Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 7 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Best $300 compact camera - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/da5a09e1833bbc75?hl=en
* BW Pics - 13 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4efb6210a94d6ae8?hl=en
* Nails in P&S coffins (and DSLRs?) - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/29afe4bf434fb93b?hl=en
* How far is "infinity?" - Not a metaphysical query - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1af76dc834e6c187?hl=en
* |GG| Carl Zeiss photo contest winner (what took it, a camera phone?) - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d9bfa7dd8e17ef02?hl=en
* Continuous Ink System for Color Printers - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b7f072543ea6c3a7?hl=en
* Disney would roll over . . . - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2efc217d7d3906ae?hl=en

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 6:44 am
From: "David J Taylor"

GregS wrote:
> In article <yc5sl.3445$Lc7.981@text.news.virginmedia.com>, "David J
> Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> David McWilliams wrote:
>>> Good point. I be taking vacation shots, some scenic stuff, night
>>> time would be nice, no real need for exceptional macro. I like a
>>> smaller form factor, good regular zoom, image stabilization would
>>> be nice.
>>
>> For me, the best compact camera was the Panasonic TZ3. The TZ5 and
>> TZ6 are the more recent versions.
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz5/
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmczs1.asp
>>
>> David
>>
>
> I was just comparing my new camera against that. The Panasonic
> has better resolution except for chromatic aberitions. The low light
> sensitivity
> is much worse.. Its got the wide angle, but I kinda favor large
> cameras now.
> My Fuji S2000HD was $195 at Circuit City.
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
>
> greg

Like all compact, small-sensor cameras, the Panasonic will do better at
lower ISO than higher ISO. I think what you are saying is that when you
use a higher ISO, the Panasonic shows more noise. While this may be true,
in my experience Panasonic cameras also deliver sharper images, which
inherently mean that the noise will appear greater than in an image with
lots of smoothing. Just keep the camera on ISO 100 and use a tripod or
other support in very low light conditions when you need a longer
exposure.

If you favour large cameras, and you want excellent available-light
performance, get a DSLR with an f/1.8 lens. Even with the "kit" f/3.5
lens, a DSLR is streets ahead of the compact, small-sensor camera. (I
have both types of camera).

Cheers,
David

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 9:00 am
From: SMS

davidmcw wrote:
> 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.

You're really going to be out of luck with that size camera with anyone
but Canon.

Go to "http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php"

and select:

Fixed Lens
3x-5x Optical Zoom
Proprietary Battery
Image Stabilizer
Optical/electronic viewfinder

and among the sub-compacts it's almost all Canon (one Sony).

The other manufacturers have decontented their products a lot more than
Canon.

The Panasonic TZ5 would be good if you can deal with the noise as well
as the fact that they forgot to include an optical or electronic
viewfinder. That super zoom would sure be nice, including the
wide-angle. If you don't care all that much about the best photo
quality, the TZ5 is hard to beat.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 9:31 am
From: "David J Taylor"

SMS wrote:
[]
> The Panasonic TZ5 would be good if you can deal with the noise as well
> as the fact that they forgot to include an optical or electronic
> viewfinder. That super zoom would sure be nice, including the
> wide-angle. If you don't care all that much about the best photo
> quality, the TZ5 is hard to beat.

Your bias is showing again!

Do you possess and use a TZ5?

I own and use a TZ3, and I assure you that you can get some superb photos
from it. It does have an electronic viewfinder - most of the back of the
camera is a display which shows the image you are about to take!

But to take you at your word, yes, a DSLR is required for the best photo
quality. The TZ3/TZ5 is a very compact alternative for when the
circumstances demand it.

David

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 10:52 am
From: Stefan Patric

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:04:33 -0800, David McWilliams wrote:

> Good point. I be taking vacation shots, some scenic stuff, night time
> would be nice, no real need for exceptional macro. I like a smaller form
> factor, good regular zoom, image stabilization would be nice.

Others have recommended the Panasonic Lumix DMZ-TZ5 and I concur. This
is a great little compact with an amazing 10X Leica zoom (28-280mm
equivalent). Overall, image quality is very good even at 800 ISO.

If you want to save a few bucks, check out the companion TZ4, which
pretty much has the same specs as the TZ5, but comes with a 2.5" LCD
instead of the 3". But believe me, get the 3" screen. Makes composing a
lot easier. Neither camera has an optical viewfinder.

Stef

> On Mar 5, 1:25 pm, Stefan Patric <n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:17:06 -0800, davidmcw wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> "Good" in what respect? What's good for me most likely won't be good
>> for you. Without knowing a little about what type of pictures you want
>> to take (macro, scenics, vacation, etc.) and your own personal
>> preferences, any recommendation would be mostly useless. However, I've
>> found the following link a good starting point for an initial search:
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp
>>
>> Stef

==============================================================================
TOPIC: BW Pics
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4efb6210a94d6ae8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 7:00 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

Switching to BW and cranking up the LCD brightness seems to help a bit with
composition...

Now, the backgrounds need attention.

Homework:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.jpg (full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework-small.jpg (quick
load)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.cr2 (original RAW)

Unplugged:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged.jpg (full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged-small.jpg (quick
load)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged.cr2 (original RAW)

Portrait of a guide dog:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich.jpg (full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich-small.jpg (quick load)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich.cr2 (original RAW)

As always, comments / critiques are both welcome and appreciated...

Take Care,
Dudley

== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 8:18 am
From: George Kerby

On 3/6/09 9:00 AM, in article 2Uasl.15549$Db2.108@edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks"
<photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:

All I get when I click on any of your buttons is:

"PAGE NOT FOUND

We cannot locate the page you're looking for. Please check the address and
make sure all letters are lowercased with no spaces. You may also move to a
different page by using the links in the menu bar above."

Thought you might want to know...

== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 8:40 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C5D6A8E0.23947%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 3/6/09 9:00 AM, in article 2Uasl.15549$Db2.108@edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks"
> <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>
>> Switching to BW and cranking up the LCD brightness seems to help a bit
>> with
>> composition...
>>
>> Now, the backgrounds need attention.
>>
>> Homework:
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.jpg (full size)
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework-small.jpg (quick
>> load)
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.cr2 (original
>> RAW)
>>
>> Unplugged:
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged.jpg (full size)
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged-small.jpg
>> (quick
>> load)
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged.cr2 (original
>> RAW)
>>
>>
>> Portrait of a guide dog:
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich.jpg (full size)
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich-small.jpg (quick
>> load)
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich.cr2 (original RAW)
>>
>> As always, comments / critiques are both welcome and appreciated...
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
> Hello Dudley!
>
> All I get when I click on any of your buttons is:
>
> "PAGE NOT FOUND
>
> We cannot locate the page you're looking for. Please check the address and
> make sure all letters are lowercased with no spaces. You may also move to
> a
> different page by using the links in the menu bar above."
>
> Thought you might want to know...
>

Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be down.
I'll check to see what is happening.

Take Care,
Dudley

== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 8:46 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Dudley Hanks wrote:
[]
> Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be
> down. I'll check to see what is happening.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley

Remember that some Web servers are case-sensitive, so that:

dog.jpg

and

Dog.jpg

are two different files.

Same for directories.

Cheers,
David

== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 8:51 am
From: John McWilliams

David J Taylor wrote:
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
> []
>> Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be
>> down. I'll check to see what is happening.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
> Remember that some Web servers are case-sensitive, so that:
>
> dog.jpg
>
> and
>
> Dog.jpg
>
> are two different files.
>
> Same for directories.

Also, when I take the URL back to just:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com, I get the message that access
is denied, so there may be a problem with the 'prefix'. And maybe not,
but it is more usual than not that the base URL shows something.

--
John McWilliams

== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 9:00 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gorkb3$s7b$1@reader.motzarella.org...
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> []
>>> Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be
>>> down. I'll check to see what is happening.
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>>
>> Remember that some Web servers are case-sensitive, so that:
>>
>> dog.jpg
>>
>> and
>>
>> Dog.jpg
>>
>> are two different files.
>>
>> Same for directories.
>
> Also, when I take the URL back to just:
> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com, I get the message that access is
> denied, so there may be a problem with the 'prefix'. And maybe not, but
> it is more usual than not that the base URL shows something.
>
> --
> John McWilliams

I think it's fixed, now.

I had a problem with some database apps not uninstalling properly, so I put
in a maintenance request. I think they had to take me off line for a few
minutes in order to fix that problem.

The links seem to be working again.

Take Care,
Dudley

== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 9:11 am
From: John McWilliams

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:gorkb3$s7b$1@reader.motzarella.org...
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> []
>>>> Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be
>>>> down. I'll check to see what is happening.
>>>>
>>>> Take Care,
>>>> Dudley
>>> Remember that some Web servers are case-sensitive, so that:
>>>
>>> dog.jpg
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> Dog.jpg
>>>
>>> are two different files.
>>>
>>> Same for directories.
>> Also, when I take the URL back to just:
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com, I get the message that access is
>> denied, so there may be a problem with the 'prefix'. And maybe not, but
>> it is more usual than not that the base URL shows something.
>>
>> --
>> John McWilliams
>
> I think it's fixed, now.
>
> I had a problem with some database apps not uninstalling properly, so I put
> in a maintenance request. I think they had to take me off line for a few
> minutes in order to fix that problem.
>
> The links seem to be working again.

ah, bingo! It is working. I have to run, but this one,
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.jpg
- the girl studying is out of focus, but it's a nice effect. The focus
seems to be on a text book in the foreground.

--
John McWilliams

== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 9:14 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gorlg3$h3t$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:gorkb3$s7b$1@reader.motzarella.org...
>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>> Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be
>>>>> down. I'll check to see what is happening.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take Care,
>>>>> Dudley
>>>> Remember that some Web servers are case-sensitive, so that:
>>>>
>>>> dog.jpg
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> Dog.jpg
>>>>
>>>> are two different files.
>>>>
>>>> Same for directories.
>>> Also, when I take the URL back to just:
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com, I get the message that access
>>> is denied, so there may be a problem with the 'prefix'. And maybe not,
>>> but it is more usual than not that the base URL shows something.
>>>
>>> --
>>> John McWilliams
>>
>> I think it's fixed, now.
>>
>> I had a problem with some database apps not uninstalling properly, so I
>> put in a maintenance request. I think they had to take me off line for a
>> few minutes in order to fix that problem.
>>
>> The links seem to be working again.
>
> ah, bingo! It is working. I have to run, but this one,
> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.jpg
> - the girl studying is out of focus, but it's a nice effect. The focus
> seems to be on a text book in the foreground.
>
> --
> John McWilliams

Thanks, John, appreciate that bit of info. Ensuring focus is where I want
it could be my next big problem to figure out.

Take Care,
Dudley

== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 10:30 am
From: "Sharon"

Dudley,

I don't post much to this group, but I always appreciate your photographic
work. I like all three pictures. Good composition. Although the girl is
out of focus, the book is in focus, which makes it the object of the
thoughts she appears to be absorbed with. Unplugged is a nice candid shot.
My only problem with this picture is the lamp in the background being a
little over exposed. Nice, sharp shot of the dog too.

Sharon

== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 10:39 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Sharon" <sharon_barbour@hp.com> wrote in message
news:gorq4u$bo7$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> Dudley,
>
> I don't post much to this group, but I always appreciate your photographic
> work. I like all three pictures. Good composition. Although the girl is
> out of focus, the book is in focus, which makes it the object of the
> thoughts she appears to be absorbed with. Unplugged is a nice candid
> shot. My only problem with this picture is the lamp in the background
> being a little over exposed. Nice, sharp shot of the dog too.
>
> Sharon

Thanks, Sharon, appreciate your comments.

In the unplugged shot, I was using the lamp to get enough contrast to locate
the subject's outline against. I probably should have gone with a lower ISO
setting to dial that lamp down a bit in the actual image.

Thanks for pointing that out for me.

Take Care,
Dudley

>
>
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:gorlg3$h3t$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gorkb3$s7b$1@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>>> []
>>>>>> Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be
>>>>>> down. I'll check to see what is happening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take Care,
>>>>>> Dudley
>>>>> Remember that some Web servers are case-sensitive, so that:
>>>>>
>>>>> dog.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> Dog.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> are two different files.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same for directories.
>>>> Also, when I take the URL back to just:
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com, I get the message that access
>>>> is denied, so there may be a problem with the 'prefix'. And maybe not,
>>>> but it is more usual than not that the base URL shows something.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> John McWilliams
>>>
>>> I think it's fixed, now.
>>>
>>> I had a problem with some database apps not uninstalling properly, so I
>>> put in a maintenance request. I think they had to take me off line for
>>> a few minutes in order to fix that problem.
>>>
>>> The links seem to be working again.
>>
>> ah, bingo! It is working. I have to run, but this one,
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.jpg
>> - the girl studying is out of focus, but it's a nice effect. The focus
>> seems to be on a text book in the foreground.
>>
>> --
>> John McWilliams
>
>

== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 11:03 am
From: George Kerby

On 3/6/09 10:40 AM, in article Glcsl.15556$Db2.10991@edtnps83, "Dudley
Hanks" <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:

>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C5D6A8E0.23947%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/6/09 9:00 AM, in article 2Uasl.15549$Db2.108@edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Switching to BW and cranking up the LCD brightness seems to help a bit
>>> with
>>> composition...
>>>
>>> Now, the backgrounds need attention.
>>>
>>> Homework:
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.jpg (full size)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework-small.jpg (quick
>>> load)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.cr2 (original
>>> RAW)
>>>
>>> Unplugged:
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged.jpg (full size)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged-small.jpg
>>> (quick
>>> load)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Unplugged.cr2 (original
>>> RAW)
>>>
>>>
>>> Portrait of a guide dog:
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich.jpg (full size)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich-small.jpg (quick
>>> load)
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Mich.cr2 (original RAW)
>>>
>>> As always, comments / critiques are both welcome and appreciated...
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>>>
>>>
>> Hello Dudley!
>>
>> All I get when I click on any of your buttons is:
>>
>> "PAGE NOT FOUND
>>
>> We cannot locate the page you're looking for. Please check the address and
>> make sure all letters are lowercased with no spaces. You may also move to
>> a
>> different page by using the links in the menu bar above."
>>
>> Thought you might want to know...
>>
>
> Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be down.
> I'll check to see what is happening.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
Works for me now.

I'm impressed by your very shallow depth-of-field on your dog's portrait.
"The eyes have it", as they say. I am impressed by all of his "metals", LOL!

== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 11:05 am
From: George Kerby

On 3/6/09 11:14 AM, in article 9Scsl.15560$Db2.5421@edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks"
<photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:

>
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:gorlg3$h3t$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gorkb3$s7b$1@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>>> []
>>>>>> Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be
>>>>>> down. I'll check to see what is happening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take Care,
>>>>>> Dudley
>>>>> Remember that some Web servers are case-sensitive, so that:
>>>>>
>>>>> dog.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> Dog.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> are two different files.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same for directories.
>>>> Also, when I take the URL back to just:
>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com, I get the message that access
>>>> is denied, so there may be a problem with the 'prefix'. And maybe not,
>>>> but it is more usual than not that the base URL shows something.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> John McWilliams
>>>
>>> I think it's fixed, now.
>>>
>>> I had a problem with some database apps not uninstalling properly, so I
>>> put in a maintenance request. I think they had to take me off line for a
>>> few minutes in order to fix that problem.
>>>
>>> The links seem to be working again.
>>
>> ah, bingo! It is working. I have to run, but this one,
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.jpg
>> - the girl studying is out of focus, but it's a nice effect. The focus
>> seems to be on a text book in the foreground.
>>
>> --
>> John McWilliams
>
> Thanks, John, appreciate that bit of info. Ensuring focus is where I want
> it could be my next big problem to figure out.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
You certainly hit it on your Guide Dog.

== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 11:49 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C5D6D01D.23973%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 3/6/09 11:14 AM, in article 9Scsl.15560$Db2.5421@edtnps83, "Dudley
> Hanks"
> <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:gorlg3$h3t$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:gorkb3$s7b$1@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>>>> []
>>>>>>> Thanks, George, I'm not sure what is wrong. The server seems to be
>>>>>>> down. I'll check to see what is happening.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Take Care,
>>>>>>> Dudley
>>>>>> Remember that some Web servers are case-sensitive, so that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dog.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dog.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are two different files.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same for directories.
>>>>> Also, when I take the URL back to just:
>>>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com, I get the message that access
>>>>> is denied, so there may be a problem with the 'prefix'. And maybe
>>>>> not,
>>>>> but it is more usual than not that the base URL shows something.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> John McWilliams
>>>>
>>>> I think it's fixed, now.
>>>>
>>>> I had a problem with some database apps not uninstalling properly, so I
>>>> put in a maintenance request. I think they had to take me off line for
>>>> a
>>>> few minutes in order to fix that problem.
>>>>
>>>> The links seem to be working again.
>>>
>>> ah, bingo! It is working. I have to run, but this one,
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Homework.jpg
>>> - the girl studying is out of focus, but it's a nice effect. The focus
>>> seems to be on a text book in the foreground.
>>>
>>> --
>>> John McWilliams
>>
>> Thanks, John, appreciate that bit of info. Ensuring focus is where I
>> want
>> it could be my next big problem to figure out.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
> You certainly hit it on your Guide Dog.
>

It's funny how things work out...

In the homework shot, I actually wanted it the other way around, with the
books out of focus. The intention was to get a kind of daydream feel: the
texts being there but not what is being "focused" on.

With Mich, I thought I might have trouble with the focus, since fur can
throw off autofocusing systems.

But, hey, I'll take what I can get...

Regarding Mich, I can make out a bit of the catchlight in his eye, so I'm
wondering if that worked out. My fear is that, if I can notice it, it might
be that his eye is looking a bit glassy to everybody else?

Take Care,
Dudley

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 7:09 am
From: Bruce

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>| Wikipedia states that "McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest
>| chain of fast food restaurants, serving nearly 58 million customers
>| daily."
>|
>| McDonalds probably sells more hamburgers than any other company. That
>| doesn't mean that they are good - in fact, the opposite. McDonalds
>| burgers are certainly ubiquitous, quick and cheap, but not necessarily
>| good.
>|
>| The similarity with Kodak consumer products is strong.
>
>Especially since they don't actually make, or even design, most of them,
>anymore. I used to prefer Kodak film over other brands. Since I quit
>using film, I have no preference in that area.

Well, I do still use some film, and it's all Kodak, because I prefer it
over other brands. Kodak's film standards may have slipped a little,
but that's hardly surprising given film's transition from mass market to
niche product.

But Kodak's digital products are extremely disappointing. At one point
they were ahead of the curve, with good quality products such as the
DC210, but since then their standards have dropped to rock bottom.

I understand why people show loyalty to the Kodak brand, but that
loyalty should not blind them to the company's precipitous decline from
film's market leader to digital's pariah.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 9:55 am
From: ray

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:09:40 +0000, Bruce wrote:

> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
>>In rec.photo.digital Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>| Wikipedia states that "McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest |
>>chain of fast food restaurants, serving nearly 58 million customers |
>>daily."
>>|
>>| McDonalds probably sells more hamburgers than any other company. That
>>| doesn't mean that they are good - in fact, the opposite. McDonalds |
>>burgers are certainly ubiquitous, quick and cheap, but not necessarily |
>>good.
>>|
>>| The similarity with Kodak consumer products is strong.
>>
>>Especially since they don't actually make, or even design, most of them,
>>anymore. I used to prefer Kodak film over other brands. Since I quit
>>using film, I have no preference in that area.
>
>
> Well, I do still use some film, and it's all Kodak, because I prefer it
> over other brands. Kodak's film standards may have slipped a little,
> but that's hardly surprising given film's transition from mass market to
> niche product.
>
> But Kodak's digital products are extremely disappointing. At one point
> they were ahead of the curve, with good quality products such as the
> DC210, but since then their standards have dropped to rock bottom.
>
> I understand why people show loyalty to the Kodak brand, but that
> loyalty should not blind them to the company's precipitous decline from
> film's market leader to digital's pariah.

Frankly, I think many people knock Kodak because that's the 'in thing' to
do. Have you actually had any experience with a Kodak camera since the
DC120? I have an old DC 210+ which is a fine camera, and is still
running. I also use a Kodak P850 which, IMHO, is also a good camera. I'm
not saying it's the 'best' (rather subjective since that means different
things to different folks, anyway), but it works reliably and produces
decent results. I was disappointed when Kodak discontinued the P series,
but that does not make their entire product line junk.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 11:54 am
From: Bruce

ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>Frankly, I think many people knock Kodak because that's the 'in thing' to
>do.

Knocking junk is perfectly valid, regardless of brand. Lots of Samsung
digital cameras are junk. Some Sony, some Olympus, some Pentax are
junk. It has nothing to do with brand. If they are junk, they are
junk, regardless of the name on the front.

>Have you actually had any experience with a Kodak camera since the
>DC120? I have an old DC 210+ which is a fine camera, and is still
>running.

I apologise, I meant the DC210. Nothing that followed the DC210 was any
good; the first retrograde step was the DC280 and it has been downhill
ever since.

>I also use a Kodak P850 which, IMHO, is also a good camera. I'm
>not saying it's the 'best' (rather subjective since that means different
>things to different folks, anyway), but it works reliably and produces
>decent results. I was disappointed when Kodak discontinued the P series,
>but that does not make their entire product line junk.

Kodak obviously satisfies a certain market. Thanks to their illustrious
past, Kodak are still able to trade on a reputation that has certainly
not been supported by their digital cameras for many years now.

But you won't find anyone who is serious about their photography using
Kodak digital cameras, and that speaks volumes.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 7:53 am
From: Daguerreotype type

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:44:15 -0500, "Jay Kneese" <jaykneese@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"Daguerreotype type" <nospam@no.invalid> wrote in message
>news:49nvq453uh73tgmceof7jl1bfvpvjqjc6v@4ax.com...
>>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.
>
>Now that you've gotten some theoretical answers, I'll try to give you a
>practical one. If your zoom is set to wide angle, you can safely use 50 -
>100 feet as "Infinity". As you zoom toward the telephoto end, you need to
>think in terms of 200 feet or more. As the other posts implied, you can
>calculate the "exact" distance to focus on, but you don't always have a
>calculator and formulas handy. Do some test shots and examine the results
>for sharpness and you will soon get a practical idea of where to set the
>focus.

Okay, thanks. I should probably reiterate that what I'm using is a
Canon A580 point and shoot camera. The lens says "5.8-23.2 mm
1:2.6-5.5" and I can get up to 4x zoom on it.

So if I don't zoom at all I should figure that something between 50
and 100 feet would be infinity? And 100 feet would pretty definitely
be infinity, then, right? And if I zoom at something distant then at
4x I should expect the infinity to be 200+ feet?

>As for full moon exposure, remember that the full moon is lighted by by the
>sun, so basically, you use the same exposure as a sunlit landscape on
>earth - maybe a half-stop more.

Oh, thanks, I hadn't thought of it that way! With this camera I don't
have a lot of control, even in the "manual" mode. I can play with the
exposure a little bit but it never compensates enough to keep the full
Moon from just burning a white spot.

>Again, experiment. Keep in mind that as the
>moon goes toward crescent, you will have to increase your exposure. There
>are some good charts online if you give Google a whirl.

I've found that I can just about get some decent shots of the crescent
Moon if the sky's light enough. The problem is that the camera is
seeing half a degree of lit up Moon amid a lot more dark sky. This
particular camera doesn't seem to have a way to set things in real
detail. OTOH I can grab shots fast. I'm just trying to find a way to
get more things at a distance in focus and the "Landscape" mode seems
to be a way of doing that.

>Good luck!

Thanks, I'll need it.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 7:59 am
From: Daguerreotype type

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:45:40 +0000, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>Jay Kneese wrote:
>> "Daguerreotype type" <nospam@no.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:49nvq453uh73tgmceof7jl1bfvpvjqjc6v@4ax.com...
>>> 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.
>>
>> Now that you've gotten some theoretical answers, I'll try to give you a
>> practical one. If your zoom is set to wide angle, you can safely use 50 -
>> 100 feet as "Infinity". As you zoom toward the telephoto end, you need to
>> think in terms of 200 feet or more. As the other posts implied, you can
>> calculate the "exact" distance to focus on, but you don't always have a
>> calculator and formulas handy. Do some test shots and examine the results
>> for sharpness and you will soon get a practical idea of where to set the
>> focus.
>>
>> As for full moon exposure, remember that the full moon is lighted by by the
>> sun, so basically, you use the same exposure as a sunlit landscape on
>> earth - maybe a half-stop more. Again, experiment. Keep in mind that as the
>> moon goes toward crescent, you will have to increase your exposure. There
>> are some good charts online if you give Google a whirl.
>
>You also tend to drive auto exposure systems nuts, since
>the moon is small, but fairly bright, against an almost
>pure black background.

Exactly.

>Manual mode, or HEAVY exposure compensation is the way.

Unfortunately, the "manual" mode on the Canon A580 is pretty limited.
And the exposure compensation is just not adequate to prevent total
overexposure of the full Moon.

>I happen to have some recent shots of a full moon, taken with
>a Canon A630.
>
>The relevent numbers are:
>
>1/500th
>f 4.1
>135mm
>ISO 82
>
>That was slightly under exposed (brightest pixels around 80%)

I have another point and shoot digital camera that does allow slightly
more detailed settings but I'm still trying to get a replacement
battery for it. With that one I can get a decent shot of the crescent
or gibbous Moon with 1/16th at f11, and I forget the ISO. The Canon
A580 uses common AA cells and so it's all I can use just now.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: |GG| Carl Zeiss photo contest winner (what took it, a camera phone?)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d9bfa7dd8e17ef02?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 10:34 am
From: Paul Furman

RichA wrote:
> What is with the weird textured pattern? It almost looks like it was
> printed on canvas and rephotographed.
>
> http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/ff8a7b7a369c1549c12570fb0048e952

Try this link:
http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/c9027d13d4f33842c12575600048b4b1
"Picture taken with: Analogue rangefinder camera with
Planar T* 2/50 ZM"

> The photo:
>
> http://www.zeiss.de/C125679B0029303C/EmbedTitelIntern/PI_0051-2009/$File/PI_0051-2009.jpg

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Continuous Ink System for Color Printers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b7f072543ea6c3a7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 10:48 am
From: Gary Edstrom

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:00:40 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Gary Edstrom wrote:
>> Does anyone here have experience with the Lyson Continuous Ink System &
>> Cave Paint Inks? I have gotten fed up with the amount of money I am
>> spending on ink cartridges. Is the Lyson system any good? Any problems
>> with it?
>>
>> Thanks, Gary
>
>I asked in these groups a few months ago, and backed down on the idea,
>partly because it's not cheap to get started and the idea that clogs can
>be a problem if you don't make any prints for a week or 2 sounds like a
>drag. I imagined spending $300 on a CIS then trashing my $500 printer
>and it didn't seem so appealing since I print in waves, not every week.

Thanks for your input. Of course, clogs can be a problem with the
individual cartridges also. If I don't run my printer for a week or
two, I run the nozzle check first and often find gaps in the printout.
Running the nozzle cleaning routine always seems to fix it. I did have
one time, after not using the printer for well over a month, when I had
to run the nozzle cleaning routine twice before the nozzle check looked
normal.

I normally can run 4 nozzle checks on a single sheet of 8x10 paper. For
the second check, I run the paper through from the opposite end. I then
trim off both ends of the paper and can use the remainder for two more
checks.

Gary

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Disney would roll over . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2efc217d7d3906ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 6 2009 11:33 am
From: ASAAR

Woe Is I. Woe is we.
In the 21st century
Can such things be?

http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2009/03/plane-insane.html

http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2005/02/after_having_be.html

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

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