Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 3 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* life after Windows.... - 20 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
* Bit more DOF, bit more light, bit better? - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f365636f866354dc?hl=en
* Olympus: Are they F----- CRAZY? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e68eefee518f24d1?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: life after Windows....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:12 pm
From: "William Black"

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:270320091348239458%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gqjb0n$14t$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> People who buy Apple computers spend about twice the money for the
>> >> same
>> >> power.
>> >
>> > no they don't. macs and pcs cost approximately the same when
>> > configured as close as possible. quite often, the comparisons are
>> > between machines with specs that are are not at all similar.
>>
>> I must assume you've forgotten the smiley face there.
>
> nope.
>
>> I can buy a quad core AMD computer with 4Gigs of memory, Nvidia graphics
>> and
>> a 500Gig hard disk for less than £500 and a 24 inch display for about
>> £160.
>
> link to exact specs, please.

Base unit from this lot

http://www.palicomp.co.uk/

Display from Ebuyer.

>
>> The equivalent (but much slower, Intel Core 2 Duo chip) iMac is about
>> £1200.
>
> except that a fair comparison with an imac would be with something with
> a built-in screen, such as a gateway one.

Why?

You're playing games with the spec to make it fit your requirements not
mine.

> in any event, the imac has features such as 802.11a/b/g/n, bluetooth
> 2.1+edr, firewire 800, a built-in camera and includes os x which is
> equivalent to vista ultimate. the pc probably just has 802.11g and
> vista home, and that's it.

Who buys a computer with the OS built in?

The rest of it costs pennies, I got an external Bluetooth box with 6 USB
ports for £10, a camera costs about £15, if you don't have an old digital
camera kicking about (and who doesn't), wireless is about £15 as well, and
who needs it for a desktop anyway?

That's £40, plus a few quid for someone who doesn't have a decent keyboard
and mouse about the house.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

== 2 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:13 pm
From: "William Black"

"Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qsSdnUhoJdEjoVDUnZ2dnUVZ8sCWnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gqjb0n$14t$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:270320091055115936%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>>> In article <gqj370$ce$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
>>> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > I would be very interested to hear your opinion on the observed fact
>>>> > that people who move from a PC to a Mac rarely go back, while people
>>>> > who
>>>> > move from a Mac to a PC often do.
>>>>
>>>> People who buy Apple computers spend about twice the money for the same
>>>> power.
>>>
>>> no they don't. macs and pcs cost approximately the same when
>>> configured as close as possible. quite often, the comparisons are
>>> between machines with specs that are are not at all similar.
>>
>> I must assume you've forgotten the smiley face there.
>>
>> I can buy a quad core AMD computer with 4Gigs of memory, Nvidia graphics
>> and a 500Gig hard disk for less than £500 and a 24 inch display for about
>> £160.
>
> And the OS?

Who buys an OS?

I've got XP, Vista and Linux disks and licenses lying about and not running
on anything

You pay the 'Windows tax' if you want to. I only pay for what I use...

--
William Black

== 3 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:21 pm
From: aracari

'nospam' wrote this:

>In article <gqjb32.1sg.1@aracari.127.0.0.1>, aracari
><spamtrap@vailable.here.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >the original mac os was purely gui, with a command line bolted on much
>> >> >later.
>> >>
>> >> Probably nonsense.
>> >
>> >it's not 'probably nonsense.' it's exactly correct.
>>
>> Well, perhaps you'd like to explain in simple words why you
>> believe this.
>
>because i've been writing software for macs for a long time and i know
>the internals inside out.

Am I supposed to be impressed?

>perhaps you'd like to explain why you doubt it.

Afaics what you have said so far is that a GUI was created to run
programs, but you have not explained how and when those programs
were written. My view is that they were written *before* the GUI,
because that is the normal sequence of things, otherwise you would
have no way of testing the GUI.

A GUI without programs to run is pretty useless.

GUI = Graphical User Interface.

I do not discount that someone sketched out a GUI *before*
writing the programs that it will run to work out what features
they wanted in it and its general design etc, but that is not
what you have said.

>> You might start by giving me an example of a program
>> which runs under the old Mac op/sys and what you do/did to run it.
>
>double-click it.

"double-click" what?

--
socialism is like chronic heart disease ...
you may not know you suffer from it, but it'll kill you in the end.

A socialist:"someone who knows everything but understands nothing"

== 4 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:36 pm
From: nospam

In article <gqjfep$6oe$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> >> I can buy a quad core AMD computer with 4Gigs of memory, Nvidia graphics
> >> and
> >> a 500Gig hard disk for less than £500 and a 24 inch display for about
> >> £160.
> >
> > link to exact specs, please.
>
> Base unit from this lot
>
> http://www.palicomp.co.uk/

ok i picked this for £249:
<http://www.palicomp.co.uk/Carbon_INTEL_Customize.html>

2.2ghz intel core 2 duo versus 2.66 on the cheapest imac
nvidia 7050 versus nvidia 9400m
800mz memory versus 1066mz memory
250 gig hd versus 320 gig

however, there's no firewire, no wifi, no bluetooth, no gigabit
ethernet, no camera, no built-in stereo speakers, no microphone, no
optical audio in/out and no bundled software. it also includes vista
home instead of vista ultimate.

the imac also supports a second display in addition to the built-in
display (you'd need to get a 2nd video card).

in other words, it has a much lower spec, so it's no surprise that it's
cheaper.

> Display from Ebuyer.

that's vague. the imac screen is quite good, even on the low end model
which is not a sips screen.

> >> The equivalent (but much slower, Intel Core 2 Duo chip) iMac is about
> >> £1200.
> >
> > except that a fair comparison with an imac would be with something with
> > a built-in screen, such as a gateway one.
>
> Why?
>
> You're playing games with the spec to make it fit your requirements not
> mine.

no, i'm trying to match the specs as close as possible.

if you want to eliminate various features, then of course, that will
reduce the price. no surprise there. but then it's not an equivalent
machine.

> > in any event, the imac has features such as 802.11a/b/g/n, bluetooth
> > 2.1+edr, firewire 800, a built-in camera and includes os x which is
> > equivalent to vista ultimate. the pc probably just has 802.11g and
> > vista home, and that's it.
>
> Who buys a computer with the OS built in?

just about everyone does.

> The rest of it costs pennies,

pennies add up. match the specs and then compare.

> I got an external Bluetooth box with 6 USB
> ports for £10, a camera costs about £15, if you don't have an old digital
> camera kicking about (and who doesn't), wireless is about £15 as well, and
> who needs it for a desktop anyway?

sounds like a jumble of cables. also, wireless comes in quite handy
for using a computer where running a cable might be difficult or
impractical. bluetooth is handy for a variety of purposes, desktop or
laptop.

> That's £40, plus a few quid for someone who doesn't have a decent keyboard
> and mouse about the house.

so you're cheaping out on the keyboard and mouse too.

== 5 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:49 pm
From: "William Black"

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:270320091436262411%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gqjfep$6oe$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> I can buy a quad core AMD computer with 4Gigs of memory, Nvidia
>> >> graphics
>> >> and
>> >> a 500Gig hard disk for less than £500 and a 24 inch display for about
>> >> £160.
>> >
>> > link to exact specs, please.
>>
>> Base unit from this lot
>>
>> http://www.palicomp.co.uk/
>
> ok i picked this for £249:
> <http://www.palicomp.co.uk/Carbon_INTEL_Customize.html>
>
> 2.2ghz intel core 2 duo versus 2.66 on the cheapest imac
> nvidia 7050 versus nvidia 9400m
> 800mz memory versus 1066mz memory
> 250 gig hd versus 320 gig
>
> however, there's no firewire, no wifi, no bluetooth, no gigabit
> ethernet, no camera, no built-in stereo speakers, no microphone, no
> optical audio in/out and no bundled software. it also includes vista
> home instead of vista ultimate.
>
> the imac also supports a second display in addition to the built-in
> display (you'd need to get a 2nd video card).

So you spent about half of what I said and to spend managed not to to buy
what I said to buy...

As for graphics cards, according to the motherboard manual that came with
the computer it can run two displays. Two sockets on the graphics output,
one VGA type one DVI-D, configurable to drive two displays...

>> You're playing games with the spec to make it fit your requirements not
>> mine.
>
> no, i'm trying to match the specs as close as possible.

No, you're playing games to make the iMac sound a lot better than it is.

>> > in any event, the imac has features such as 802.11a/b/g/n, bluetooth
>> > 2.1+edr, firewire 800, a built-in camera and includes os x which is
>> > equivalent to vista ultimate. the pc probably just has 802.11g and
>> > vista home, and that's it.
>>
>> Who buys a computer with the OS built in?
>
> just about everyone does.

But I'm not everyone.

>> I got an external Bluetooth box with 6 USB
>> ports for £10, a camera costs about £15, if you don't have an old
>> digital
>> camera kicking about (and who doesn't), wireless is about £15 as well,
>> and
>> who needs it for a desktop anyway?
>
> sounds like a jumble of cables.

That depends on how well you've been trained.

Oh, wait a bit, You're not one of these people who isn't allowed to play
with the inside of a device after the mains power is exposed are you?

also, wireless comes in quite handy
> for using a computer where running a cable might be difficult or
> impractical. bluetooth is handy for a variety of purposes, desktop or
> laptop.

It's never impractical or difficult to run cable. The only constraint is
cost.

Where on earth did you do your engineering training?

>> That's £40, plus a few quid for someone who doesn't have a decent
>> keyboard
>> and mouse about the house.
>
> so you're cheaping out on the keyboard and mouse too.

Who doesn't have a couple of these things kicking about the house?

--
William Black

== 6 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:58 pm
From: nospam

In article <gqjg1m.1sg.1@aracari.127.0.0.1>, aracari
<spamtrap@vailable.here.com> wrote:

> >> >> >the original mac os was purely gui, with a command line bolted on much
> >> >> >later.
> >> >>
> >> >> Probably nonsense.
> >> >
> >> >it's not 'probably nonsense.' it's exactly correct.
> >>
> >> Well, perhaps you'd like to explain in simple words why you
> >> believe this.
> >
> >because i've been writing software for macs for a long time and i know
> >the internals inside out.
>
> Am I supposed to be impressed?

you asked how i knew. that's how i know.

> >perhaps you'd like to explain why you doubt it.
>
> Afaics what you have said so far is that a GUI was created to run
> programs, but you have not explained how and when those programs
> were written. My view is that they were written *before* the GUI,
> because that is the normal sequence of things, otherwise you would
> have no way of testing the GUI.

the gui and whatever the app does are created together. it might be a
minimal gui at first, but it's still a gui.

> A GUI without programs to run is pretty useless.

any computer without programs is useless.

> GUI = Graphical User Interface.
>
> I do not discount that someone sketched out a GUI *before*
> writing the programs that it will run to work out what features
> they wanted in it and its general design etc, but that is not
> what you have said.

there's just one app and both the interface and the functionality are
written together. the gui is not a wrapper.

> >> You might start by giving me an example of a program
> >> which runs under the old Mac op/sys and what you do/did to run it.
> >
> >double-click it.
>
> "double-click" what?

the icon. it's a graphical interface, remember?

== 7 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:49 pm
From: "William Black"

So you spent about half of what I said and to spend managed not to to buy
what I said to buy...

>> You're playing games with the spec to make it fit your requirements not
>> mine.
>
> no, i'm trying to match the specs as close as possible.

No, you're playing games to make the iMac sound a lot better than it is.

But I'm not everyone.

That depends on how well you've been trained.

Oh, wait a bit, You're not one of these people who isn't allowed to play
with the inside of a device after the mains power is exposed are you?

also, wireless comes in quite handy
> for using a computer where running a cable might be difficult or
> impractical. bluetooth is handy for a variety of purposes, desktop or
> laptop.

It's never impractical or difficult to run cable. The only constraint is
cost.

Where on earth did you do your engineering training?

>> That's £40, plus a few quid for someone who doesn't have a decent
>> keyboard
>> and mouse about the house.
>
> so you're cheaping out on the keyboard and mouse too.

Who doesn't have a couple of these things kicking about the house?

--
William Black

== 8 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:03 pm
From: Mxsmanic

aracari writes:

> I have no doubt about that. And it furthers my pov, not yours!

I'm not trying to further a point of view, I'm simply providing information.

== 9 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:04 pm
From: Mxsmanic

nospam writes:

> except that a fair comparison with an imac would be with something with
> a built-in screen, such as a gateway one.

A fair comparison would be between systems with equivalent functionality.

== 10 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:05 pm
From: Mxsmanic

William Black writes:

> Never heard of a motor car being recalled for an in service modification?
>
> Mine was, twice...

It has never happened to me.

== 11 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:07 pm
From: Mxsmanic

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax writes:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_rot

Software rot depends on change. If nothing change, no "rot" occurs.

== 12 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:07 pm
From: Mxsmanic

erilar writes:

> I did for my GPS.

I didn't ask about your GPS (which suffers from much the same defects as
computers), I asked about a microwave oven.

== 13 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:08 pm
From: Mxsmanic

Chris H writes:

> That is complete CRAP. The OS supply need a BSP and to be configured
> and then built. One of the is a SIL3 RTOS

If you take a Mac out of the box and plug it in, it works.

== 14 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:09 pm
From: Mxsmanic

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax writes:

> But not Windows s/w, unless you're a super masochist with no life.

I've done it, and deliberately, in order to avoid dependence on Microsoft
products.

== 15 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:09 pm
From: Mxsmanic

William Black writes:

> It depends on the car.

Give a few examples.

== 16 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:10 pm
From: "William Black"

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rcjqs4tifh2io8cglue1bkdvsep2qskemo@4ax.com...
> William Black writes:
>
>> Never heard of a motor car being recalled for an in service modification?
>>
>> Mine was, twice...
>
> It has never happened to me.

You live an attic and work as a Paris tour guide (in shorts and hiking
boots)

I doubt you run a car.

I also doubt you've ever bought a new car.

They can't recall it if they don't know who has it...

--
William Black

== 17 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:10 pm
From: Roger Hunt

In article <rcjqs4tifh2io8cglue1bkdvsep2qskemo@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> writes
>William Black writes:
>
>> Never heard of a motor car being recalled for an in service modification?
>>
>> Mine was, twice...
>
>It has never happened to me.

Perhaps they programmed you to forget ...
--
Roger Hunt

== 18 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:12 pm
From: nospam

In article <gqjhm4$os5$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> So you spent about half of what I said and to spend managed not to to buy
> what I said to buy...

you linked to the main site. i picked 'base model' from the left hand
column.

> As for graphics cards, according to the motherboard manual that came with
> the computer it can run two displays. Two sockets on the graphics output,
> one VGA type one DVI-D, configurable to drive two displays...

vga?? you must be kidding. people still use vga?

the base model imac has a built-in 20" lcd and can drive a dual link
dvi 30" lcd.

> >> You're playing games with the spec to make it fit your requirements not
> >> mine.
> >
> > no, i'm trying to match the specs as close as possible.
>
> No, you're playing games to make the iMac sound a lot better than it is.

apparently it is.

> >> Who buys a computer with the OS built in?
> >
> > just about everyone does.
>
> But I'm not everyone.

that's fine. macs aren't for everyone either. if you don't need the
features that a mac offers, buy something else.

> > also, wireless comes in quite handy
> > for using a computer where running a cable might be difficult or
> > impractical. bluetooth is handy for a variety of purposes, desktop or
> > laptop.
>
> It's never impractical or difficult to run cable. The only constraint is
> cost.

in a large house, it can be quite difficult and unsightly to run a
cable, especially if it needs to go up or down a couple of floors.
sure, it can be done, but as you say, it will cost money, whereas with
a mac you wouldn't need to spend anything because it has 802.11n.

> Where on earth did you do your engineering training?

what does that have to do with anything?

> >> That's £40, plus a few quid for someone who doesn't have a decent
> >> keyboard
> >> and mouse about the house.
> >
> > so you're cheaping out on the keyboard and mouse too.
>
> Who doesn't have a couple of these things kicking about the house?

a lot of people don't. furthermore, old keyboards can be grungy.

== 19 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:13 pm
From: "William Black"

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ljqs41uta5p0ln7dntttmf57cjqdsc54q@4ax.com...
> William Black writes:
>
>> It depends on the car.
>
> Give a few examples.

Find some yourself

http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosa/apps/recalls/default.asp

--
William Black

== 20 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:18 pm
From: "William Black"

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:270320091512221805%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gqjhm4$os5$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>> > also, wireless comes in quite handy
>> > for using a computer where running a cable might be difficult or
>> > impractical. bluetooth is handy for a variety of purposes, desktop or
>> > laptop.
>>
>> It's never impractical or difficult to run cable. The only constraint is
>> cost.
>
> in a large house, it can be quite difficult and unsightly to run a
> cable, especially if it needs to go up or down a couple of floors.

Don't be silly.

Cost remains the only constraint.

Hire someone who actually knows what they are doing.

>> Where on earth did you do your engineering training?
>
> what does that have to do with anything?

Ah...

So you didn't...

>> >> That's £40, plus a few quid for someone who doesn't have a decent
>> >> keyboard
>> >> and mouse about the house.
>> >
>> > so you're cheaping out on the keyboard and mouse too.
>>
>> Who doesn't have a couple of these things kicking about the house?
>
> a lot of people don't. furthermore, old keyboards can be grungy.

Clean it.

In fact the original IBM PC came with selectric typewriter keyboards and are
built to impressive standards, if you can find one it's well worth
cleaning...

--
William Black

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bit more DOF, bit more light, bit better?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f365636f866354dc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:24 pm
From: Ron Hunter

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:9c6dnYtULJ2dB1HUnZ2dnUVZ_gsLAAAA@giganews.com...
>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> Typo Correction:
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw-small.jpg
>>>> (bw,
>>>>> quick loading)
>>>>
>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:dTSyl.19825$PH1.5083@edtnps82...
>>>>> Switched to manual mode for these.
>>>>>
>>>>> Portrait 2:
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-bw-small.jpg
>>>>> (bw, quick loading)
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-bw.jpg (bw,
>>>>> full size)
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-colour-small.jpg
>>>>> (colour, quick loading)
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-colour.jpg
>>>>> (colour, full size)
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2.cr2 (original
>>>>> RAW)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Shredding:
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw-small (bw,
>>>>> quick loading)
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw.jpg (bw,
>>>>> full size)
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-colour-small.jpg
>>>>> (colour, quick loading)
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-colour.jpg
>>>>> (colour, full size)
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding.cr2 (original
>>>>> RAW)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Take Care,
>>>>> Dudley
>>>
>>> There was a popular Photo Studio in my ex home town, whose specialty was
>>> producing Portraits in "Soft Focus"
>>> My wife loved the effect and I thought the portraits looked like they
>>> were taken with a "Baby Brownie". So this Soft Focus/Shallow DOF issue is
>>> strictly a personal preference thing. Perhaps this is the effect you are
>>> trying to achieve, and I am totally comfortable with that.
>>> But I, personally, like to get as sharp a picture as my lens/sensor will
>>> permit. Otherwise why pay $500-800+ for a fine DSLR and then get
>>> out-of-focus pictures. I don't understand the rationale.
>>> If you decide you want soft focus, Photoshop can get it for you in a
>>> heartbeat and you can control how soft you want the image to be.
>>> You don't need Full PS to do this, either.
>>> PS Elements will do it just as well for 1/10 the price.
>>> Bob Williams
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I agree. Get the sharpest picture your camera can provide as you can
>> always soften it, but you can't easily get a soft focus picture to look
>> sharp.
>
> That would be great if I could use Photoshop, but it is not compatible with
> my speech program, so I cannot use it.
>
> Sighted photographers can use Photoshop; blind ones can't.
>
> Besides, I find it interesting that many shooters complain mega-pixel
> cameras are getting softer, and that they want to get sharper pics. Then
> insist that portraits should be pin sharp out of the camera only to be
> softened in Photoshop. If cams do great soft focus shots, why not build on
> the strength of the camera?
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
Soft focus in NOT something a camera should be known for. Certainly
that would be a show stopper for me.

As for blind photographers.... How would they know?

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:26 pm
From: Ron Hunter

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:9c6dnYhULJ0HBFHUnZ2dnUVZ_guWnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> Switched to manual mode for these.
>>>
>>> Portrait 2:
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-bw-small.jpg
>>> (bw, quick loading)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-bw.jpg (bw,
>>> full size)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-colour-small.jpg
>>> (colour, quick loading)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-colour.jpg
>>> (colour, full size)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2.cr2 (original
>>> RAW)
>>>
>>>
>>> Shredding:
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw-small (bw,
>>> quick loading)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw.jpg (bw,
>>> full size)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-colour-small.jpg
>>> (colour, quick loading)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-colour.jpg
>>> (colour, full size)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding.cr2 (original
>>> RAW)
>>>
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>>>
>>>
>> First picture seems focused on her forehead. Try the nose, and add some
>> DOF so that the whole face is sharp.
>> Second picture is improperly focused on the guitar, rather than the face,
>> unless you MEANT to showcase only a part of a guitar. Watch that focus
>> spot, or use a multi-spot focus selection.
>> Some people really like 'soft focus' pictures, I'm NOT one of them.
>
> Thanks, Ron, appreciate the feedback.
>
> If the focus was on the forehead, I'm assuming the eyes were in focus, and
> the nose is a bit soft. This sounds like I'm getting close to the effect
> I'm after.
>
> It doesn't matter so much for this shot, but, for people with larger noses,
> I find it helpful to bring the focus to the eyes, if possible.
>
> The guitar shot didn't quite work out the way I wanted it to. I wanted to
> get his hand in the shot, somewhat blurred from action, with the guitar in
> sharp focus. Unfortunately, I couldn't catch his hand where I wanted it.
>
> Had I caught the hand, the effect would have been to catch the viewer's eye
> with the hard lines and sharp colour distinctions of the instrument, and
> then draw it away to the hand and bring it up to the face, eventually, where
> one would be left thinking about the musician's deep concentration.
>
> The overall effect should have been to make a statement about how the human
> creative process can coax beauty out of the hardness of the physical world.
>
> I'm getting closer, but still have a ways to go.
>
> Once again, Ron, thanks for describing your impressions.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
I guess that would be fine, if you like soft noses. Grin.
I am just not fond of soft focus, although I know many people think it
is 'artistic'. I think it is just bad photography. Not much of an
impressionist....

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:36 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Me-dnRqmtpgS2VDUnZ2dnUVZ_jULAAAA@giganews.com...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:9c6dnYhULJ0HBFHUnZ2dnUVZ_guWnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> Switched to manual mode for these.
>>>>
>>>> Portrait 2:
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-bw-small.jpg
>>>> (bw, quick loading)
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-bw.jpg (bw,
>>>> full size)
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-colour-small.jpg
>>>> (colour, quick loading)
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-colour.jpg
>>>> (colour, full size)
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2.cr2 (original
>>>> RAW)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shredding:
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw-small (bw,
>>>> quick loading)
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw.jpg (bw,
>>>> full size)
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-colour-small.jpg
>>>> (colour, quick loading)
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-colour.jpg
>>>> (colour, full size)
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding.cr2 (original
>>>> RAW)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Take Care,
>>>> Dudley
>>>>
>>>>
>>> First picture seems focused on her forehead. Try the nose, and add some
>>> DOF so that the whole face is sharp.
>>> Second picture is improperly focused on the guitar, rather than the
>>> face, unless you MEANT to showcase only a part of a guitar. Watch that
>>> focus spot, or use a multi-spot focus selection.
>>> Some people really like 'soft focus' pictures, I'm NOT one of them.
>>
>> Thanks, Ron, appreciate the feedback.
>>
>> If the focus was on the forehead, I'm assuming the eyes were in focus,
>> and the nose is a bit soft. This sounds like I'm getting close to the
>> effect I'm after.
>>
>> It doesn't matter so much for this shot, but, for people with larger
>> noses, I find it helpful to bring the focus to the eyes, if possible.
>>
>> The guitar shot didn't quite work out the way I wanted it to. I wanted
>> to get his hand in the shot, somewhat blurred from action, with the
>> guitar in sharp focus. Unfortunately, I couldn't catch his hand where I
>> wanted it.
>>
>> Had I caught the hand, the effect would have been to catch the viewer's
>> eye with the hard lines and sharp colour distinctions of the instrument,
>> and then draw it away to the hand and bring it up to the face,
>> eventually, where one would be left thinking about the musician's deep
>> concentration.
>>
>> The overall effect should have been to make a statement about how the
>> human creative process can coax beauty out of the hardness of the
>> physical world.
>>
>> I'm getting closer, but still have a ways to go.
>>
>> Once again, Ron, thanks for describing your impressions.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
> I guess that would be fine, if you like soft noses. Grin.
> I am just not fond of soft focus, although I know many people think it is
> 'artistic'. I think it is just bad photography. Not much of an
> impressionist....

To each his own...

Concert photography is one area where the soft focus is really an issue.
Nothing worse than using half an inch DOF on a heavy metal rock shot, at
least when faces are involved.

Take Care,
Dudley

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:49 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Me-dnRumtpif2VDUnZ2dnUVZ_jWWnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:9c6dnYtULJ2dB1HUnZ2dnUVZ_gsLAAAA@giganews.com...
>>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>>> Typo Correction:
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw-small.jpg
>>>>> (bw,
>>>>>> quick loading)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:dTSyl.19825$PH1.5083@edtnps82...
>>>>>> Switched to manual mode for these.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Portrait 2:
>>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-bw-small.jpg
>>>>>> (bw, quick loading)
>>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-bw.jpg (bw,
>>>>>> full size)
>>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-colour-small.jpg
>>>>>> (colour, quick loading)
>>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-colour.jpg
>>>>>> (colour, full size)
>>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2.cr2
>>>>>> (original RAW)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shredding:
>>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw-small
>>>>>> (bw, quick loading)
>>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw.jpg (bw,
>>>>>> full size)
>>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-colour-small.jpg
>>>>>> (colour, quick loading)
>>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-colour.jpg
>>>>>> (colour, full size)
>>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding.cr2
>>>>>> (original RAW)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take Care,
>>>>>> Dudley
>>>>
>>>> There was a popular Photo Studio in my ex home town, whose specialty
>>>> was producing Portraits in "Soft Focus"
>>>> My wife loved the effect and I thought the portraits looked like they
>>>> were taken with a "Baby Brownie". So this Soft Focus/Shallow DOF issue
>>>> is strictly a personal preference thing. Perhaps this is the effect you
>>>> are trying to achieve, and I am totally comfortable with that.
>>>> But I, personally, like to get as sharp a picture as my lens/sensor
>>>> will permit. Otherwise why pay $500-800+ for a fine DSLR and then get
>>>> out-of-focus pictures. I don't understand the rationale.
>>>> If you decide you want soft focus, Photoshop can get it for you in a
>>>> heartbeat and you can control how soft you want the image to be.
>>>> You don't need Full PS to do this, either.
>>>> PS Elements will do it just as well for 1/10 the price.
>>>> Bob Williams
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I agree. Get the sharpest picture your camera can provide as you can
>>> always soften it, but you can't easily get a soft focus picture to look
>>> sharp.
>>
>> That would be great if I could use Photoshop, but it is not compatible
>> with my speech program, so I cannot use it.
>>
>> Sighted photographers can use Photoshop; blind ones can't.
>>
>> Besides, I find it interesting that many shooters complain mega-pixel
>> cameras are getting softer, and that they want to get sharper pics. Then
>> insist that portraits should be pin sharp out of the camera only to be
>> softened in Photoshop. If cams do great soft focus shots, why not build
>> on the strength of the camera?
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
> Soft focus in NOT something a camera should be known for. Certainly that
> would be a show stopper for me.
>
> As for blind photographers.... How would they know?

How would they know what?

If you are talking about how they would know whether or not a shot is soft
or crisp, experience and sighted feedback would be the key. I don't pull
out a 50mm lens and shoot at f/1.8 expecting a crisp, sharply focus image --
except maybe if I'm shooting a scene that is only half an inch deep. With
portraits, that lens and aperture combo is used with the intention of
achieving a soft focus portrait in the Romantic tradition.

If you are talking about a camera's general characteristics, then camera
reviews would be the source, as well as comments from known shooters who
have used the box in question. But, such reviews and comments need to be
taken with a grain of salt, since a lot depends on what lens is being used
on the camera, and how the shots are framed as to whether or not a soft
image will be obtained.

If you are talking about how blind shooters will know whether Photoshop is
working, just close your eyes and sit in front of your computer and load
Photoshop. Then, try to do something. That's the scene when I try to work
with it.

No audible feedback -- zilch. So, I can do nothing with it.

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus: Are they F----- CRAZY?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e68eefee518f24d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 27 2009 2:26 pm
From: Alan Browne

Alfred Molon wrote:

>
> The F-number simply is the ratio of the entry pupil and the sensor size.

the f/number is the ratio of focal length over the aperture diameter and
has nothing to do with the sensor size.

--
-- 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

Friday, March 27, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 3 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, March 27, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 3 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic