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: square negs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 7:55 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)

In article <gqta2s$r3r$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
>In article <310320090717246834%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <Io2dnSdNsMcGvk_UnZ2dnUVZ8gCdnZ2d@bt.com>, eugene
>><eugene@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> It will work either way but I want to be sure the prints aren't reversed.
>>> >
>>> > it's trivial to reverse it afterwards.
>>>
>>> It might very well be but these negs are thirty years old and I won't
>>> recognise the nine year old child in them (who is now deceased and the
>>> reason this friend wants the prints)
>>
>>you only need to find one negative with text or some other item that
>>will be obvious when reversed.
>
>All you have to do is find look at negative and find true order.
>
>
>Does anybody have a negative from a film camera ???

I just looked and if you view from the coating side, its reversed.

greg

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 7:56 am
From: "PDM"

"eugene" <eugene@home.com> wrote in message
news:We6dnWPmBoGdh0_UnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@bt.com...
>A friend has asked me to get some prints from negs that are 30 years old.
>On a flatbed scanner, should the shiny neg surface be up or down?
>
> --
> And in the end
> The love you take
> Is equal to the love you make

Depends on scanner. Some Epson scanners like the shiny side down. The
scannin software reverses the image after scanning (it does this on my Epson
3200). Try both ways and see if there is any difference in quality
(sharpness etc) then use whichever is best.

To tell which way round the image is supposed to be just look at the neg
with the shiny side facing towards you. So if the scanned image is reversed
you know that you have to change it back in Photoshop.

PDM

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 10:03 am
From: ray

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:26:21 +0100, eugene wrote:

> A friend has asked me to get some prints from negs that are 30 years
> old. On a flatbed scanner, should the shiny neg surface be up or down?

I'd suggest you look for one negative of the batch that has something
that would give you a clue - perhaps a sign or an auto license plate.
Scan that one and see if it need to be reversed or not.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 10:30 am
From: Jürgen Exner

ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:26:21 +0100, eugene wrote:
>
>> A friend has asked me to get some prints from negs that are 30 years
>> old. On a flatbed scanner, should the shiny neg surface be up or down?
>
>I'd suggest you look for one negative of the batch that has something
>that would give you a clue - perhaps a sign or an auto license plate.
>Scan that one and see if it need to be reversed or not.

I wonder if that is really the problem.

I would guess the scanner will give better results one way than the
other. Scan that way and then in a second step determine if the pictures
are flipped or not and if they are flipped, then just batch-process them
and flip them back right-side up with your favourite image processing
software.

jue

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 10:35 am
From: George Kerby

On 3/31/09 8:26 AM, in article We6dnWPmBoGdh0_UnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@bt.com,
"eugene" <eugene@home.com> wrote:

> A friend has asked me to get some prints from negs that are 30 years old. On
> a flatbed scanner, should the shiny neg surface be up or down?
Get a clear piece of plastic, cellophane, etc and write on it with a
permanent marker. Place it in the scanner and see what happens with the
written side down vs. written side up. There is your answer.

No. Thank YOU!

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 11:02 am
From: ray

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:30:07 -0700, Jürgen Exner wrote:

> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:26:21 +0100, eugene wrote:
>>
>>> A friend has asked me to get some prints from negs that are 30 years
>>> old. On a flatbed scanner, should the shiny neg surface be up or down?
>>
>>I'd suggest you look for one negative of the batch that has something
>>that would give you a clue - perhaps a sign or an auto license plate.
>>Scan that one and see if it need to be reversed or not.
>
> I wonder if that is really the problem.
>
> I would guess the scanner will give better results one way than the
> other. Scan that way and then in a second step determine if the pictures
> are flipped or not and if they are flipped, then just batch-process them
> and flip them back right-side up with your favourite image processing
> software.
>
> jue

Very likely that will be the same way the provides the correct
orientation.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 2:06 pm
From: sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:58:07 +0100, "eugene" <eugene@home.com> wrote:

>
><sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:rd74t4poosrvb1g7clp405uut90mfjq4e6@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:26:21 +0100, "eugene" <eugene@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>A friend has asked me to get some prints from negs that are 30 years old.
>>>On
>>>a flatbed scanner, should the shiny neg surface be up or down?
>>
>>
>> It will depend on the scanner, likely the matt side down. How
>> about just trying one negative each way and see which works best with
>> those negatives and your equipment?
>
>It will work either way but I want to be sure the prints aren't reversed. My
>friend might not even notice anyway. I get this problem every couple of
>years or so and I can never remember which side faces down (I think it is
>the shiny side)

Scan one each way and print out both the same size. Print
them big and then judge them side by side for quality.

You can mirror them in the computer later to get the proper
left to right perspective. Start by getting the best scan.

I have seen some scanners do best one way and other to do best
the other.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Claimed high scanned film "information" is mostly garbage
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/945d6f2385eb0b52?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 7:54 am
From: "David J. Littleboy"

<tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote:

The technology behind film is immense too, the coating machines owned
by Kodak, Fuji and formerly AGFA are amazing they put down a uniform
thin film on rolls of plastic, to get the consistency that films have
is almost a magic trick. Same for paper again an amazing thing and
20th century industrial magic. The chemistry behind film and paper is
also a technological wonder.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Really. As someone who breezed through various Comp. Sci. programs but bit
the dust something fierce in Materials Science grad school, I'd say the tech
behind film is orders of magnitude more complex than that behind digital
imaging. (Of course, there's a lot of Mat. Sci. in making a dSLR sensor<g>.)

>>>>>>>>>>
That said RichA is right about scanners they are all optimistically
rated, about 1/2 the rated ppi is about right with lower priced
models, maybe less on flatbeds. You also get what you pay for, the
more expensive generally are better. Though there is a discussion
about Nikon film scanner vs Imacon scanners.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Here's a collection of sample scans. None of them are anywhere close to the
pixel level quality that comes of dSLRs.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Of course, 6x7 still edges out the FF dSLRs. But not by enough to make it
worth the effort.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 8:22 am
From: "Nobody"

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/sony_releases_new_stupid_piece_of

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 2:12 pm
From: "Deep Reset"

"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92fc2190-1a9a-4990-99a5-b7333aa1626a@l22g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> We've often heard the claim from filmists that a film image contains a
> lot more information than a digital image. This is true, but the
> information is useless junk.
[Cups ear] That whirring sound is Shannon, spinning in his grave.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ONLY BLACK
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b14d64be90ea6095?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 10:01 am
From: Puffy

http://www.flickr.com/photos/arcovariante/3401448890/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: will canon usa honor a canon latin america warranty for a 5d mark II ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6cdd5912a11d750c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 10:52 am
From: SMS

picture taker wrote:
> i was on the phone for a while with a canon service rep seeking help
> with my 5d mark II , the usb port isn't working .
> we tryed every posible solution but to on avail he said my chances are
> better than winning the lottery that my usb port was bad but it is .
>
> so made arangments to send it in for repair to repair center in NJ .
> i told him i bought it @ boolchands in st marteen he asked if that was
> part of the united states i thought it was said yes.
> as im looking over the warranty card it is a canon latin american
> international warranty card does anyone know if they will honor it ?

Canon is usually very good about honoring the warranty on their products
no matter where it was purchased. They aren't like Nikon U.S.A..

==============================================================================
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 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 11:29 am
From: Bob

In article <300320091543525689%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam@nospam.invalid says...
-:In article <MPG.243b12a437f5fbbf98987b@news.verizon.net>, Bob
-:<Crownfield@verizon.net> wrote:
-:
-:> -:it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.
-:>
-:> not so.
-:> the data clusters are released but not damaged.
-:> the directory entries are changed, but not deleted or damaged.
-:
-:to the user, the files are gone. erased. history. no more photos.

wrong. Ignorance is expensive.

-:
-:> anyone can recover it.
-:> it is not hard.
-:> it is not expensive.
-:
-:no, not 'anyone.' most people are completely unaware that deleted data
-:can be recovered. plus, it requires time and expense that would not
-:otherwise be needed.

wrong. Ignorance is expensive.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 3:29 pm
From: "Colin.D"

Ron Hunter wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <uY5Al.46468$HF6.41070@newsfe08.iad>, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.
>>>> As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least in
>>>> the UK
>>> Only if he actually succeeded in deleting the images... which delete
>>> all seldom does.
>>
>> it rarely fails.
>>
>>> Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could recover
>>> deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this respect.
>>
>> perhaps they could be recovered but that is not relevant. one moment
>> he had a card full of photos and the next moment he did not. that's
>> destruction.
> ONLY if the data were actually lost, which is NOT usually the case.

But the cop *intended* the images to be lost. The fact that they might
be recoverable was beyond the cop's knowledge; if not he might well have
physically damaged the card. In the cop's mind he *did* destroy property.

Colin D.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 3:42 pm
From: Neil Jones

Colin.D wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <uY5Al.46468$HF6.41070@newsfe08.iad>, Martin Brown
>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.
>>>>> As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least
>>>>> in the UK
>>>> Only if he actually succeeded in deleting the images... which delete
>>>> all seldom does.
>>>
>>> it rarely fails.
>>>
>>>> Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could recover
>>>> deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this respect.
>>>
>>> perhaps they could be recovered but that is not relevant. one moment
>>> he had a card full of photos and the next moment he did not. that's
>>> destruction.
>> ONLY if the data were actually lost, which is NOT usually the case.
>
> But the cop *intended* the images to be lost. The fact that they might
> be recoverable was beyond the cop's knowledge; if not he might well have
> physically damaged the card. In the cop's mind he *did* destroy property.
>

I got to think a little bit but how much can they (law enforcement)
delete. The newer devices that are coming out with bluetooth will
transfer files to the neighboring devices. If your friends are with you
and you transfer the files to them with bluetooth then the question
becomes, how MANY can they delete? Are they going frisk everyone and
delete all images on all cameras?

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 12:51 pm
From: ASAAR

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:52:10 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

>>> outweigh
>>
>> Wayan Cool, bro.
>
> Interesting that a meaningless one-word post attracts so many responses.

My English professor told me that it's a mechanism for coping with
the existential despair engendered by a forum that functions less as
a community that fosters the sharing of photographic knowledge and
growing of friendships than as a place to spend an inordinate amount
of time jousting with trolls, play the fanboy, nitpick and push
agendas. So when the opportunity comes to play with puns or share
some meaningless fun, it's a time-out, our version of last century's
Christmas Truce, where all are welcome to join in - even mortal,
virtual enemies that have FX, DX or 4/3 chips, be they Bayer or
Foveon, on our shoulders.

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

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 2:04 pm
From: Mxsmanic

nospam writes:

> it can check for bogus values and return some sort of error instead of
> crashing.

The OS cannot know if an API call is being made for a legitimate or
illegitimate purpose.

> that's what's amazing about a mac, the cpu totally changed yet 25 year
> old software still runs, and if you include third party utilities, they
> *still* run, with a second cpu change.

But 25-year-old software runs under Windows, too.

> resources are better spent implementing new features that will benefit
> 100% of the userbase instead of just 5%.

If the software does what you require, new features are unnecessary, and they
only destabilize the product.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 2:02 pm
From: Mxsmanic

nospam writes:

> adobe has activation which seems to piss off people and i don't
> remember needing to reboot. it's also not a root kit.

It bypasses the operating system to write to prohibited areas of the disk
directly. Only a rootkit can do that.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 2:45 pm
From: William Black

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:04:40 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> nospam writes:
>
>> it can check for bogus values and return some sort of error instead of
>> crashing.
>
> The OS cannot know if an API call is being made for a legitimate or
> illegitimate purpose.
>
>> that's what's amazing about a mac, the cpu totally changed yet 25 year
>> old software still runs, and if you include third party utilities, they
>> *still* run, with a second cpu change.
>
> But 25-year-old software runs under Windows, too.

The problem with Windows is that five year old hardware won't run.

Try getting Vista drivers for old printers and scanners and see how far
it gets you.

--
William Black

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 3:02 pm
From: Jack Campin - bogus address

>> adobe has activation which seems to piss off people and i don't
>> remember needing to reboot. it's also not a root kit.
> It bypasses the operating system to write to prohibited areas of
> the disk directly. Only a rootkit can do that.

Not true. Early versions of MS Word for the Mac put user registration
information into parts of disk blocks that the file system didn't
know about. It didn't need to hack the OS to do it, just used a few
disk-level system calls. (It was a benign hack that never caused
anybody any problems that I heard of, but was also easily cicumvented
once people realized how it was done).

==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 3:38 pm
From: Mxsmanic

William Black writes:

> The problem with Windows is that five year old hardware won't run.

I have hardware older than that that runs just fine.

> Try getting Vista drivers for old printers and scanners and see how far
> it gets you.

Vista isn't Windows, it's Vista. And it has a lot of problems that Windows
does not share.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 4:26 pm
From: "Keith Willshaw"

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lq65t4dofpd6jvs2m0kjrmi4o3ocauo4o3@4ax.com...
> William Black writes:
>
>> The problem with Windows is that five year old hardware won't run.
>
> I have hardware older than that that runs just fine.
>
>> Try getting Vista drivers for old printers and scanners and see how far
>> it gets you.
>
> Vista isn't Windows, it's Vista. And it has a lot of problems that
> Windows
> does not share.
>

Vista IS the windows operating system intended to replace XP.
It sucks, the company I work for installs XP on all new hardware
as it runs so much better than Vista. I actually have to use a Vista
machine as we have customers on that OS. Just compiling the
software (using Microsoft compilers) is a pain.

I am an old Unix hand (along with MVS XA, Primos and VMS)
but was generally pro Windows until the abomination known as
Vista landed on my desktop.

Keith

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Portuguese photos (with a strange bird)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/66bf39c330da009b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 3:34 pm
From: "Focus"

http://nikon-box.com/

Does anybody know what bird that is?

--
---
Focus

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 3:54 pm
From: Owen Rees

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:34:37 +0100, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in
<b7Sdnd6dFOYcB0_UnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@novis.pt>:

>http://nikon-box.com/
>
>Does anybody know what bird that is?

The one with the caption "No idea what kind of bird this is. Never seen
one like it before." is a goldfinch.

See http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/g/goldfinch/index.asp
for further details.

In my experience, goldfinches do not sit still for very long and I have
found it quite difficult to get a good photo of a goldfinch, so well
done for getting those pictures.

--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 31 2009 4:06 pm
From: "Focus"

"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4275t415h9gkpnmbqu2ihdf6vu08i8rden@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:34:37 +0100, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in
> <b7Sdnd6dFOYcB0_UnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@novis.pt>:
>
>>http://nikon-box.com/
>>
>>Does anybody know what bird that is?
>
> The one with the caption "No idea what kind of bird this is. Never seen
> one like it before." is a goldfinch.
>
> See http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/g/goldfinch/index.asp
> for further details.
>
> In my experience, goldfinches do not sit still for very long and I have
> found it quite difficult to get a good photo of a goldfinch, so well
> done for getting those pictures.
>
> --
> Owen Rees
> [one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
> found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

Thanks.
Very lucky shot. I was in the kitchen when I saw this little guy in the
back. I went to the bedroom to get the camera and shot him through the
venetian blinds. He stayed for the whole show. Too bad I don't have a long
zoom yet.

--
---
Focus

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

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

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

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

0 comments:

Live Traffic