Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How can I take photos of GOD???
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ed77e47905febf46?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 12:55 pm
From: Ron Hunter

Matt Clara wrote:
> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:jnNzl.435$6n.254@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> Jasper Tiler wrote:
>>> I want to prove the existence of GOD, so that all
>>> people will believe in HIM.
>>>
>>> For that purpose, I need a photo of GOD.
>>>
>>> How can I take a photo of GOD???
>> At Mt. Sinai, God told Moses, "You may not look at my face, but I will
>> show you my goodness.
>
> And my badness, and I shall mix them together, pell-mell, so that you shall
> often wonder whether I exist at all, and thou shall desire to photograph me,
> to prove my existence, but that brings us back to the face thing, so thou
> shalt just forget about it, or suffer my annoyance."
>
The problem is, that most religions seem to believe that in order to
actually see HIS face, you must be dead. Any volunteers?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 12:56 pm
From: Ron Hunter

John wrote:
> Hi!
> That's what PSP and Photoshop are for.
> or
> If you actually do get the real thing. You will be accused od using
> PSP or Photoshop
> Good luck
> John
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Jasper Tiler
> <slimier_trap@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I want to prove the existence of GOD, so that all
>> people will believe in HIM.
>>
>> For that purpose, I need a photo of GOD.
>>
>> How can I take a photo of GOD???
Yeah, it's rather like hitting a hole in one, with no one else on the
course....

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:14 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Jasper Tiler" <slimier_trap@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee800b2b-f88b-4571-a150-3f8e69939351@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>I want to prove the existence of GOD, so that all
> people will believe in HIM.
>
> For that purpose, I need a photo of GOD.
>
> How can I take a photo of GOD???

Drop by some time. If I'm not busy, I'll sit for you....

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which Epson printer?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/341768f7c25990e4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:03 pm
From: "tconway"

"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gqnnoo$aa5$1@news.motzarella.org...
>I had a BJ -200 which I got with my first computer, in about
> 1998. I just threw out the printer, a couple weeks ago.
> Hadn't used it in years.
>
> My printer on the PC is Epson CX-7400, and I'm very pleased
> with it. One thing I don't like, is that when one of the
> color cartridges goes empty, I can't print at all, not even
> in black only.
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org

My Epson 1270 is like that too. One cartridge runs out of ink, I'm
completely finished. Makes nice prints, though.
tim
> .
>
>
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:%Dgzl.27263$ZP4.12652@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> A friend still has a working Canon bubble jet BJ200, over 15
> years old.
> My old Epson clogged (forgot the model).
>
> --
> Paul Furman
>
>

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

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:05 pm
From: John Stubbings

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:25:56 +0100, Roger Hunt wrote:

>>> >As I said, it's a small college. Full-time academic staff choose their
>>> >own computers, and most choose PCs because that's what they use- but a
>>> >few do have macs- in addition, the recording studios, composition
>>> >studios and marketing departments use macs.
>>> >
>>> And those who spend too much time on porn sites use dirty macs.
>>
>>I wouldn't give too much of yourself away here...
>>
> Damn right - they'll pay like everybody else. By the hour.

Typical pubic sector always after a free ride.

--
web site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - news comment service, logic,
economics, energy, education, politics, etc .... no tits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the working class [] don't feed the squirrels
can kiss my arse [] I mean the tories
i've got the foreman's job at last [] never trust a man with a wig
only when it's money -- i chav made good
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:18 pm
From: Roger Hunt

In article <gqokat$mkf$1@news.motzarella.org>, John Stubbings
<anna.riceDELETE-THIS@virgin.net> writes
>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:25:56 +0100, Roger Hunt wrote:
In article <1ixcwbx.6jz7xvebpzroN%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk>, David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*) <d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk> writes
(restored attribution. JS fined 6d for neglect)
>
>>>> >As I said, it's a small college. Full-time academic staff choose their
>>>> >own computers, and most choose PCs because that's what they use- but a
>>>> >few do have macs- in addition, the recording studios, composition
>>>> >studios and marketing departments use macs.
>>>> >
>>>> And those who spend too much time on porn sites use dirty macs.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't give too much of yourself away here...
>>>
>> Damn right - they'll pay like everybody else. By the hour.
>
>Typical pubic sector always after a free ride.
>
Except us Ancillary Staff, Brother.
--
Roger Hunt
COSHE Rools. 1974 sucked.

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:04 pm
From: Mxsmanic

Ray Fischer writes:

> And no Mac applications.

Most people have no Mac applications, so the inability to run them is not a
handicap, or even visible.

> So what?

So if all they want to run is Windows applications, then logically they should
have a machine that has only Windows installed on it. And this is indeed the
case for most users.

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:06 pm
From: Mxsmanic

nospam writes:

> that's fine, although i suspect you've never actually looked. and
> don't speak for others who may want the option.

I'm not sure what you mean by "actually looking." I fully know what I want
without any deep introspection.

> it doesn't stress me at all. however, they may be suffering with a
> less than ideal solution, causing stress.

As I've said, they don't care, so they are not stressed.

> quality versus quantity.

Actually it is both quality and quantity. There's a Windows application for
just about every purpose, it seems, and often more than one.

> of course they didn't, since they never actually looked very hard.

An application either runs on the Mac or it doesn't. That doesn't require a
lot of investigation.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:07 pm
From: Mxsmanic

Ray Fischer writes:

> Which version of Windows?

Any version. Current versions of Windows can still run software written for
older versions of Windows. Even MS-DOS programs can still be run, if they are
properly written.

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:08 pm
From: Mxsmanic

erilar writes:

> Macs can use Windoze software. Windoze machines can't use Mac softwore.
> Whose attitude is more exclusive here?

Macs are a niche product; they have to make provisions for some support of
mainstream products.

Most applications are for Windows, so Windows doesn't have to support Mac
applications.

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:27 pm
From: nospam

In article <vgovs4t203okmj5230u0es2ldt840g4m0u@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ray Fischer writes:
>
> > And no Mac applications.
>
> Most people have no Mac applications, so the inability to run them is not a
> handicap, or even visible.

most?

where are you getting your numbers? making it up?

> > So what?
>
> So if all they want to run is Windows applications, then logically they should
> have a machine that has only Windows installed on it. And this is indeed the
> case for most users.

perhaps, but not all users.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:32 pm
From: nospam

In article <viovs49tk6270a6snrrk18gif53grpja3j@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

> > that's fine, although i suspect you've never actually looked. and
> > don't speak for others who may want the option.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "actually looking." I fully know what I want
> without any deep introspection.

but without investigating what's available on other platforms, you
can't be assured that a windows only title is the best choice.

> > it doesn't stress me at all. however, they may be suffering with a
> > less than ideal solution, causing stress.
>
> As I've said, they don't care, so they are not stressed.

oh, i've heard a lot of bitching about windows from people who would
never touch a mac. vista in particular.

> > quality versus quantity.
>
> Actually it is both quality and quantity. There's a Windows application for
> just about every purpose, it seems, and often more than one.

and it's the same on the mac, except for a few obscure vertical market
cases which affect very few people. in other words, most purposes have
a mac solution.

> > of course they didn't, since they never actually looked very hard.
>
> An application either runs on the Mac or it doesn't. That doesn't require a
> lot of investigation.

but one would have to look to find out which ones do and which ones
don't.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:33 pm
From: isw

In article <63vus49b8adrk084gr6h7uap6khpta1c1h@4ax.com>,
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

> isw writes:
>
> > Granted. Now, name the things that *you, personally* do with your PC
> > that you would not be able to do on a Mac. (Not specific application
> > names, mind you, but *functions* that you want to perform).
>
> Sorry, but I think in terms of specific applications. Playing games is a
> "function" that someone might want to "perform," but that doesn't mean that
> any game will fulfill that function--game players want specific games, not
> just a generic gaming experience.
>
> The same applies in many other domains. I want to use Photoshop, not just any
> program that claims to handle image editing. Therefore I must use Windows or
> a Mac.
>
> > Games don't count.
>
> Why? Because they are such a glaring deficiency of the generic philosophy you
> espouse?
>
> It's possible to find editing software for Windows. Why, then, do people buy
> Macs to run Final Cut specifically?
>
> You cannot justify having a Mac based on the fact that one application runs
> only on the Mac and then turn around and say that Windows users should not
> insist on specific applications and should accept any generic equivalent.
> That's a double standard.
>
> > Or, if you insist on counting them, you are
> > acknowledging that a PC is really nothing but a game platform that
> > incidentally can also do spread sheets.
>
> Windows can do all sorts of things that Macs and Linux cannot, simply because
> there are millions of Windows applications out there. This is an unavoidable
> fact.

You keep claiming that, but when pressed for specifics, you just dance
around the issue.

NAME THOSE THINGS.

Isaac

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:46 pm
From: isw

In article <1ixclzb.1ne5d7v1hn2mhyN%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk>,
d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

> William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1ixclke.144vbl01xuxxn5N%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
> >
> > > As I said, it's a small college. Full-time academic staff choose their
> > > own computers, and most choose PCs because that's what they use- but a
> > > few do have macs- in addition, the recording studios, composition
> > > studios and marketing departments use macs.
> >
> > That's normal in academia.
> >
> > They don't have to make money and their IT support people tend to be very
> > highly qualified.
>
> Our IT department doesn't support Macs. Too few users to warrant the
> specialist staff. They call in external support if necessary, but I
> don't know how often that happens. I wouldn't expect to need to call on
> it. (Any communication with IT has been network related.)

Around 1996 I went to work for a small company that used Macs
exclusively -- about 75 of them, in all departments. All those computers
were very successfully supported by one part-time IT person.

The company got a new CEO who was computer-illiterate, except that he
"knew" that Macs were "toy computers" not capable of "real" work. The
decree came down to replace *all* the Macs with PCs running Windows.

Within a year the half-time IT person had been replaced by a full-time
IT department of three techs and a director, all overworked, just to
keep those PCs up and (sort of) going.

Isaac

==============================================================================
TOPIC: U2 coverband "Out of control"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/48091683951ac0a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:13 pm
From: "RogerTW...."

Hey,

http://www.dicasa.nl/OOC/

--
Gtz Roger
www.dicasa.nl

==============================================================================
TOPIC: nikon DSLR has less high ISO noise?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9ef0837b190a11d2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:24 pm
From: mail@potd.com.au

On Mar 30, 1:51 am, "james" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Many recent reviews say nikon DSLR has better noise reduction than canon
> DSLR in high ISO photos.
>
> Why isn't canon doing something about this? This has been going on for more
> than a year.

It's simply a different approach from each company as to how noise is
handled. IMO the "recent" Nikons have a slight advantage in the noise
department, but this comes from more aggressive NR processing and at
the cost of fine detail.

In real terms the noise difference is 1 stop at best, but I can always
post process noise, so I would rather have the detail thanks.

Cheers

Rusty

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:31 pm
From: Me

mail@potd.com.au wrote:
> On Mar 30, 1:51 am, "james" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Many recent reviews say nikon DSLR has better noise reduction than canon
>> DSLR in high ISO photos.
>>
>> Why isn't canon doing something about this? This has been going on for more
>> than a year.
>
> It's simply a different approach from each company as to how noise is
> handled. IMO the "recent" Nikons have a slight advantage in the noise
> department, but this comes from more aggressive NR processing and at
> the cost of fine detail.
>
No it isn't - not when raw files are tested.
High ISO NR level for in-camera jpeg can also be changed. Though I'd
agree that the default setting high ISO NR level is too high, if that's
what you mean.

> In real terms the noise difference is 1 stop at best, but I can always
> post process noise, so I would rather have the detail thanks.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rusty

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what camera is this?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/10104ed64a021112?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:25 pm
From: Me

aniramca@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:56 am, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>> Mike Eisenstadt wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I've put 2 jpegs at
>>> www.charlesumlauf.com/miru1.jpg
>>> and
>>> www.charlesumlauf.com/miru2.jpg
>>> These show the menu and the camera itself.
>>> Can someone please identify the camera?
>>> Thanks in advance for the info.
>>> Mike Eisenstadt
>>> Austin, TX
>> It looks like (and probably is) a D200.
>> It's not a D40-D90 as it has a focus area mode selector switch.
>> It's not a D300/700 as the LCD is too small.
>
> It looks like a Nikon D200
> See comparison
> http://www.pbase.com/equipment/image/61534461
>
Now I want to know why the OP needed to know this...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/256feefad4f3ad75?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:28 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
<christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones <nj@dev.null> said:
>
>> Very interesting article.
>>
>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_Right
>
>NJ
>
>Photography
>>
>is a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
>limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.
>
>Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
>be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
>assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
>abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
>place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
>case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
>First Amendment.
>
>In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
>the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
>the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)

The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

(1) Love that cop talk!
(2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
around the Menu of any camera.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:47 pm
From: nospam

In article <1hlvs41epum5c7qtdq1ojqcbrflpcs9q8l@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
> card.(2)
>
> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>
> Both sides have a point.

the cop was very clearly in the wrong. he does *not* have the right to
reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
bystander.

> Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge. after
that, there is nothing to protect. he's also in public and is subject
to being photographed. and rest assured that word gets around what the
undercover cops look like, photos or not.

> (1) Love that cop talk!
> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
> around the Menu of any camera.

that's wonderful, but he broke the law. hopefully the bystander has a
good lawyer and also knows how to run an undelete utility.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:04 pm
From: Ron Hunter

ray wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:48:59 -0400, Neil Jones wrote:
>
>> Very interesting article.
>>
>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/
> Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_Right
>> NJ
>
> Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to your right
> to photograph any damned thing you want.

Freedom of the press has been interpreted to allow news photographers to
intrude on the privacy of any person who is 'in the public eye', so I
guess it does. Frankly, a press card shouldn't give one a right to
visually trespass, in my opinion.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:07 pm
From: Ron Hunter

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones <nj@dev.null> said:
>
>> Very interesting article.
>>
>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_Right
>
> NJ
>
> Photography
> is a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
> limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.
>
> Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
> be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
> assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
> abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
> place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
> case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
> First Amendment.
>
> In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
> the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
> the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.
>
A free press is essential to maintaining a democracy. Because the US
Founding Fathers had experience with abuses by government, they valued
free press highly, and included that in the first of the 10 amendments
to the Constitution added before the constitution was ratified. Nothing
clarifies the need for a protection like a government that
systematically abuses its people.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:10 pm
From: Ron Hunter

tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones <nj@dev.null> said:
>>
>>> Very interesting article.
>>>
>>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_Right
>> NJ
>>
>> Photography
>> is a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
>> limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.
>>
>> Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
>> be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
>> assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
>> abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
>> place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
>> case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
>> First Amendment.
>>
>> In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
>> the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
>> the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.
>
> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
> card.(2)
>
> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>
> Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
>
> (1) Love that cop talk!
> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
> around the Menu of any camera.
>
>
Undercover cops are really between a rock and a hard place all too
often. Having their cover blown can be suddenly fatal.
And a certain amount of force is easily justified in the case of drug
dealer arrests.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:29 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Neil Ellwood" <cral.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:8rSdnRETQbh6aFDUnZ2dnUVZ8gmdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:26:39 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> 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....
>
> That sounds as though you are talking about out of focus rather than soft
> focus.
>
> Soft focus has a sharp core to the image with a subtle light blending
> effect around the image. The effect is best taken with a proper soft
> focus lens although a soft focus filter can be useful, I used to have a
> kodak filter with a Retina IIc in the sixties, it was mainly plain glass
> with concentric circles ground and polished in the face of the filter
> giving the greatest effect at large apertures and lessening with smaller
> one until around f16 when the effect had disappeared.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Neil

One of the problems with critiquing soft-focus shots over the internet, is
that the effect of the pic on a monitor about 18 inches from the face isn't
the same as the final print viewed after framing and hanging, at least 5 or
10 times farther away.

Certainly, the out-of-focus nose may appear a bit strange when zoomed in on
and overly obvious, but I doubt any viewer will notice it on the final
print -- unless, of course, they get up close and personal with the print
and examine it more minutely than was intended by the photographer.

Let's not forget that the viewing distance probably plays a larger role than
the actual focus of the lens.

Take Care,
Dudley

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:46 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:o82dnfJfuJAKS1DUnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "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
>>
>>
> You could do the same thing as you do with setting the camera, get sighted
> person to help with that step. How do you know when a subject is in focus
> unless you use auto-focus? I can't imagine trying to overcome the
> difficulties of doing photography when you can't see either the subject,
> camera, or results directly. You certainly didn't choose an easy 'row to
> hoe'.

Actually, I only get sighted assistance setting my camera untill I get a
feel for my camera's menu system. Then, I count clicks (or beeps) to set
things where I want them.

Regarding framing and focusing, I seldom use sighted assistance. Instead, I
either just point and click (as in the shot of "Mich on the Bus," or do the
best I can interpreting the blurred blotches that appear on the LCD or in
the viewfinder, as in my portrait shots.

For me to frame / focus a shot, myself, a number of factors have to be just
right. The light intensity of the scene can't be too bright or too dim (dim
works better than bright), and the subject has to contrast with the
surroundings. To focus, I just turn the focus ring until I get the most
contrastted image I can achieve. When the contrast level is maximized, the
shot is in focus. When the blob is where I want it, it's framed.

It bears repeating that it isn't actually as difficult as most sighted folks
imagine. I've had years of sighted and semi-sighted shooting to fall back
on, so, as my eye doctor says, I've got pretty good skills when it comes to
interpreting blurs. Keep in mind that it takes way more skill just getting
to a shoot for a blind person, than it does to take the picture.

Of course, I don't want to minimize the challenge. The aggravation level
can, indeed, get pretty high at times. But, I love the art and can't
imagine giving it up.

Take Care,
Dudley

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

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

Sunday, March 29, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Sunday, March 29, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic