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: ISO & exposure comp. -- aren't they redundant?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bec119cd055b0362?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 7:06 am
From: Pat

On Mar 9, 7:09 am, Charles Packer <mail...@cpacker.org> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:39 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> > So the answer to your question is "yes and no". On film they are
> the
>
> > same but in digital they are not.
>
> > I hope that clarifies it for you.
>
> This has been very enlightening. First, I never knew that
> film cameras had exposure compensation controls as well
> as the ASA dial. My Minolta wasn't that fancy, I guess,
> and I got into advanced cameras only as the film era
> was pretty much over.
>
> So...it's interesting that the electronic designers
> mapped the analogy of film speed onto sensor amplification
> to the extent that they kept the same numbering scheme
> as film speed. Does this mean that there's an industry
> standard for that? Will a setting of ISO 100 at a given
> shutter speed, F-stop, and default exposure compensation
> give similar results on any brand of camera with a
> similar number of megapixels?

Yeah, ISO is standard and in theory all cameras/films should have
about the same sensitivity. If they didn't, then light meters, flash
meters, etc. wouldn't work right. If you're shooting Tri-X 400 and
someone is standing next to you shooting a digital set to ISO 400;
then you should have more or less the same exposure. It might be off
a little but it shouldn't be off too much.

There is some differences in color though. Just like Kodacrome and
Ektracrome had very different looks to them, different manufactures
also have different looks to them. It isn't as much as the different
films, but there's a difference. So if you own 2 cameras and shoot
them both at the same time/event, it's probably a good idea to have
them the same brand (if not model).

Good luck, old guy ;-)

>
> --
> Charles Packerhttp://cpacker.org/whatnews
> mailboxATcpacker.org

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 7:36 am
From: bugbear

Marco Tedaldi wrote:
> bugbear schrieb:
>> Charles Packer wrote:
>>> Where is the logic in all of this? In the digital world,
>>> aren't ISO and exposure compensation redundant, anyway?
>>
>> ISO - in effect a choice between speed and noise
>>
>> exposure comp - the ability to intervene when the automatic
>> exposure algorithm does not serve well enough.
>>
>> In what way are these redundant?
>>
> Back in analog days they would have been. You could just lie to the
> camera about the speed of the film to make it under or overexpose. In
> digital days this is not the case anymore :-)

If you set the shutter speed and aperture,
then alter the ISO on your digital camera,
you will indeed alter the exposure, at least in
JPEG output.

BugBear

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 7:49 am
From: Dave Cohen

semoi wrote:
> As there are many paths to enlightenment there are many ways to alter
> exposure.
> Does one use manual exposure, a zen master of the Zone system driven by
> the illusion of controlling all things photographic?
> Is one slavishly devoted to programmed exposure, abandoning all
> responsibility?
> Is one unable to abandon an earthly desire for shutter/aperture control?
> Does one comprehend the impact on the digital universe caused by
> altering ISO settings?
> Have you mastered the sacred rituals of Adobe Photoshop?
>
>
>
That's a lot of learning. Perhaps one should start by learning how to
make a meaningful post.
Dave Cohen

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 8:18 am
From: Marco Tedaldi

bugbear schrieb:
> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>> bugbear schrieb:
>>> Charles Packer wrote:
>>>> Where is the logic in all of this? In the digital world,
>>>> aren't ISO and exposure compensation redundant, anyway?
>>>
>>> ISO - in effect a choice between speed and noise
>>>
>>> exposure comp - the ability to intervene when the automatic
>>> exposure algorithm does not serve well enough.
>>>
>>> In what way are these redundant?
>>>
>> Back in analog days they would have been. You could just lie to the
>> camera about the speed of the film to make it under or overexpose. In
>> digital days this is not the case anymore :-)
>
> If you set the shutter speed and aperture,
> then alter the ISO on your digital camera,
> you will indeed alter the exposure, at least in
> JPEG output.
>
Sure. But that is not, what the OP asked about. We have three variables.
Sensitivity (iso)
Aperture
Exposure time

If we change one we have to change (at least) another one too the get
the same result. Thats nothing new.

The thing is, that if I change the ISO-setting on a digital camera, it
change two things in fact. I change the "sensitivity" of the sensor and
tell this to the camera so it's taken into account. So in the end
effect, nothing but noise-level should change.

If I change the setting on an analog camera (without changing the film),
the exposure is changed.

IF I set my camera to "manual" no automatics apply at all, so you have
to care for the exposure for yourself. With manual setting you don't
need EV-correction.

Marco

--
Agfa isolette, EOS 40D
http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi
And a cool timekiller: http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 10:08 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-03-09 04:09:39 -0700, Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> said:

> On Mar 8, 8:39 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> > So the answer to your question is "yes and no". On film they are
> the
>> same but in digital they are not.
>>
>> I hope that clarifies it for you.
>
>
> This has been very enlightening. First, I never knew that
> film cameras had exposure compensation controls as well
> as the ASA dial. My Minolta wasn't that fancy, I guess,
> and I got into advanced cameras only as the film era
> was pretty much over.

They didn't have to be that fancy. Here is my almost 40 year old K1000
with ASA adjustment from 20-3200, shutter speed from bulb to 1000th.

No auto special modes, use the TLM, adjust the f-stop, shutter speed
and ASA for your need of the moment.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/K1000.jpg
>
> So...it's interesting that the electronic designers
> mapped the analogy of film speed onto sensor amplification
> to the extent that they kept the same numbering scheme
> as film speed. Does this mean that there's an industry
> standard for that? Will a setting of ISO 100 at a given
> shutter speed, F-stop, and default exposure compensation
> give similar results on any brand of camera with a
> similar number of megapixels?

It should.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 12:04 pm
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

? "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:87y6vfyfh4.fld@apaflo.com...
> Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
>>My last film camera, a Minolta SLR, beyond shutter speed
>>and F-stop, had one other means of controlling how much
>>light reached the film: the ASA dial, which was
>>customarily set to the same "speed" as the film and left
>>there.
>
> It also had the potential of changing to a film with a
> different speed. (Which in some cameras, with some types
> of film, could automatically set the ASA of the camera to
> match that of the film.)
>
> And indeed, some film cameras had Exposure Compensation
> too, if they had a built in light meter. All that EC
> does is change where the meter reads 0. If EC is set to
> +1, it will take 1 fstop more light to zero the meter.
>
> Note that for our purposes ASA values and ISO values are
> the same thing. It is a measure of the light
> sensitivity of the film/sensor. ASA was from the
> American Standards Association and ISO is from the
> International Standards Organization. The difference
> between the two values is highly technical and isn't
> enough to be of concern in this discussion.
>
There used to be also DIN (Deutsche Industrie Norm-german industrial
standard);I remember in the 80's film marked ASA 100, 21 DIN. There used
also to be Gost, the soviet standard, which of course became obsolete after
the disbanding of the Soviet Union.
> Given the above, each of your different cameras can be
> compared in a useful way.
>
>>My first digital, a Sony Mavica, dispensed with the
>>ASA setting but had exposure compensation, called "EV",
>>from -2 to +2, easily accessible in two clicks of the
>>main button.
>
> No difference, except the Mavica could not use "film" that
> had a different ASA value, it had only one type of film.
>
>>My next digital, an Olympus SP-350, had both the -2/+2
>>exposure compensation and "ISO", which seemed synonymous
>>with film speed. The former was immediately available
>>with up/down buttons; the latter was buried way the
>>hell down in the menu, which seemed similar to film
>>mentality.
>
> That statement hits a nail right on the head!
>
> As you say, this camera is no different than were film
> cameras, except for the means of presenting the
> functionality. With cameras manufactured before silicon
> based electronics, everything was necessarily a
> mechanical user interface. And as first transistor and
> then computer technology became sufficiently developed,
> that has allowed a much more complex camera design which
> can include automation not available previously, and
> user interface options that are different. (Which of
> course is true whether the camera has an electronic
> sensor or whether it uses film; hence this is not a
> matter of "film vs. digital".)
>
> The point your paragraph above makes is that there are
> different approaches to the user interface. Mechanical
> buttons on the camera (the face, the back, the top, and
> which ones are visible in the viewfinder or on various
> LCD displays???), or via a menu system? (And how are
> menus presented? Via rotary dials, clicky buttons, or
> whatever?)
>
> Every manufacturer did their own studies to determine
> what they thought their customer base would find most
> comfortable.
>
>>My current digital, a Canon 20D, reverses the
>>accesibility of ISO and exposure compensation. The
>>former is a button-press and a wheel; the latter,
>>incredibily enough, is a power switch position,
>>a half-press of the shutter, a peek in the viewfinder,
>>and a wheel.
>>
>>Where is the logic in all of this? In the digital world,
>>aren't ISO and exposure compensation redundant, anyway?
>
> Obviously it is indeed logical, but also targets different
> types of people who may or may not be logical themselves.
>
> And no, ISO and EC are not the same. However,
> effectively you now have an ISO setting instead of
> changing film, and you have EC rather than adjusting the
> camera's ASA setting. Hence the old ASA setting is much
> the same as todays EC setting.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

==============================================================================
TOPIC: More info on black silicon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/acbb29b472f7c8c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 7:31 am
From: George Kerby

On 3/8/09 9:10 PM, in article 6Tz07VAoqHtJFwBV@kennedym.demon.co.uk,
"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <49b3ea32$0$48225$815e3792@news.qwest.net>, Don Stauffer
> <stauffer@usfamily.net> writes
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>
>>> Because sensitivity is not the same as quantum efficiency. The
>>> former is related to SNR, the latter to responsivity.
>>> Using internal avalanche raises the effective QE to the point were
>>> the electrons generated by a single photon exceed the noise level
>>> several times over, resulting in more sensitivity.
>>>
>>
>> Well, sensitivity is a very fuzzy word in EO. QE is well defined. I
>> think what you are talking about is responsivity, the voltage or
>> current out per a ceertain irradiance. Okay, I can see a high
>> responsivity for something that multiplies electrons.
>
> And that is all black silicon is and claims to be (plus a little bit of
> extra absorption, which is where you started from, but it isn't much -
> which is also where you started from). The rest IS hype. :-(
All I know is that it is good stuff for building aquariums. ;-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT, on the Keoeeit troll Re: Somewhere out there...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e162be148f308e39?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 7:35 am
From: George Kerby

On 3/9/09 6:56 AM, in article gp3057$n0q$1@reader.motzarella.org, "Mark
Thomas" <mark.thomas.7@gmail.com> wrote:

> Get Real wrote:
> (abuse deleted)
>> Get Real.
>
> Please folks, do not respond to this poster further until you are fully
> aware of his background.
>
> "Get Real" is the anti-dslr- and chdk-troll, aka Keoeeit, Vern, X-Man,
> Baumbadier, Casiobear, etc, ad infinitum.
>
> He's well known for the 'attitude', and that's being kind. He can be
> found on many forums, is frequently banned (eg Steve's Forums,
> photography-on-the.net) and he's usually quite easy to spot, by his
> withdrawn posts and images. He doesn't like leaving a trail, but is too
> incompetent to not be recognised wherever he goes..
>
> Stands out like the proverbial puppy nuts.. (O:
>
>
> For further details, google "keoeeit minnesota". You'll see his posts
> are often lamenting about how he lives alone...
>
> Umm, any questions?
>
>
> Feel free to follow his sad path of self-destruction by searching on the
> names above, but you may need a strong stomach..
>
> If anyone is in Minnesota and sees him (here's a picture!):
> http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=24769&p=300369#p300369
>
> ..maybe you can pass on my thoughts, which are probably similar to yours
>
> after reading that vomit he just posted..
>
I thought it might have been Ray Fischer - since he advocates the "Brokeback
Mountian" lifestyle.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 11:20 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Mark Thomas" <mark.thomas.7@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gp2vk9$m1e$1@reader.motzarella.org...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> After reading the Real Deal's tyrade, yesterday, I started to think that,
>> "Hey, maybe my pics were just accidents." So, I took Mich for a bus ride
>> and took another picture of him.
>>
>> You be the judge:
>>
>> MichOnBus-:
>>
>>
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.jpg (full size)
>>
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg
>> (quick loading)
>>
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.cr2 (original
>> RAW)
>>
>> Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
>>
>> The above links address pictures which are Copyrighted by Dudley Hanks,
>> 2009, all rights reserved.
>>
>> You are granted permission to download and view these images for personal
>> use and critical review. However, permission must be granted by myself
>> for any commercial use, display in a web site / gallery, or for any
>> method of publication.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
>
> Dudley - that's a corker. Everything works well in that image. Print it
> big and display it!
>
>
> And as pointed out by others, ignore the troll. He's well known and
> completely out of his tree.
>

Thanks, Mark, appreciate the comments. I'm going to print it later this
week, on my trusty laser printer.

Regarding the resident Troll, he's no prob. He just gives me a reason to
vent...

Sadly, though, I've encountered 'people' just like him, face-to-face.

Take Care,
Dudley

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 2:02 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Get Real" <gr@spambegone.org> wrote in message
news:fnk9r454g4rrv25gk0nifpm20nt7ns5a8r@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 02:29:59 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>
>>After reading the Real Deal's tyrade, yesterday, I started to think that,
>>"Hey, maybe my pics were just accidents." So, I took Mich for a bus ride
>>and took another picture of him.
>>
>>You be the judge:
>>
>>MichOnBus-:
>>
>>
>>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.jpg (full size)
>>
>>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg (quick
>>loading)
>>
>>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus.cr2 (original
>>RAW)
>>
>>Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
>>
>>The above links address pictures which are Copyrighted by Dudley Hanks,
>>2009, all rights reserved.
>>
>>You are granted permission to download and view these images for personal
>>use and critical review. However, permission must be granted by myself
>>for
>>any commercial use, display in a web site / gallery, or for any method of
>>publication.
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>>
>
> Commercial use? You're losing your mind along with your sight.
>
> This is better, how? Another ordinary snapshot like any school-kid would
> take with their cell-phone camera when on a field-trip bus outing. To top
> it off your P&S camera focused on the dog's ear and leash around its neck,
> putting the main features of the dog's face out of focus, including the
> eyes. If you were going to do it right you would have focused somewhere on
> the dog's snout just in front of the eye, so the nose to ear were all in
> focus. Unless you are trying to portray a vehicle out of control then you
> should have at least held the camera more level, or straightened and
> cropped in editing. The exposure is wrong, you lost valuable detail in all
> the shadows and didn't properly expose for the highlights. That's what
> people get for wishfully depending on a "fancy" camera do all the work for
> them.
>
> The woman with chin in hand in the background of the image is just as
> amused as everyone else being subjected to your carnival sideshow act.
> Watching a blind guy trying to pretend he can do photography. "Awwww....
> isn't that cute, look at what the monkey is trying to do ..." To bad that
> she didn't get to see the results too--more flung feces.
>
> Consumer camera technology is not going to replace your eyes. Grow-up and
> face reality. If I lost my eyesight I would face it like an adult and
> switch gears; probably devote more to my music interests; taking another
> stab at honing my skills on shakuhachi or maybe some other instrument I
> haven't tried yet. Maybe go back to sculpting or some other artistic
> interest that's not wholly vision dependent. There are thousands of things
> that one can pursue without eyesight. It wouldn't bother me in the least
> if
> I lost my eyesight. Just as a personal test I lived that way once for two
> weeks, alone, to see what it would be like and if it would bother me. I
> found hundreds of things to do while living without eyesight. But at least
> I wouldn't make a public fool of myself trying to pretend to do what I
> would now be incapable of doing. Or in your case, could never do to begin
> with, your skills so far have proved that you never were talented with a
> camera.
>
> Want some constructive criticism? In case you refuse to grow up and face
> realty. Quit trying to use shallow DOF in your photography. You can't see
> well enough to make proper use of it. Any time that you try you only
> destroy the photo that you were hoping to capture. Auto-focus is not
> intelligent enough to do it for you, in any camera. Set your camera to
> manual focus and leave it set on a hyperfocal setting, turn it into even
> more of an Instamatic snapshot camera so all your faults and limitations
> aren't so blatantly obvious to those with functional eyes. Make
> composition
> your goal, not the individual subjects. I'm not sure what you'll do about
> your dependency on auto-exposure too, other than to learn the faults of
> your camera and count how many EV button presses it should take to
> override
> the camera designer's stupidity. Learn to hide your limitations with your
> camera. Then it won't look like you're an insecure idiot trying to be what
> you can never be. Instead you'll only be one of the many millions of
> mundane snapshot photographers with a grade-school level of field-trip
> cell-phone-camera talent. You're only amplifying your faults and
> limitations and then broadcasting them to the world with what you are
> doing
> now. You're looking like a delusional dwarf running around on the
> basketball court who is hoping to be drafted by a pro team. Embarrassingly
> entertaining.
>
> Find something else you might be good at one day because it's never going
> to be photography. I'm doing you a huge favor in being the only one here
> who is completely honest with you. The rest are only amusing you out of
> their own personal fears, insecurities, and the worst self-serving motive
> of all--pity. Grow up and deal with it.
>
> Get Real.
>
>

Ah, you did say a couple of semi-intelligent things in this post. Nice
change. But, obviously, we still have a ways to go.

Too bad you shot yourself in the foot when you said that my
"point-and-shoot" camera focused on the dogs ears and collar, followed by,
you should quit using shallow DOF. Taken together, these two statements
show how little you really know about photography. First of all, P&S
cameras can't achieve that shallow of DOF, see:

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)

http://www.photographic.dudley-hanks.com/Images/BusTrip-small.jpg

This pic, although shot on a P&S at a wider aperture than the one with
shallow DOF, definitely has more DOF. Most knowledgeable shooters know that
you can't do shallow DOF with a P&S, but I'm flattered you think I have the
skills to get that shallow DOF from a P&S cam.

Still, if you are going to offer vitriolic critiques, at least, get your
facts right... Perhaps you'll garner a wee bit of credibility that way.

Second, you seem to think it is an acceptable goal for a sighted shooter to
tilt a camera in order to portray a bus out of control. So, why can't I use
that technique, or lost detail in shadows for that matter, to depict an
event experienced by a blind individual, after all, I lose way more shadow
detail than that when I look at a scene. You operate on the wrong premise
that the picture you would have tried to capture in my situation is the same
image I want to capture. You're wrong. The image I WANT is drastically
different than any image you would shoot. I'd go so far as to say that YOU
CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE AN IMAGE I WOULD WANT TO CAPTURE, which will always
result in my shooting pics you can't understand. But, hey, you might at
least TRY to exercise your imagination in order to tentatively ponder
alternative interpretations of my work? Or, is your mind so narrow you are
incapable of that. I guess that's why you are critiquing pics here in
Usenet, as opposed to getting paid for your opinions by a media outlet /
trades newsletter.

Regarding the shallow DOF, many of my current pics use it because it yields
a result I am after: rendering visible a world that isn't perfectly
focused. After all, I DO NOT LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE EVERYTHING IS PERFECTLY
FOCUSED.

And, no, I won't put down my camera just because you get embarrassed by my
pics.

By your logic, Beethoven should have stopped his hammerings long before
composing his 5th symphony; Hellen Keller should have given up and
committed suicide; and Governor Patterson should be working for a charity.
Fortunately, some of us can see past our limitations.

It was once pointed out that "it takes a village" to raise a child. Well,
in my case, it takes a team to make a photograph, which isn't all that much
different than for sighted shooters, most just don't realize it.

When learning their trade, photographers learn from others what works, what
doesn't and how to interpret scenes they are confronted by. They then apply
that knowledge to future pics. And, especially in the early days, they
learn a great deal from feedback they receive from friends, family members
and clients after each pic is reviewed (either formally, or informally).

Why should I be denied the benefit of feedback simply because I have a
vision limitation? According to your logic, people shouldn't be given
wheelchairs when they lose their legs, because their pathetic attempts to
get around their community is an embarrassment to the able-bodied people
they meet strolling down the sidewalk?

The biggest hurdle I have to overcome when displaying my work is to educate
my viewers that I am NOT trying to photograph images in a traditional
fashion. Instead, I am trying to use traditional techniques to photograph
scenes which REPRESENT small slices of my world.

You seem to think that your twisted logic is superior to others. But, what
you fail to realize is that your comments simply highlight your lack of
empathetic development. According to Stephen Covey (in Seven Habits of
Highly Effective People), achieving symbiotic relationships with others is
preferable to self-sufficiency because it allows each individual to not only
benefit from their own skills and talents, but to achieve an even higher
standard of living because each member of the relationship gains from
others' abilities.

But, so much for my rant. Now, back to the picture.

I actually appreciate your feedback. Indeed, you do tell me things others
won't, and that helps a great deal (whether you want it to or not, I can't
say).

I was aware of some of what you wrote, in particular that the camera wasn't
level, and that the face isn't entirely in focus. But, if you could just
hold your attitude in check for a moment, you might understand, as I've
explained, that my pics SHOULD NOT look like pics of sighted shooters. I
have always shot with the premise that my pics should contain a bit of me in
each, because it is that personal touch which makes pics unique /
indellible.

Hence, if I want to shoot pics about a blind person's world, why would I
want to remove all indications that the shooter is blind? That would defeat
my purpose and would truly reduce my work to run-of-the-mill snapshots.
Right? But, when you can look at my shots and see my stamp and think, "Hey,
his world is kind of neat, even though it is a bit unstable." Then, I have
conveyed a bit of what it's like to live in a blind person's world. I can't
say it enough: If a sighted shooter shot pics like these and said, "Hey,
I'm trying to portray a bit of what it's like to live in a blind person's
world," he'd probably get tons of critical acclaim and awards would roll in.
Right? I'd bet on it. Why can't I use the technique when I'm an actual
blind person trying to shoot pics that portray that same reality?

Regarding the woman looking at us, how do you know that she is looking at us
because I'm trying to take a picture. Believe me, when I step onto a bus
(where dogs are not allowed) with my rather large shepherd, all eyes are on
us. And, they continue to watch us simply because we are a distraction from
the daily humdrum of their lives.

I had one bus driver say to me once, when I boarded his bus with a previous
shepherd guide, "I love it when you get on the bus."

At first, I thought he was glad because he got to experience my wonderful
wit and fluent small talk, but he set me straight when he added, "...
because when you are sitting there with that big shepherd, everyone is so
well behaved."

So, once again, your interpretation of my work is based on your projecting
your dissatisfaction with your own existance onto my reality. If I can make
people smile, whether it be because of bringing a dog into a place where it
isn't normally found, or whether it is because they find my antics amusing,
pathetic, or whatever, great! I've made the world a more beautiful place,
even if it is just for a moment, or for a few minutes.

You said you tried living as a blind person for a short time, by
blindfolding yourself. But, that doesn't give you the whole picture. You
KNEW you weren't actually blind, so it is easy for you to think, hey, I can
do this. The fact that you can take the blinders off should you truly face
a life and death situation is always in the back of your mind, whether you
admit that to yourself or not. Things look WAY different when that safety
net is removed, and you TRULY have to face reality. Ask any blind person
who has had to confront a sightless future.

Sadly, though, by blindfolding yourself, you missed the good side of the
situation, too. You didn't see the reactions of the people you were
interacting with.

When it comes to photography, I get to experience a bit of that interaction.
In many of my pics, there are people watching me, or my dog, or both of us
together. To experience a bi-species team at work, communicating with each
other and solving a problem is something I hope you get to experience in
your life time. For me, I have been fortunate enough not only to watch such
a team, but to actually be an integral part of three teams.

For me, having my dog help me find my way to the mall is no different than
asking people for information about a scene I want to shoot, or for feedback
about shots I've already taken. It is all part of the process, and, while
it becomes an integral component in my work, it does not void my work. Just
like any other photographer's talent is not negated by his mentors /
instructors / clients' feedback, even though the photog makes adjustments
based on their comments and ideas.

As I've told other detractors in the past, please, keep the feedback coming.
I may use it; I may not. But, whatever you say, it gives me something to
think about, and it gives me very valuable details about my images, details
I couldn't use (even if I wanted to) if I didn't get it.

Take Care,
Dudley

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 2:20 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

Ooops, I had a typo in one of the links I inserted in this post. The proper
links should be:

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip-small.jpg (quick
loading)

Ah, you did say a couple of semi-intelligent things in this post. Nice
change. But, obviously, we still have a ways to go.

http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Bustrip.jpg (full size)

http://www.photographic.dudley-hanks.com/Images/BusTrip-small.jpg

Still, if you are going to offer vitriolic critiques, at least, get your
facts right... Perhaps you'll garner a wee bit of credibility that way.

And, no, I won't put down my camera just because you get embarrassed by my
pics.

But, so much for my rant. Now, back to the picture.

I actually appreciate your feedback. Indeed, you do tell me things others
won't, and that helps a great deal (whether you want it to or not, I can't
say).

I had one bus driver say to me once, when I boarded his bus with a previous
shepherd guide, "I love it when you get on the bus."

Sadly, though, by blindfolding yourself, you missed the good side of the
situation, too. You didn't see the reactions of the people you were
interacting with.

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 1/2 pixel offset?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa1432d75b90b0ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 7:37 am
From: bugbear

Can anyone remember the name of a high-res camera-back
that used a tiny movement of the sensor to double
up the resolution?

I've googled and failed :-(

BugBear

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 9:33 am
From: Rich

bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in news:-
qOdnZh0LrwAtCjUnZ2dnUVZ8j0LAAAA@posted.plusnet:

> Can anyone remember the name of a high-res camera-back
> that used a tiny movement of the sensor to double
> up the resolution?
>
> I've googled and failed :-(
>
> BugBear
>

Sounds like "sub-pixel rendering."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rita style reportage?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/45070d692bb58b5f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 7:37 am
From: George Kerby

On 3/9/09 12:43 AM, in article 200903082243448930-savageduck@savagenet,
"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote:

> On 2009-03-08 22:26:56 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net> said:
>
>> Rita,
>> I thought you would appreciate this capture of a group investment
>> bankers in the wild on the hunt for a new trough.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HogWild_0292.jpg
>>
>> They were led in this quest for sanctuary by Mama Maddoff.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HogWild_0291.jpg
>
> I guess I screwed up my X-post :-(
> I blame it on old fartdom!
I was looking for a shot of a pig turd, otherwise, it just wouldn't be
really "Rita-worthy" style.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can I edit photos on a low-end laptop?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e50a3a2375c02813?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 8:20 am
From: Peabody

J. Clarke says...

> Just a comment but a friend of mine who is visually
> impaired uses a 37" LCD HDTV for a monitor. Works very
> nicely for him, however, contrary to popular belief, LCD
> TVs _can_ get burn-in, or, if that is not technically
> what is happening, something of a like or similar
> nature. Note that Newegg has 40" Toshibas for under 800
> bucks including shipping.

In my experience, a bigger LCD monitor doesn't help. A
bigger size just means a bigger native resolution - the
pixels are the same size, but there are more of them. As a
result, if you still have to use native resolution,
everything is displayed at the same size, and is just as
difficult to read as on a small display.

Also in my experience changing font size also doesn't work
well. It only affects the fonts, not other stuff, and not
always even the text. And lots of things just don't display
well when assumptions have been made by site designers about
how much text will fit in a particular window.

The only thing that seems to work most of the time is
changing the DPI setting, which makes everything bigger
even though the display is still in native resolution.
There are still some problems with things fitting right, or
overlapping, but it's not too bad. I am told Vista deals
with this much better than XP, and if so that should be the
case for W7 as well. I hope so.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: discount Air max tn shoes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a49478447f20c45c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 10:54 am
From: sell nike air max 90 87 2009 shoes

please look our website ,have more mode shoes clothing hat cap bags !
www.shoestrade168.cn

Wholesale Sell Discount:

Dsquared 2 shoes,Dsquared jeans t-shirt Dsquared jacket www.shoestrade168.cn
Abercrombie & Fitch 2009 Polo A&F t-shirt bags jeans jacket apparel

www.shoestrade168.cn
air max 90 87 88 89 ltd 91 95 97 tn shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
shox Nz R5 r4 r3 r2 tl Energia Rival Classic shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
dunk sb shoes hogan shoes air rift shoes puma shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
Timberland boots prada shoes Gucci shoes d&g shoes
wwww.shoestrade168.cn
Discount UGG Boots china usa Australia www.shoestrade168.cn
Adidas 35 years shoes adidas city adidas GOODYEAR adidas Running
www.shoestrade168.cn
Jordans shoes BAPE STA Shoes Converse shoes Lacoste shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
Air force one shoes air force one 25 yars shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
IPhone NOKIA VERTU NOKIA N96 N95 8800 Sirocco 8800 Sapphire Arte
www.shoestrade168.cn
Ipod MP3 MP4 MP5 ipod touch Glasses MP3 SONY PSP PS3 www.shoestrade168.cn
LV Bag Gucci Bag Prada Bag D&G Bag Juicy Bag Guess Bag www.shoestrade168.cn
Feidi Bag Coach Bag Chloe Bag Chanel Bag BULL Bag www.shoestrade168.cn
Burberry Bag Versace Bag Dooney&Bourke Bag Jimmy Choo Bag www.shoestrade168.cn
Dior Bag Loewe Bag ED HARDY Bag HERMES Bag TOUS Bag www.shoestrade168.cn
ARMANI T-shirt ARMANI jeans ARMANI jacket ARMANI bags www.shoestrade168.cn
Dolce&Gabbana d&g Levi's T-shirt jeans jacket d&g bags www.shoestrade168.cn
CA AFF bape ggg g-star T-shirt jeans jacket hood www.shoestrade168.cn
Z
Polo lacoste T-shirt jacket hood gucci shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
ED HARDY T-shirt jacket jeans Bag gucci shoes www.shoestrade168.cn

Shox
Shox NZ shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
Shox R4 shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
Shox TL3 shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
Shox TL4 shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
Shox TL shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
Shox OZ shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
Shox Rival shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
Shox Classic shoes www.shoestrade168.cn
Shox Energia shoes www.shoestrade168.cn

www.shoestrade168.cn

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Good Photography Resource/Forum
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/133470c701f99aa7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 11:11 am
From: "Tyg's"

I found this site a bit ago, and although there is not much action or
members now, I think this site has potential kinda like some of the other
forums, but the people here are real nice overall.

Check it out and if you like it, join up for free.

Dynashot Photography Forum
http://www.dynashot.com/index.php

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wish I'd said this...about a hundred times already
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd0d9f3a64f5d251?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 11:24 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

>>
>> > DSLRs now look almost exactly like SLRs of the 1970s, save for some
>>> enhanced grips. There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas being
>>> presented. Westlake concentrates on the lenses, but to me, it's
>>> the cameras that need re-thinks.
>>
>> You know, I actually wish that were the case. The digital SLRs we get
>> today are computerized monstrosities -- and I'm not talking about the
>> "digital" part, which obviously has to be that, but the "camera" part.
>>
>> Last night I shot a roll of Tri-X on a mechanical 35mm SLR. What's
>> striking is how much more enjoyable the act of photography is with a
>> regular old camera, without all the crap getting in the way.

Let me say the opposite: I love my Canon 30D. It's far
superior to any film camera.

Why? Simple: it has a review screen and "the histogram".

The histogram alone makes up for all the other complication.

Doug McDonald

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 2:00 pm
From: Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net>

<"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

> Let me say the opposite: I love my Canon 30D. It's far
> superior to any film camera.
>
> Why? Simple: it has a review screen and "the histogram".
>
> The histogram alone makes up for all the other complication.

Yes, of course. That's the "digital" part, not the "camera" part. Digital
beats film by any technical measure. (For black-and-white there are still
good aesthetic reasons to use film; but I can't think of any reason at all
to shoot 35mm E-6 ever again, and I gave up on C-41 before digital even
became a thing.)

What I'd like is to take that, the "digital" part, and put it in a camera
that doesn't have a whole bunch of crap getting in my way.

--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Britain's horrific new photo law
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9a7f879f7bd7a51b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 11:48 am
From: Grimly Curmudgeon

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Father Guido Sarducci
<don@novello.com> saying something like:

>It's so reassuring to know that some motherfuckers piss in the wind about
>semantics whilst Gordon Brown sodomizes (sodomises) you all day long.
>
>Die violently.

It's all right, you don't have to thank us, you fucking psycho.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New lens cleaning kit!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0f6851aec552e0fd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 11:50 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

....As everyone knows, I'm a hardened P&S fan, my camera being the nytech
www.nytech.de ,of which lens became dirty. After a failed attempt to clean
it with a microfiber cloth, I went out for something more energetic. The
first shop I went, had the complete set for 30 euros, and just the fluid for
12 euros. Then, at my favourite shop, I found a cleaning kit, complete with
blow brush, microfiber cloth, cotton sticks, fluid and tissues, just for
4.90 euros! Isn't it wonderful? (Of course, it's chinese made, but almost
everything now is, too.)In a couple of minutes, my lens was fit for fun.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 12:44 pm
From: Alfred Molon

In article <71klq2FlditgU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm says...

> It wouldn't suprise me if at least some of the fixed focus "prime"
> lenses which change their effective focal length as they focus close
> didn't bother with calibrating and reporting that, but simply reported
> the canonical fixed focal length of the lens.

By the way, how do zoom lenses in a camera measure the focal length and
report it back to the image processor, so that it can write it in the
exif?
--

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 2:33 pm
From: "David J Taylor"

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <71klq2FlditgU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm says...
>
>> It wouldn't suprise me if at least some of the fixed focus "prime"
>> lenses which change their effective focal length as they focus close
>> didn't bother with calibrating and reporting that, but simply
>> reported the canonical fixed focal length of the lens.
>
> By the way, how do zoom lenses in a camera measure the focal length
> and report it back to the image processor, so that it can write it in
> the exif?

Most likely a mechanical position sensor, and a simple look-up table.
Some compact cameras only have a limited number of zoom positions, so it
may be counting steps to a stepper motor.

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon Short Telephoto (105-135) alternatives
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cdabc4fc688cfdfd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 12:46 pm
From: "William Jones"

I'm looking for an AF prime lens in the 105-135 range. It must be extremely
sharp.

Am I correct in assuming that the only glass available that fills this need
is the 105 Micro, the 105 DC and the 135 DC?

TIA---

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 9 2009 2:28 pm
From: Alan Browne

Peter Irwin wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Don Klipstein wrote:
>>> Result of my calculations here is 4825 K - 225 K more blue than direct
>>> sunlight.
>> +/-225K around "sunlight" is pretty much meaningless in all but the most
>> color critical (eg: advertising of color specific merchandize; some
>> scientific work) photography.
>>
> If you are going to compare colour temperatures, it really helps
> to convert the Kelvin values to MIREDs. MIRED means "million reciprocal
> degrees" and is obtained by dividing 1 000 000 by the Kelvin colour
> temperature. The advantage of this system is that a difference of
> a certain number of Mireds is subjectively comparable and requires
> the same strength of colour conversion filter.

I have nothing against Mireds but for this discussion staying in the
base unit seems more useful.

> 4600K is 217 mireds
> 4825K is 207 mireds - difference 10 mireds (very slight)

Exactly. Most people will not see the difference unless in a side by
side comparison - (which I noted in my prev. posting).

> compare the difference between a 3200K lamp and 3400K photoflood:
>
> 3200K is 312.5 mireds
> 3400K is 294 mireds - difference 18 1/2 mireds (slight but enough
> for a conversion filter to make a noticeable
> difference on slide film.)

Again, viewing an individual image, nobody would be able to say, "this
is cool/warm" v. some nominal expectation.

Side by side, one would notice.

--
-- 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.

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

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

Monday, March 9, 2009

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

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, March 9, 2009

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

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic