Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 14 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: wars schnell geld verdienen,autor geld verdienen,geld nebenher
verdienen,www einfach geld verdienen,wie kann ich schnell geld,
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b4859e6b7885423e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 4 2009 11:37 pm
From: soul81912@googlemail.com

wars schnell geld verdienen,autor geld verdienen,geld nebenher
verdienen,www einfach geld verdienen,wie kann ich schnell geld,

+
+
+
+++ GELD ONLINE VERDIENEN +++ GELD IM INTERNET VERDIENEN +++
+
http://WWW.GELD-ONLINE-VERIENEN.NET
http://WWW.GELD-ONLINE-VERIENEN.NET
http://WWW.GELD-ONLINE-VERIENEN.NET
http://WWW.GELD-ONLINE-VERIENEN.NET
http://WWW.GELD-ONLINE-VERIENEN.NET
http://WWW.GELD-ONLINE-VERIENEN.NET
http://WWW.GELD-ONLINE-VERIENEN.NET
http://WWW.GELD-ONLINE-VERIENEN.NET
http://WWW.GELD-ONLINE-VERIENEN.NET
+
+
+
+
+

of poker online spielen geld verdienen leicht gemacht in Pfarrkirchen
möglichkeiten im internet geld wie kann man schnell geld machen in El
Salvador
flyff schnell an geld ich leicht geld in Goettingen
kann man mit internet geld internet poker geld in Seychellen
mehr geld machen 4 schnell geld verdienen in Tauberbischofsheim
ebook geld verdienen www geld machen in Schweinfurt
web 2.0 geld verdienen geld im internet verdienen ohne in Hofheim /
Ts.
geld per online marktforschung geld verdienen in Ungarn

http://suche.aol.de/aol/search?query=schnell+geldverdienen+inurl%3Afor-um&invocationType=no.omittWeb&filter=false

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 12:22 am
From: Ron Hunter

Bruce wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>>> Just out of curiosity, have you ever looked at a Kodak P series?
>>>
>>> I can't imagine ever wanting to use a Kodak digicam, so no.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I find
>>>> the EVF on it to be quite usable - has about three times the pixels of
>>>> the lesser ones.
>>>
>> Such bias is irrational, and can be expensive. Especially with
>> accompanied by ignorance of the features of the other brand.
>> But, it's your money.
>
>
> Buying junk is irrational and always expensive, because you end up
> paying once for junk and a second time for the equipment that you should
> have bought in the first place.
>
> Some of us buy junk, learn from it, and try hard never to do it again.
>
> Others buy junk and are happy with it. Go figure.
>
And some find that having spent a lot of money for a product, based on
bias against another product, their product really doesn't do the job
better.
After about 60 years using Kodak products, I have never had a negative
experience with their cameras. Given that they still sell more cameras
and photographic products than any other company (last time I checked),
I believe I have the weight of the world on my side in this one.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 12:25 am
From: Ron Hunter

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
> | On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:12:25 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:
> |
> |> In rec.photo.digital ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote: | On Mon, 02 Mar 2009
> |> 22:52:04 -0800, Savageduck wrote: |
> |> |> On 2009-03-02 20:26:36 -0800, ray <ray@zianet.com> said: |>
> |> |>> On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:40:15 -0600, Rich wrote: |>>
> |> |>>> Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR! |>>>
> |> |>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
> |> |>>
> |> |>> Geez! What will they think of next!! A digital camera with an |>>
> |> Electronic ViewFinder!!! Absolutely REVOLUTIONARY!!!!! |>
> |> |> CoolPix 5700 redux
> |> |
> |> | For one thing - I see no information on the resolution of the EVF.
> |> That | has been the downfall of many an EVF, IMHO. Most of them are of
> |> such low | resolution that the image is far too 'blocky' to do any
> |> decent | photography - I think, typically, they are around 100k - 300k
> |> or more | seems to be adequate.
> |>
> |> If it includes an electronic zoom just for viewing, which lots of
> |> cameras do already have in some form for viewing from the back LCD, then
> |> it can be a reasonably convenient way to verify the focus was on the
> |> right part of the scene, or for manual focusing (don't know if this
> |> camera can do that). For more critical work, you would be on a tripod,
> |> using the back LCD, and probably not this camera.
> |>
> |> No LCD is going to have the resolution of the sensor without being a
> |> monster in size (think of hauling around a big 42" widescreen TV with
> |> computer display pixel size). If you want to see individual sensor
> |> pixels while composing, you will need the zoom.
> |
> | I'm not expecting the EVF to have the full resolution of the sensor. I'm
> | hoping for something I can use. I've looked at a number of EVF cameras -
> | my assessment, for my use - YMMV - is that I can't stand an EVF of 110k
> | pixels while one with 330k is perfectly acceptable. I don't need or want
> | to see individual pixels while composing - I don't see that it would be
> | useful. I also don't want a stinking LCD on the back of the camera -
> | again YMMV and most seem to come that way anyhow.
>
> A lot of what I do involves camera on tripod, and the back LCD is much more
> convenient for that. Some people want one. Some want the other. Some want
> both. Camera makers will have to decide what to do. Having both seems to
> be the simpler choice.
>
Saying that a back LCD is a bad thing is like saying view cameras should
have only had optical viewfinders. A back mounted LCD is a great thing
for certain purposes, pretty much useless for others. It depends on
where, and how, you take pictures.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 5:37 am
From: dj_nme

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> | Samsung announces "DX" sized sensor camera with NO MIRROR!
> |
> | http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030201samsungnxsystem.asp#specs
>
> Why was this originally crossposted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? It is
> not an SLR. I deleted that newsgroup from my followup.
>
> I'll be interested when a truly pro model comes out with a full line of lenses.
> As discussed in other threads a while back, it would be possible to make this
> kind of camera work compatibly with an SLR system. It will need either a leaf
> shutter in the lens (preferred) or a focal plane shutter.

If the Samsung NX is similar in design to the Panasonic DMC-G1, then it
also has a focal plane shutter and can use almost any lens with a
register distance greater than the camera with a simple metal ring adapter.
Being only a "wooden block" mock-up means that this is all pretty much
just speculation about what the NX could be.

> A hybrid system with
> leaf shutters in most or all lenses could have camera bodies with optical view
> (e.g. SLR, or classic rangefiner) or digital view (LCD, either on the back on
> in the viewfinder, or even both).

It would depend on how tightly Samsung wants to control the market for
NX lenses.
If they're tight-fisted and greedy, then they would make the system
dependant on having an in-lens shutter and (presumably) make an adapter
for K-mount lenses which has a shutter built into it.
This would force owners of an NX camera to only buy the Samsung NX
lenses or a pricey NX to K adapter instead.
In my opinion if Samsung wants to sell more NX cameras, they would build
the shutter into the camera body and market it more as an "open system"
camera with metal ring adapters for all the longer register lenses.
What would be nifty is if Samsung produces an NX to KAF adapter which
has a screw drive for Pentax K AF lenses.
Even an adapter For using Pentax K SDM AF lenses on an NX seems like a
good idea (to me).

> Focal plane shutters would be possible, but
> with digital sensors, there is less need for that (film cameras needed a focal
> plane shutter in SLRs).

There's (as yet) no indication what (if any) type of mechanical shutter
the Samsung NX cameras will have.
I hope for their sake that whatever sort of shutter it has, that it's
built into the NX camera body.

> While having the option for lightweight consumer grade cameras is good, for the
> more intense photography, a serious camera, with at least enough size to hold
> on to effectively, is desired. Having them use the same lens mount would be a
> plus.

Interesting idea, but I'm not overly convinced about in-lens shutters.
It restricts the type of lenses which can be used, EG: no pinhole.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 8:13 am
From: Bob

In article <49afd585$0$4216$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
dj_nme <dj_nme@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>There's (as yet) no indication what (if any) type of mechanical shutter
>the Samsung NX cameras will have.
>I hope for their sake that whatever sort of shutter it has, that it's
>built into the NX camera body.
> [ ... ]

All this talk about where the shutter should
be has me confused. This isn't an SLR. When
would the shutter be closed? It seems to me
that since it's not an SLR, it is intrinsically
shutterless. The shutter time would just be
the time between sensor dumps.

Bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why is my flash not the same as daylight
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/226e84a509f42011?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 12:32 am
From: extremewanderer

On Mar 4, 3:47 pm, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne <alan.bro...@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pete D wrote:
> >> "john" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>news:Xns9BC2260661341451E7A@194.177.98.144...
> >>> My compact digital camera has a tiny flash. I notice that colours
> >>> taken by the flash do not look exactly the like as same colours taken
> >>> in bright daylight.
>
> >>> That's strange because years ago I had learnt (perhaps simplisticlly)
> >>> that the two light sources were the almost exactly same.
>
> >>> I'm now questioning if the colour settings on a digital camera for
> >>> flash and bright daylight are actually the same thing.
>
> >>> Any info on this please.
>
> >>> J
>
> >> The sun is yellow, your flash is brilliant white.
> > The sun isn't yellow. Or everything would look yellow.
> > It has a yellow look to it (contrasted to the blue sky, in any case),
> > but it is quite white.
>
> What we consider to be white is the integrated illumination from both
> the sun and the blue sky. Astronauts see the sun (with suitable sun
> glasses :-) as white in a black sky. Down here at the bottom of the
> atmospheric ocean the air takes a lot of the blue from the sun's
> radiation and spreads it over the sky. That's why (as the French
> impressionist painters famously "discovered") direct sunlight has a
> golden tinge, and the shadows of direct sunlight a blue tinge. And
> that is why artists involved in subtly colour work like what is called
> white north skylight (in the Northern hemisphere). That's light which
> has been diffued trough clouds so that the blue sky and golden sun are
> reintegrated into white.
>
> The reason these colour casts are not obvious to us, and why light
> always looks a lot whiter than it really is, is that our eye and brain
> operates a very effective auto white balancing, which in turn is the
> reason why we need white balancing in our cameras, in order to make
> things look like the colours we see, instead of the colours they
> actually are in terms of spectral power.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

colours are dependant on the light.
There is something called colour rendition index (CRI)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index
some flourescent tubelights and cfls actually heighten blues.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 6:53 am
From: Kennedy McEwen

In article <slrngqufco.85g.don@manx.misty.com>, Don Klipstein
<don@manx.misty.com> writes
>In article <XctPYeCIlIrJFwkx@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>In article <ULOdnVDlbN6JyjHUnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>><alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>>>Pete D wrote:
>>>> "john" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns9BC2260661341451E7A@194.177.98.144...
>>>>> My compact digital camera has a tiny flash. I notice that colours
>>>>> taken by the flash do not look exactly the like as same colours taken
>>>>> in bright daylight.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's strange because years ago I had learnt (perhaps simplisticlly)
>>>>> that the two light sources were the almost exactly same.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm now questioning if the colour settings on a digital camera for
>>>>> flash and bright daylight are actually the same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any info on this please.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> J
>>>> The sun is yellow, your flash is brilliant white.
>>>
>>>The sun isn't yellow. Or everything would look yellow.
>>>
>>Actually, if the sun was yellow everything in daylight would look white.
>>;-)
>>
>>Even under red, black and white darkroom light, everything looked black
>>and white. Even more so under completely monochrome (apart from
>>trivial, in this context, magnetic splitting) yellow sodium 'd' lines of
>>colour darkroom light, there was just white, black and shades of grey
>>between.
>>
>>T'is a r'markable instrument, the human eye!
>>
>>And there lies the problem.
>
> I have been in darkrooms before, and I also have been in areas
>illuminated by LPS lamps before. And sometimes for hours rather than
>minutes.
>
> My experience is that if the light is red, I see everything im
>black-and-red. And under LPS, my experience is seeing everything as a
>ghastly black-and-yellow, with exception for a few reddish fluorescent
>labels that manage to fluoresce from the 589.0/589.6 nm "D" lines.
>
You must be quite unique then. I used to spend 8-14 hours a day in a
red lit darkroom and a few years later a similar amount of time in a
gold filtered sodium lit darkroom. I can assure you, since you cannot
discern red/yellow from white under such light, after a few minutes
everything just appears white and shades of grey. When you watch an
image appear in the developer dish, it is a black and white image, not
black and red. Similarly, monitoring colour prints develop they also
appeared black and white, not black and yellow, or any other colour.

>>T'is a r'markable instrument, the human eye!
Doesn't sound like your's are as remarkable as most folks. ;-)
Which may be advantageous in your line of work
--
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)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ViewNX - Adnormal Terminations?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/07ec255688ae91d8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 12:58 am
From: "N"

"William Jones" <WilliamJones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%4Arl.53069$aZ3.26011@newsfe01.iad...
>I need help.
>
>
>
> My copy of ViewNX (version 1.2.2) regularly and abruptly terminates
> without reason when trying to simply browse through subfolders on my hard
> drives.
>
>
>
> I have ALL of the latest Nikon updates, Microsoft XP Pro updates, Norton
> AV 2009 updates, Windows Defender updates, etc.
>
>
>
> This has happened repeatedly over the past year or so, in spite of
> reinstalling ViewNX (and all other Nikon software) a number of times.
>
>
>
> ViewNX is the ONLY application on my computer that terminates abnormally
> like this.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have any ideas?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>

Does it write anything to the event log when it crashes?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 7:01 am
From: Dave Cohen

William Jones wrote:
> Couldn't you have just posted a reply without the smartass "ever think of
> using Google"? Why do people like you always have to add some insult, some
> condescension, some jab?
>
> I had ALREADY seen that link (yes, I found it using Google). And the reason
> I posted my question was because I had never installed Nikon View. So this
> particular DP Review page is irrelevant.
>
> My Registry is spotless.
>
> Now, once again do you have any (constructive this time...) ideas?
>
>
>
>
> <me@mine.net> wrote in message
> news:4p4uq4lr84ig62svbfipuq005ut9dd1gd6@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:51:35 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "William Jones"
>> <WilliamJones@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I need help.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My copy of ViewNX (version 1.2.2) regularly and abruptly terminates
>>> without
>>> reason when trying to simply browse through subfolders on my hard drives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have ALL of the latest Nikon updates, Microsoft XP Pro updates, Norton
>>> AV
>>> 2009 updates, Windows Defender updates, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This has happened repeatedly over the past year or so, in spite of
>>> reinstalling ViewNX (and all other Nikon software) a number of times.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ViewNX is the ONLY application on my computer that terminates abnormally
>>> like this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any ideas?
>> Yes, ever think of using google?
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nikon+viewnx+crashes&btnG=Search
>>
>> First entry is:
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=26412296
>> Which would seem to point to a registry issue. and possible solutions on
>> the us nikon tech support site.
>>
>
>
Further more it's irrelevant since one isn't supposed to be an IT expert
in order to install a program under windows.
Dave Cohen

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 10:23 am
From: "William Jones"

Yes, it does, and I've forwarded that to Nikon. They've not answered...

"N" <N@onyx.com> wrote in message
news:49af9442$0$4247$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "William Jones" <WilliamJones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%4Arl.53069$aZ3.26011@newsfe01.iad...
>>I need help.
>>
>>
>>
>> My copy of ViewNX (version 1.2.2) regularly and abruptly terminates
>> without reason when trying to simply browse through subfolders on my hard
>> drives.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have ALL of the latest Nikon updates, Microsoft XP Pro updates, Norton
>> AV 2009 updates, Windows Defender updates, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> This has happened repeatedly over the past year or so, in spite of
>> reinstalling ViewNX (and all other Nikon software) a number of times.
>>
>>
>>
>> ViewNX is the ONLY application on my computer that terminates abnormally
>> like this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have any ideas?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Does it write anything to the event log when it crashes?
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: long sleeve shirt polo shirt(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/da070f16b50bcd96?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 2:06 am
From: jeansevisugood@126.com

Men's Shirt
Cotton Shirting (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Fashion Shirts
Dress Shirts (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Casual Shirts View all (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Men's Shirt
Cotton Shirting Fashion Shirts(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Dress Shirts
Casual Shirts Brand Shirts(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Long Sleeve Shirt
men's shirt cotton shirt(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
dress shirt casual shirt
brand shirt ladies' shirt(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
long sleeve shirt polo shirt(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)

Blac Label
Artful dodger(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Burberry(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Armani
BBC(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
D&G
Smet man(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Crown Holder(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Ed Hardy man(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Ed Hardy women
Evisu(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
G-Star(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Lacoste women
polo women (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Lacoste man
polo man
Smet man (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Sinful women(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
BAPE
Crown Holder(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
Affliction
COOGI
Christian Audigier man
Lacoste man
A&F man

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Prada shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f25e4355975278e2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 2:07 am
From: jeansevisugood@126.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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: discount Air max 95 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f5d6de24054250cb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 2:08 am
From: jeansevisugood@126.com

discount Air max 95 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
wholesale Air Max 87 shoes
discount Air MAX LTD shoes
sell Air max 90 shoes
discount Air Max 88 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount Air MAX 89 shoes
discount Air max tn shoes
discount Air Max tn8 shoes
discount Air MAX tn9 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount MEN'S WOMEN'S Shox R5 R4 trainers
discount Men's women's shocks OZ NZ TL trainers
For more products pls visit: www.sneaker-shop08.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: SEEK: utility to add file date to name
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3aa9b04f6d7f26f0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 2:21 am
From: Ofnuts

Justin C wrote:
> In article <pg2tq4hgkql48663a2np2jvvqmdp6qqqnc@4ax.com>, Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> jasper <jasperdoesnotwantmail@com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Exiftool? My image files do not contain any data in the EXIF
>>> fields.
>>> I want to rename the files to make the name include the file's
>>> Modified Date as displayed in XP's file properties.
>> Well, then I wonder, what your question has to do with photography.
>>
>>> (If it makes it clearer, you could assume these files are not
>>> image files.)
>> This 4 line Perl script will do that simple job nicely:
>>
>> for (@ARGV){
>> my ($day, $month, $year) = (localtime((stat($_))[9]))[3..5];
>> $year += 1900; $month += 1;
>> rename $_, "$year-$month-$day-$_";
>> }
>
> I was going to suggest Perl, but that there would a steep learning
> curve... but you went one, or several better and provide a solution.
> Nice.
>
> Had to refer to docs to fully understand it though. Impenetrable, but
> elegant in it's brevity.
>
> Justin.
>

There is surely a way with plain Windows shell commands (because in a
"for" loop, you can use "%~tF" to obtain the date/time string of the
file in a %F(*). However, using it to _insert_ a readable date/time in
the file name isn't going to be pretty, certainly much less readable
than its Perl equivalent. There could also be a way with \/15u4|8451(.

(*) for instance,try:
for %F in (*.*) do @echo %F is dated %~tF

--
Bertrand

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 6:56 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Ofnuts wrote:
> Justin C wrote:
>> In article <pg2tq4hgkql48663a2np2jvvqmdp6qqqnc@4ax.com>, Jürgen
>> Exner wrote:
>>> jasper <jasperdoesnotwantmail@com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Exiftool? My image files do not contain any data in the EXIF
>>>> fields.
>>>> I want to rename the files to make the name include the file's
>>>> Modified Date as displayed in XP's file properties.
>>> Well, then I wonder, what your question has to do with photography.
>>>
>>>> (If it makes it clearer, you could assume these files are not
>>>> image files.)
>>> This 4 line Perl script will do that simple job nicely:
>>>
>>> for (@ARGV){
>>> my ($day, $month, $year) = (localtime((stat($_))[9]))[3..5];
>>> $year += 1900; $month += 1;
>>> rename $_, "$year-$month-$day-$_";
>>> }
>>
>> I was going to suggest Perl, but that there would a steep learning
>> curve... but you went one, or several better and provide a solution.
>> Nice.
>>
>> Had to refer to docs to fully understand it though. Impenetrable, but
>> elegant in it's brevity.
>>
>> Justin.
>>
>
> There is surely a way with plain Windows shell commands (because in a
> "for" loop, you can use "%~tF" to obtain the date/time string of the
> file in a %F(*). However, using it to _insert_ a readable date/time in
> the file name isn't going to be pretty, certainly much less readable
> than its Perl equivalent. There could also be a way with \/15u4|8451(.
>
> (*) for instance,try:
> for %F in (*.*) do @echo %F is dated %~tF

Just a comment but Windows has more powerful tools than the command or cmd
shells available.

2K and later have Windows Scripting Host that runs vbscript and jscript code
from the command line--with older versions of windows you have to invoke it
with cscript (i.e. cscript helloworld.vbs) but in Vista you can just type
"helloworld" on the command line and if helloworld.vbs is anywhere in your
search path it will run.

If you search the Microsoft site on "Windows script" you'll find quite a lot
of information.

When Vista shipped they added another capability, the Powershell, which is
downloadable for Vista and XP--that's a full Unix-style shell with complete
scripting capability, but it is not exactly a clone of any of the Unix
shells--Microsoft as usual went off in their own direction.

For someone versed in vbscript, jscript, or Powershell scripting such an
application should be easy to toss off.

All that said, since there are decent purpose-made applications for that
particular task that can be obtained free or at nominal cost there's no real
point to writing a script, but I thought I would mention this.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best online retailer?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3453aaf486e8bab8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 4:43 am
From: Bill

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:14:08 -0600, Unglued <notrollz@nunya.net>
wrote:

>Thanks for the replies on Broadway photo. I am leaning toward Amazon
>for my camera purchase, but I have also seen some larger camera
>retailers that also have good reviews (B&H, Abe's, etc).
>
>What are the favorites in this group?
>
>Thanks in advance.

I think that B&H Photo/Video and Adorama are probably at the top of
the heap, but as mentioned by others, Amazon is prtetty darn
dependable also. Another good on-line retailer is Butterfly Photo. I
usually go with one of the above, depending who has the best deal on
the item I'm interested in.

HTH
Bill

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A few so-so pictures of Kitchener Ontario
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e09fc1815ca54c1e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 5:56 am
From: Donny

Food related photos to come.
I just purchased my first digital camera. I am impressed with the
functions etc.(Canon A2000IS) However, I wish more money would be put
into lens quality. Also, I'd like to be able to have more control
over f-stop and shutter speed. Other than that, it is really worth
the money. I suppose in a couple of years I'll upgrade to something
better lens-wise.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 5:58 am
From: "Bent Attorney Esq."

On Mar 5, 8:56 am, Donny <x.smiling_ti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Food related photos to come.
> I just purchased my first digital camera. I am impressed with the
> functions etc.(Canon A2000IS) However, I wish more money would be put
> into lens quality. Also, I'd like to be able to have more control
> over f-stop and shutter speed. Other than that, it is really worth
> the money. I suppose in a couple of years I'll upgrade to something
> better lens-wise.

Oh. I forgot the link. Here it is: http://mykwphotos.blogspot.com/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How far is "infinity?" - Not a metaphysical query
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1af76dc834e6c187?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 6:17 am
From: Daguerreotype type

I have a Canon A580 digital camera. It has a "Landscape" setting that
I suspect focuses on infinity. Not sure about that but I suspect it.

How far away should something be before I tell the camera that it
should focus on infinity? Is 100 feet infinity for this camera? More?
Less? Sometimes I try to take photographs of the Moon, definitely at
"infinity," and I'd like to know if "auto" or "Landscape" is the best
mode for that. At some point I may ask how to keep the full Moon from
overexposing itself, but I'm trying to work that one out on my own
right now.

I ask because the auto focus doesn't always focus on what I want to
capture and I frequently don't have the time to try to coax it into
automatically locking onto what I want to get a shot of.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 7:12 am
From: Don Stauffer

Daguerreotype type wrote:
> I have a Canon A580 digital camera. It has a "Landscape" setting that
> I suspect focuses on infinity. Not sure about that but I suspect it.
>
> How far away should something be before I tell the camera that it
> should focus on infinity? Is 100 feet infinity for this camera? More?
> Less? Sometimes I try to take photographs of the Moon, definitely at
> "infinity," and I'd like to know if "auto" or "Landscape" is the best
> mode for that. At some point I may ask how to keep the full Moon from
> overexposing itself, but I'm trying to work that one out on my own
> right now.
>
> I ask because the auto focus doesn't always focus on what I want to
> capture and I frequently don't have the time to try to coax it into
> automatically locking onto what I want to get a shot of.

What is infinity depends on the hyperfocal distance, which in turn is
dependent on relative aperture (f-stop). On some cameras there is a DOF
scale on the focusing scale that shows the near edge of the distance in
focus at a given f-stop. With wide adoption of AF, those scales seem to
be disappearing :-)

Anyway, google "hyperfocal distance." There is a lot on line on the
subject and it definitely relates to your question. If your camera does
not show such a scale, you'll need to get the calculator out and
calculate it.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 9:25 am
From: Pat

On Mar 5, 9:17 am, Daguerreotype type <nos...@no.invalid> wrote:
> I have a Canon A580 digital camera. It has a "Landscape" setting that
> I suspect focuses on infinity. Not sure about that but I suspect it.
>
> How far away should something be before I tell the camera that it
> should focus on infinity? Is 100 feet infinity for this camera? More?
> Less? Sometimes I try to take photographs of the Moon, definitely at
> "infinity," and I'd like to know if "auto" or "Landscape" is the best
> mode for that. At some point I may ask how to keep the full Moon from
> overexposing itself, but I'm trying to work that one out on my own
> right now.
>
> I ask because the auto focus doesn't always focus on what I want to
> capture and I frequently don't have the time to try to coax it into
> automatically locking onto what I want to get a shot of.

Infinity is where your lens stops moving "out" when trying to focus.

The exact distance depends on the camera and lens but it is easy to
test. Focus on your feet. The focus 10' away. Then 10' more. Keep
going until your camera stops changing the focus. The you are out to
infinity.

No here's the tricky part. You can NEVER set your camera down and
walk to the point you have just focused on because if you did, you'd
have to walk to infinity. To to that, you'd have to move infinitely
fast and exceed the speed of light. To do that will cripple the
physics labs at most major universities because they don't believe it
can be done. Think of the implications of them trying to come up with
new laws of physics. It's just better to not walk there and avoid the
problem. Besides, infinity isn't all it's cracked up to be.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best $300 compact camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/da5a09e1833bbc75?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 7:17 am
From: davidmcw

I've always had Canon, (S300, SD450) but I've lately become is little
disappointed with them. Can anyone recommend a good $300 compact
camera.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Software for Kodak DC 210 Does Not Work With Windows XP?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8db30129a3d69f09?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 7:18 am
From: Dave Cohen

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 GMT JEFF TURNER <gtohio9073@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> | I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I recently
> | upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP Pro., and the
> | software for the camera no longer works.
> |
> | Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to use
> | this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory card
> | reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want to process
> | the images, but maybe there is a better way.
>
> 1.
>
> I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a full
> set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the computer
> via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This camera is so old
> I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full specs.
>
> Older Windows did not support USB directly. It was necessary to add software
> to support the USB ports. This software would have at least included a driver.
> It often includes other things to let you browse pictures, edit them, etc.
> But this software will definitely NOT succeed at installing on XP if it is
> trying to install a USB driver. That is because XP already has USB drivers
> in it.
>
> If this camera connects via USB *AND* uses the USB standard for presenting its
> memory to the computer in the form of a small disk storage (just like a USB
> key/stick does ... and just like every camera I have used does), then you do
> not need ANY software on XP to at least get the pictures from the camera via
> the USB cable. You would then need to use other software to work with those
> pictures. But XP has more such software included than previous versions of
> Windows. Vista has even more if you want to go that route.
>
> So if it is true that this is a USB connection, just try it without adding any
> software and see if a new drive pops up when the camera is connected.
>
> 2.
>
> I personally find it preferrable to transfer pictures from camera to computer
> by using the memory card. It involves fewer cables. It doesn't run down the
> camera battery (or require yet another cable to power the camera). And it is
> faster, even for my SDHC cards. FYI, CF has the ability to be faster than
> other kinds of memory cards because of its 8-bit data path, but that does not
> mean every device that works with CF achieves such speeds.
>
> Investing in a small USB to memory card adapter is, IMHO, a good investment.
> If you are comfortable working on the inside of a computer, AND if yours has
> an internal USB connection, and the space to mount a front panel slot, then
> an internal memory card adapter might be an option. Both of my main desktop
> computers have them (but then, I build my own computers). All new computers
> I see in Best Buy and Walmart have them already integrated. Many laptops
> seem to have at least one memory card slot (usually just SD) these days.
>
> Beware the adapters that have limited SD. If you get a new camera in the
> future, it likely will have an SDHC or SDXC card port. Many of the USB
> adapters still around are limited to the old SD (no HC or XC) protocol, and
> as such cannot support cards greater in size than 4GB (and the effective
> limit is really 2GB because most 4GB cards have been made to work with the
> SDHC protocol due to a few software drivers limit SD to 2GB due to programmer
> errors). If you choose to buy a USB to memory card adapter, don't pay more
> than about $12 for it unless you see that it really has SDHC.
>
Unfortunately winxp doesn't just recognize any device when connected via
usb. The device has to be aware. Canon cameras do NOT assign a drive
number when connected and are not listed under My Computer. You do get
an entry in windows explorer and can access the images on the card but
you do not see the folder structure on the device.
Same is true of certain mp3 players, depends on whether device uses MTP
or MSC protocol.
My older canon A40 is not recognized by winxp, it probably came with
some sort of driver but I no longer have it and just use the card reader.
Dave Cohen

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 8:00 am
From: ray

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:18:26 -0500, Dave Cohen wrote:

> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:56:02 GMT JEFF TURNER
>> <gtohio9073@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> | I have an old Kodak DC 210 digital camera that I like very much. I
>> recently | upgraded (kicking and screaming) from Win. 98 to Win. XP
>> Pro., and the | software for the camera no longer works. |
>> | Can you advise me on the best approach to take, so I can continue to
>> use | this DC 210 camera. Like, I have thought about getting a memory
>> card | reader, and removing the memory card from the camera when I want
>> to process | the images, but maybe there is a better way.
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> I don't know the DC 210 but some googling, which did NOT come up with a
>> full set of specs, does suggest the possibility it is connected to the
>> computer via a USB cable. You'll have to confirm that for me. This
>> camera is so old I cannot find it listed at my favorite spots for full
>> specs.
>>
>> Older Windows did not support USB directly. It was necessary to add
>> software to support the USB ports. This software would have at least
>> included a driver. It often includes other things to let you browse
>> pictures, edit them, etc. But this software will definitely NOT succeed
>> at installing on XP if it is trying to install a USB driver. That is
>> because XP already has USB drivers in it.
>>
>> If this camera connects via USB *AND* uses the USB standard for
>> presenting its memory to the computer in the form of a small disk
>> storage (just like a USB key/stick does ... and just like every camera
>> I have used does), then you do not need ANY software on XP to at least
>> get the pictures from the camera via the USB cable. You would then
>> need to use other software to work with those pictures. But XP has
>> more such software included than previous versions of Windows. Vista
>> has even more if you want to go that route.
>>
>> So if it is true that this is a USB connection, just try it without
>> adding any software and see if a new drive pops up when the camera is
>> connected.
>>
>> 2.
>>
>> I personally find it preferrable to transfer pictures from camera to
>> computer by using the memory card. It involves fewer cables. It
>> doesn't run down the camera battery (or require yet another cable to
>> power the camera). And it is faster, even for my SDHC cards. FYI, CF
>> has the ability to be faster than other kinds of memory cards because
>> of its 8-bit data path, but that does not mean every device that works
>> with CF achieves such speeds.
>>
>> Investing in a small USB to memory card adapter is, IMHO, a good
>> investment. If you are comfortable working on the inside of a computer,
>> AND if yours has an internal USB connection, and the space to mount a
>> front panel slot, then an internal memory card adapter might be an
>> option. Both of my main desktop computers have them (but then, I build
>> my own computers). All new computers I see in Best Buy and Walmart
>> have them already integrated. Many laptops seem to have at least one
>> memory card slot (usually just SD) these days.
>>
>> Beware the adapters that have limited SD. If you get a new camera in
>> the future, it likely will have an SDHC or SDXC card port. Many of the
>> USB adapters still around are limited to the old SD (no HC or XC)
>> protocol, and as such cannot support cards greater in size than 4GB
>> (and the effective limit is really 2GB because most 4GB cards have been
>> made to work with the SDHC protocol due to a few software drivers limit
>> SD to 2GB due to programmer errors). If you choose to buy a USB to
>> memory card adapter, don't pay more than about $12 for it unless you
>> see that it really has SDHC.
>>
> Unfortunately winxp doesn't just recognize any device when connected via
> usb. The device has to be aware. Canon cameras do NOT assign a drive
> number when connected and are not listed under My Computer. You do get
> an entry in windows explorer and can access the images on the card but
> you do not see the folder structure on the device. Same is true of
> certain mp3 players, depends on whether device uses MTP or MSC protocol.
> My older canon A40 is not recognized by winxp, it probably came with
> some sort of driver but I no longer have it and just use the card
> reader. Dave Cohen

That's fine, but the DC210 does not use USB. It is an RS-232 serial cable.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Think DPreview will pull this post?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/882883450172cd28?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 8:25 am
From: Grimly Curmudgeon

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> saying
something like:

>Rich wrote:
>[]
>> Quite a few people have been paying money for supposedly cheap
>> cameras at ejaffa.com and receiving nothing in return except broken
>> promises.
>
>> email: bestbuymenswear@gmail.com
>
>Who would not think twice about buying a camera from a "mens wear" shop,
>especially if the price is "too good to be true"?

Some cameras are pants.

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

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Thursday, March 5, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 14 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic