf$1@qmul>, whisky-dave
<whisky-dave@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).

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 3:16 pm
From: Bob Larter

D-Mac wrote:
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
>>> In article <gq6nq4$737$2@news.albasani.net>,
>>> D-Mac <alienjones@y7mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> nospam wrote:
>>>>> In article <gq6bje$mvk$1@news.albasani.net>, D-Mac
>>>>> <alienjones@y7mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your problem is in the monitor set-up. Apple (for some odd reason)
>>>>>> use a gamma of 1.8 for their screens when every other computer on
>>>>>> the planet uses 2.2. Try setting your Gamma to 2.2 (The screen
>>>>>> will darken) and then calibrate it again.
>>>>> they *used* to use 1.8, which started long ago so that the screen
>>>>> matched the old laserwriter printers. they now use 2.2, but it really
>>>>> makes no difference as whatever setting it's at is incorporated into
>>>>> the display profile.
>>>>>> Almost 100% of Apple monitor calibration problems are because the
>>>>>> starting point has nothing to do with colour. You need the get the
>>>>>> gamma right before you start.
>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you paid $2000 plus for the monitor alone, it is not a
>>>>>> backlit monitor and you have no control over that function.
>>>>> all lcd displays are backlit.
>>>>
>>>> You are so full of bullshit, nospam, I thing you ought have a bowl
>>>> scan for the pox.
>>> Which parts are wrong, please -- I'd really like to know.
>>
>> So would I. Sure, some B&W LCD displays are not backlit but all of
>> the ones that serve as TVs and computer monitors are.
>>
>
> For you who walk around with eyes closed.
>
> "The XL20's LED-based backlighting system is another in a long line of
> technology firsts". Read the whole story here:
>
> http://www.samsung.com/au/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=5064&gltype=
>
> Just because a cheap monitor has a light behind the screen to let you
> see an image in the dark does not mean it is a "Backlit" monitor.

Yes it does, you cretin. That's what 'backlighting' *means*!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Old fashioned battery tester
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aef7f5267962d1e4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 10:38 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)

In article <gpugam$cfk$1@news.motzarella.org>, "Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:gptep9$1rl$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> My Dad showed me how to do this, when I was a boy. Take a
>> flash light bulb (PR-4 is good, the old screw in 112 is
>> better, more close to the proper voltage). Then, take about
>> six or seven inch long piece of #10 or #12 solid wire. Wrap
>> one end of the wire around the bulb. Curve the rest of the
>> wire, so it looks like a letter C, or G.
>>
>> Touch one end of the battery to the lead spot, on the bulb.
>> Touch the other end of the wire to the other end of the
>> battery. If the bulb lights, the battery is OK. Works for
>> AAAA through D cells. Have to bend the wire a bit, for
>> different sizes.
>>
>> After using this for a while, you can also roughly guess the
>> battery state. New, used, weak, dead. By how bright the
>> light is. If using a PR-4 bulb, you can also test 3 volt
>> lithium photo batteries.
>
>Hardly scientific ... guess by how bright the light is?
>
>A load test must also include a voltmeter and some knowledge to be a real
>test.
>
>But, your Dad certainly understood an important fact: A cell or battery
>must be loaded to evaluate its condition.

Many times you can get a good estimate without load.

A rechargable is best tested by
a very loooong test.

greg

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 10:40 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)

In article <gq3tru$iet$1@news.motzarella.org>, "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I've used the bulb and wire tester on alkalines. Actually,
>that's about only time and place I use it. Why would you say
>less effective?
>

Just measuring the no-load voltage on these will give a fair
estimate.

greg

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 10:56 am
From: Kulvinder Singh Matharu

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT), mail@potd.com.au wrote:

[snip]
>Initially I was disappointed and thought that I had done the wrong
>thing, as I was never going to be happy with the images. But through
>testing I discovered that the IQ is quite good good, provided that I
>followed some simple rules....

Thanks, that was very useful as I'm mulling over purchasing a G10 to
complement my SLR.

I'm not sure I'd use DXO, but PTLens and PS4 (both of which I already
own) should do the job perfectly.
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

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

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 12:14 pm
From: Wally

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:08:23 -0700 (PDT), PixelPix
<mail@pixelpix.com.au> wrote:

>On Mar 23, 11:41 pm, Stephen Henning <pigh...@aol.com> wrote:
>> In article m...@potd.com.au wrote:
>>
>> > As the topic says John, "how to get the most IQ" out of a G10.... so
>> > I guess it's both instructional and personal feedback about the cam
>> > for those who may have one or are intending to buy one.
>>
>> > I'm known as PixelPix also, bloody Google changes between my regular
>> > account and a very old one without me noticing sometimes. :-( I
>> > will have yet another crack at deleting the old one once and for all.
>>
>> > Rusty
>>
>> It would make more sense if he mentioned what a Waverunner is and what
>> DXO is.
>>
>> The Waverunner is something that requires a water tight camera and
>> apparently a jet ski,
>
>I figured that would be a given for most.
>
>> but DXO was a big question mark.
>
>Considering that I said the following....
>
>"If shooting RAW the same applies and different RAW conversion
>programs
>treat the noise differently. IMO Canon has the done the best here
>with their DPP handling the noise well. Having said that, DPP does
>not provide the best IQ overall, as that gong is solidly held by DXO.
>So I am happy to accept a little residual noise for the other
>benefits
>that DXO provides... such as detail, lens correction, CA correction,
>sharpness etc."
>
>....I would have thought it obvious that it was a RAW conversion
>application?

It wasn't obvious to me? And there is no need for the question mark?

Wally?

Wally

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A More Traditional Look
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0be5af54e74ec276?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 12:04 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Justin C" <justin.0903@purestblue.com> wrote in message
news:slrngsdh61.2ja.justin.0903@Macintosh.local...
> In article <DYixl.18040$Db2.9671@edtnps83>, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> Just can't seem to get a post out without a typo in at least one link...
>>
>> Here's the corrected link:
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/PortraitMich-colour-small.jpg
>
> I don't like that one, or the B&W version. The half-closed eyes make him
> look a bit angry... but I'm nervous of dogs anyway, so I'd *really* not
> go near him!
>
> I just noticed your spelling of colour, I'm guessing you're British. Out
> of interest, which area's public transport were you riding in the shot
> of Mitch on the bus?
>
> Justin.

Yeah, Mich's expression wasn't the best. I spent a fair bit of time trying
to get the flash and exposure the way I wanted it, and then clicked a few
shots. Mich had been snoozing before I took the picks, and I guess he
wasn't quite awake yet. When my wife got home and told me he looks "sick"
in the pic, I was a bit disappointed, but I'll try again another day when
he's been running around beforehand, so he'll look a bit perkier.

Re: my spelling of colour, I'm actually from Canada. We use the British
spelling -- well, most of us do. The pic of Mich on the bus was taken here,
in Edmonton.

However, my wife is from the northern part of England, Newcastle Upon Tyne
(spelling?). She's told me a lot about the area, and we hope to go back
there and take some pics in the Lake District, Dudley Castle, and some of
the old cathedrals.

Take Care,
Dudley

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 12:39 pm
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:25:54 -0700, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> 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 is http://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
>>>> FWIW - it does not come close to meeting standards. See the HTML
>>>> Validator at www.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?

He just let loose.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 1:29 pm
From: ray

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 is http://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
>>>> FWIW - it does not come close to meeting standards. See the HTML
>>>> Validator at www.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.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Update website
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b56eb339ac27e82a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 12:41 pm
From: "RogerTW...."

Reviews and webshops:

www.dicasa.nl

--
Thanks

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 12:47 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

I have an old reflector type telescope and a T-mount adapter for my EOS
Rebel XSi. As soon as it warms up a bit, I'd like to try taking some pics
of the moon, etc, and I'm wondering if using a 2X TC would work with the
scope. Or, will it make the exposure so long motion will be excessive?

Anybody have any experience in such situations?

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 1:28 pm
From: PixelPix

On Mar 24, 5:47 am, "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com>
wrote:
> I have an old reflector type telescope and a T-mount adapter for my EOS
> Rebel XSi. As soon as it warms up a bit, I'd like to try taking some pics
> of the moon, etc, and I'm wondering if using a 2X TC would work with the
> scope. Or, will it make the exposure so long motion will be excessive?
>
> Anybody have any experience in such situations?

The moon itself is as bright as a sunny day and exposures are
generally quite short, so I think you may get away with using the 2x
if it fits OK. Depending on your cam and it's noise characteristics,
you also have the availability of using higher ISO to compensate for
the 2x light loss.

Cheers

Rusty

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 1:31 pm
From: Troy Piggins

* Dudley Hanks wrote :
>
> I have an old reflector type telescope and a T-mount adapter for my EOS
> Rebel XSi. As soon as it warms up a bit, I'd like to try taking some pics
> of the moon, etc, and I'm wondering if using a 2X TC would work with the
> scope. Or, will it make the exposure so long motion will be excessive?
>
> Anybody have any experience in such situations?

What focal length and aperture is the scope? What camera are you
using?

Exposure times won't be a problem with the moon. It's very
bright. Well, not at the moment as it's near new, but you know
what I mean :)

--
Troy Piggins

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 1:44 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

--
Take Care,
Dudley

"PixelPix" <mail@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in message
news:dd2691a3-d342-4b88-9402-005f36d9f842@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 5:47 am, "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com>
wrote:
> I have an old reflector type telescope and a T-mount adapter for my EOS
> Rebel XSi. As soon as it warms up a bit, I'd like to try taking some pics
> of the moon, etc, and I'm wondering if using a 2X TC would work with the
> scope. Or, will it make the exposure so long motion will be excessive?
>
> Anybody have any experience in such situations?

Cheers

Rusty

Noise doesn't seem to be too bad with the XSi high ISO speeds, so I wouldn't
be afraid to use it. Also, I can switch in the optional high speed noise
reduction routine -- haven't had to use it yet, so I don't know how
effective it is.

Thanks, Rusty, I'll give it a try and see what happens.

==============================================================================
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 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 1:24 pm
From: Alan Browne

Rich wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in
> news:ZI-dnQAQl91xOFvUnZ2dnVY3goidnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>>> That said, the history of 3:2 is pretty hard to fathom. It's the
>>> ratio traditionally used in 35mm film cameras, so it's arguably the
>>> "right" ratio
>>> for a full-frame digital. But in most of the film era, 3:2 was rarely
>>> used for
>>> prints. (In the U.S. the picture postcard is the only common
>>> example.)
>> But with the advent of European/Japanese standard paper sizes, it's
>> become much more reasonable: at super A3, printing 12x18 on a 13x19
>> paper leaves nice 1/2" borders all around, and 7 x 10.5 printed on A4
>> does roughly the same (16mm border).
>
> That's nice, but in the professional print world, 4:3 is still a lot closer
> to the average picture format than 3:2.

As if that means anything.

It really doesn't matter what the frame proportions are within a
reasonable range of 1:1 to about 2:1. Photographs are not supposed to
be stuffed into a restrained proportion anymore than a painting is.

--
-- 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.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 1:26 pm
From: Alan Browne

Robert Coe wrote:
> But it's no less real, and I'd be
> very surprised if 4:3 makes a comeback in any professional camera product line
> in the foreseeable future.

Hasselblad's H series is 645 (film) and most of the digital backs are
4:3 at various actual sensor sizes.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT More OFFTOPIC RUBBISH from Douglas St James MacDonald
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/724829156aa6c640?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 1:51 pm
From: "Larry Thong"

Robert Coe wrote:

>> Karma is coming...
>
> You don't say. I'll believe it when I see it in the news media. Those
> of us with no dog in this hunt doubt that either of you gas bags has
> the wit or the financial means to actually cause trouble for the
> other. Talk is cheap; that's why there's so much of it in this and
> similar threads. But as long as lawyers insist on being paid, I
> suspect that both of you are perfectly safe.

LOL! Well said. I'll go one better, neither one of them has the wit or
entertainment value for any us to waste an attempt on stimulation.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Taking It In The Fannie With The D3x!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0be7bf15af9ed6c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 2:30 pm
From: "Larry Thong"

Yep! Even the 700mm isn't big enough for the old poop chute!

<http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Fannie.jpg>

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

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