Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 22 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Great forum!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ac2220a39a1c052b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 4:58 pm
From: "Focus"

http://atlantic-diesel.com

International forum with very much possibilities.

Check it out. Free and no advertisements.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 5:24 pm
From: "Dyna Soar"

Focus wrote:

> International forum with very much possibilities.

> Check it out. Free and no advertisements.

Bloody Hell !!!
Cross-posted to 10 groups.
Usenet conventions and courtesies obviously mean nothing to you.
(Yeah, I know I left in all the groups, too. Don't know which one the fool
actually uses.)
You're a spamming idiot, Focus.

--
Dyna

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 5:50 pm
From: ^Tems^

Focus wrote:
> http://atlantic-diesel.com
>
> International forum with very much possibilities.
>
> Check it out. Free and no advertisements.
>
>

A great forum with 7 posts with all but one of these made my Paul Bertram

Yep, a great forum

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 10:23 pm
From: "Paul Bartram"

> "^Tems^" <stevebrooks13@live.com> wrote:

> A great forum with 7 posts with all but one of these made by Paul Bertram

Wow, nearly had a seizure there. Had to go look to make sure I hadn't had my
identity stolen, but the surname is spelt differently!

Paul

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 5:07 pm
From: Eugene

On Apr 21, 11:45 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Matt Clara" <n...@myexpense.com> wrote:
> > "Hans Kruse" <hans.kr...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> > <SNIP>
>
> >>Live view is a great tool to use to make sure that you get the sharpest
> >>image on a tripod. I use it all the time instead of MLU.
>
> > Instead of MLU? Live View does not in and of itself reduce mirror shock,
> > does it? Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you won't have to
> > deal with it?
>
> You must be a Nikon user. When you take a shot in live view mode on a Canon
> camera, the mirror stays up and there is no mirror slap. Oops. Nikon gets
> something seriously wrong.
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Canon has two modes in Live View. 1. Quick AF can make
the mirror go down for normal AF and back up. 2. Live AF
uses solely the CCD for Contrast Detection. I heard
it takes up to 3 seconds to take a shot in the latter?
Why can't it use the contrast detection in all point&shoot
camera where it takes less than a second to shoot??

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 7:52 pm
From: Derge

On Apr 22, 7:07 pm, Eugene <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Canon has two modes in Live View. 1. Quick AF can make
> the mirror go down for normal AF and back up. 2. Live AF
> uses solely the CCD for Contrast Detection. I heard
> it takes up to 3 seconds to take a shot in the latter?
> Why can't it use the contrast detection in all point&shoot
> camera where it takes less than a second to shoot??
>
> E

Probably because it's parsing a narrower DOF. A point-and-shoot camera
(almost, but not quite) doesn't need to focus at all.

And yes, it's... pretty doggone slow. :P

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are todays LCD screen any good in bright weather
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d70e4ce3863b627f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 5:22 pm
From: "Stormin Mormon"

Much the same problem, here. Sometimes when it's really bad,
I use my ball cap, or my jacket to shade the screen a bit.
Like the old guys with the 4 x 5 view cameras used to do.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Ken" <none@none.co.uk> wrote in message
news:49ef49a2$0$2544$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
I have an older Nikon 7900 with 2" screen and even in normal
light sometimes
have to take a guess when outside that I have got the
subject in frame. I
was thinking of getting a modern digi camera with 2.5 or
bigger LCD screen
but only if I feel convinced they are better to use outside.
Whats the point
in having to guess the shot???

Anyone with a modern camera with the LCD that will work in
brighter
conditions?

Ken

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 6:38 pm
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <49ef49a2$0$2544$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
"Ken" <none@none.co.uk> wrote:

> I have an older Nikon 7900 with 2" screen and even in normal light sometimes
> have to take a guess when outside that I have got the subject in frame. I
> was thinking of getting a modern digi camera with 2.5 or bigger LCD screen
> but only if I feel convinced they are better to use outside. Whats the point
> in having to guess the shot???
>
> Anyone with a modern camera with the LCD that will work in brighter
> conditions?

I bought a Canon SX110 IS two weeks ago. Its LCD works well in bright
sunlight.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 10:09 pm
From: Bob Williams

Ken wrote:
> I have an older Nikon 7900 with 2" screen and even in normal light
> sometimes have to take a guess when outside that I have got the subject
> in frame. I was thinking of getting a modern digi camera with 2.5 or
> bigger LCD screen but only if I feel convinced they are better to use
> outside. Whats the point in having to guess the shot???
>
> Anyone with a modern camera with the LCD that will work in brighter
> conditions?
>
> Ken

You may want to consider a camera with an EVF (Electronic View
Finder)such as one of the Panasonic FZ series.
They show 100% of what the sensor captures. NO guess work at all!
You can crop exactly how you want the image to look. Not having to crop
later, effectively gives you more pixels to use in the image itself.
The FZ-50 is Panny's Flagship entry in the big zoom competition.
It isn't pocketable by any means but it is incredibly versatile and puts
you in charge of most photographic situations.
Like ALL small sensor cameras, it suffers a bit in very low light level
situations. But IMHO, its benefits far outweigh this shortcoming.
Bob Williams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: DLSR and Pixels
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4e110bd229839ce7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 6:18 pm
From: Eugene

DLSR is supposed to be good because the pixel
is bigger. In the Canon 300D. The pixel size is
7.4 micron, 6+ megapixels. Now with the Canon 1000D,
pixel size is 5.7 micron, 10+megapixel. Both has
the same CCD size of 22.5 x 15mm. Notice the pixel
size has gone smaller. Wouldn't this defeat the purpose
of DSLR (Bigger Pixel Rocks)? Has anyone compared
the quality of the 300D vs 1000D? Which is cleaner?
Using the same 22.5 x 15mm grid, how small can
the pixel get (or how large can the megapixels be,
as they are inversely proportional) before noise would become bad
enough that it won't be far from
point&shoot CCDs?

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 7:07 pm
From: "Mr. Strat"

In article
<4a28adb4-b6fd-4b79-8349-d7ea46585373@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Eugene <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote:

> DLSR is supposed to be good because the pixel
> is bigger. In the Canon 300D. The pixel size is
> 7.4 micron, 6+ megapixels. Now with the Canon 1000D,
> pixel size is 5.7 micron, 10+megapixel. Both has
> the same CCD size of 22.5 x 15mm. Notice the pixel
> size has gone smaller. Wouldn't this defeat the purpose
> of DSLR (Bigger Pixel Rocks)? Has anyone compared
> the quality of the 300D vs 1000D? Which is cleaner?
> Using the same 22.5 x 15mm grid, how small can
> the pixel get (or how large can the megapixels be,
> as they are inversely proportional) before noise would become bad
> enough that it won't be far from
> point&shoot CCDs?

Do you have any knowledge of or experience with photography?

It doesn't look like it.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 7:16 pm
From: Jürgen Exner

Eugene <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>DLSR is supposed to be good because the pixel
>is bigger.

Actually no. dSLRs are good because you can customize them for your
personal needs with different lenses and other accessories.
Better light gathering because of larger pixels is a nice added bonus.

>In the Canon 300D. The pixel size is
>7.4 micron, 6+ megapixels. Now with the Canon 1000D,
>pixel size is 5.7 micron, 10+megapixel. Both has
>the same CCD size of 22.5 x 15mm. Notice the pixel
>size has gone smaller.

Surprise, surprise. It's called mathematics, you know.

>Wouldn't this defeat the purpose
>of DSLR (Bigger Pixel Rocks)?

Not at all, because larger pixel size is nice added bonus, nothing more.

jue

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 7:30 pm
From: Derge

On Apr 22, 8:18 pm, Eugene <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DLSR is supposed to be good because the pixel
> is bigger. In the Canon 300D. The pixel size is
> 7.4 micron, 6+ megapixels. Now with the Canon 1000D,
> pixel size is 5.7 micron, 10+megapixel. Both has
> the same CCD size of 22.5 x 15mm. Notice the pixel
> size has gone smaller. Wouldn't this defeat the purpose
> of DSLR (Bigger Pixel Rocks)? Has anyone compared
> the quality of the 300D vs 1000D? Which is cleaner?
> Using the same 22.5 x 15mm grid, how small can
> the pixel get (or how large can the megapixels be,
> as they are inversely proportional) before noise would become bad
> enough that it won't be far from
> point&shoot CCDs?
>
> E

Well, yes and no. The point of DSLRs isn't that they have big pixels.
The point is that they have big sensors.

The notion of "pixel level" noise is a bit of a red herring, since
ultimately we, as human beings, need to view an image taken with any
camera at fixed dimensions, whether in print or on the web. The camera
usually doesn't determine what those dimensions are: We do! If you're
sending snapshots to your grandmother, for instance, they're only
going to be 800x600 JPEGs, no matter what camera took them. A
comparison at that size would give you similar pictures. If anything,
the images from the EOS 1000D would be *less* noisy *because* it has
smaller pixels, which means lower read noise per unit area.

You obviously understand the relationship between pixel size and
noise. The other edge of the sword is this: Anything "lost" by using
smaller pixels can be reclaimed by resizing the larger image in
Photoshop. This only works in one direction, obviously. Smaller pixels
give us a choice.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon DSLR Live View
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/21ca0cd9457ba13c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 6:40 pm
From: Shawn Hirn

In article
<49ef8c0a$0$12595$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
Doug Jewell <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:

> Yes. Slightly more useful than a gimmick, but only slightly.
> Out of about 10,000 shots I've made with my 450D, I'd say
> I've used liveview for no more than 20. A couple of "over
> the crowd" shots at a local parade, and a few macro shots.

To each his own. I use my 450D in liveview mode a lot. I am very happy
with it.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 7:06 pm
From: "Mr. Strat"

In article
<6c6c28aa-a852-4739-a050-2b5d2daa24c7@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Eugene <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote:

> Canon Live View in the 1000D/XS for example
> can give live view in the LCD rather than
> optical viewfinder. How come previous Digital
> SLR didn't make this feature available?

Because it's a feature for morons. But if you like wasting your battery
and looking at a little TV screen, be my guest. One viewfinder is
plenty.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 8:37 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Eugene" <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cdcdefb-acf4-4df0-b238-501eea83dbf3@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 23, 6:42 am, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
> "Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:gso59n$qdn$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:220420091213314368%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> >> In article
> >> <41013a87-9d0e-40e2-8d30-a673c2687...@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Pat
> >> <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
> >>> I have live view and frankly, don't know what all of the fuss is
> >>> about. It has very little usefulness.
>
> >>> So you're out with your 1000mm lens. Good. And it's on a tripod,
> >>> because it is, after all, a 1000 mm lens. So what real advantage does
> >>> live view have -- esp. in daylight where you can't see it as well. It
> >>> really isn't too difficult to look through the viewfinder and get a
> >>> much better view of the picture.
>
> >> macro is one scenario where live view is fantastic.
>
> > To be sure ... it can save the day with some macro shots!
>
> Also, the LV focus can focus in lower lighting situations where the
> normal,
> or Quick Focus, has problems. I know that won't carry a lot of weight,
> since it comes from somebody who has problems getting the focus where he
> wants it, but, it does seem to have a lower operating threshold.

Has anyone tried F/10 with the LiveView by using teleconverter
with say a 400mm telephoto? How is the image? How
is Contrast Autofocus.. Can it still focus? (I assume Phase
Detection no longer works with F/10 even in Live View).
Also does Manual focusing guarantee to work by
zooming in on the object for more accurate manual
focusing (if it is bright enough in the first place to
zoom in).

>
> So, that 1,000 mm lens sitting on the tripod might benefit from LV, even
> on
> a sunny day, and even if you can see the image, yourself, better through
> the
> viewfinder. The camera might see it better with LV -- especially if you
> plop a 2X converter on it and cut the aperture in half.

A 2X converter would make the 1000mm lens 2000mm.
It won't cut the aperture in half but just extend the focal
length.

>
> Take Care,
> Dudley- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, it cuts the aperture in half as well. Most teleconverters will still
show that your aperture is set to, let's say, f/3.5, but the effective
aperture is actually f/7.0.

For discussion, see:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=31559866

Whenever the discussion turns to tele's and aperture, it gets a bit murky,
but the thing to remember is that, while the teleconverter doesn't change
the physical size of the aperture, it does reduce the amount of light that
reaches your film / sensor, so the end result is identical to altering your
aperture size.

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Focus Confirmation
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e4cdfb75a347ac36?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 7:14 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Eugene <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 23, 7:29 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article
>> <765c2bff-e250-4b4f-bbe3-0de0c9bed...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Eugene <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Why come point&shoot digicam doesn't use phase detection
>> > autofocusing.
>>
>> where would you put the phase detect sensors and mirror?
>
>Beside the CCD.

It isn't useful to focus on objects outside of the field of view.

>> > If it is costly. How come the DSLR doesn't
>> > use the cheaper Active Autofocus used in point&shoot
>> > which emits light and use reflections to gauge distance.
>> > Both are equally fast and accurate.
>>
>> cameras haven't used autofocus systems that emit light or sound for a
>> *long* time. they also don't work very well.
>
>I had Sony point&shoot digicam before like T1 and others where
>it can send red light beam to the subject. If it doesn't detect
>focus by calculating the reflections. What method then
>does it use to autofocus?

It uses the light to provide illumination for the usual contrast or
phase-detect autofocus.

> Maybe the red light is just to
>make better the contrast and so contrast autofocus
>can work??

Yep.

>In Canon DSLR, why doesn't it emit red light too but
>the flash itself for Phase Detection Autofocus.

Because the flash works and is cheaper than providing an additional
red light. When you put on an external flash like the 430EX it
actually does emit red light.

> If
>flash is brighter, why doesn't point and shoot digicam
>uses flash to highlight contrast for autofocus?

Probably because battery power is scarcer for P&S cameras.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 8:54 pm
From: Bob Larter

Eugene wrote:
> On Apr 23, 12:45 am, John Passaneau <jx...@psu.edu> wrote:
>> Eugene wrote:
>>> On Apr 22, 9:59 pm, John Passaneau <jx...@psu.edu> wrote:
>>>> Eugene wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> In Canon DSLR, there is a Focus Confirmation
>>>>> dot in the viewfinder. Supposed you are using
>>>>> Manual Focus. Does this Focus Confirmation
>>>>> works by Phase-Difference Sensor with
>>>>> AF lights or does it use Contrast Detection
>>>>> like in those models with Live View Mode?
>>>>> (or other mechanisms that doesn't use
>>>>> the two?
>>>>> E
>>>> It uses the same sensor that is used for auto focus. The
>>>> Phase-Difference method is used in the live view mode because the
>>>> mirror is up in live view and the auto focus sensor is blocked. In
>>>> manual focus the mirror is down and the auto focus sensor is active.
>>>> John Passaneau
>>> But how could that be. In manual focus, no infrared light is
>>> sent to the subject to gauge distance because it is
>>> manual focus in the first place where you are the one
>>> to adjust the distance. Also I'm talking about the focus
>>> confirmation in other Canon without Live View like
>>> the 20D, etc.
>>> E
>> That is because Canon DSLR's don't use infrared light to auto focus.
>> It's auto focus sensors are passive. This is why in low light the auto
>> focus becomes slow or doesn't work.
>>
>> John Passaneau- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Why come point&shoot digicam doesn't use phase detection
> autofocusing. If it is costly. How come the DSLR doesn't
> use the cheaper Active Autofocus used in point&shoot
> which emits light and use reflections to gauge distance.
> Both are equally fast and accurate.

Rubbish.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 9:49 pm
From: Jürgen Exner

Eugene <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why come point&shoot digicam doesn't use phase detection
>autofocusing.

Is this a question? Usually people end a question with a question mark
to avoid confusion.

>If it is costly.

Is this a statement? Or a question? Somehow that sentence seems to be
rather incomplete.

>How come the DSLR doesn't
>use the cheaper Active Autofocus used in point&shoot
>which emits light and use reflections to gauge distance.
>Both are equally fast and accurate.

That must be a record amount of misinformation mixed into a single
sentence.
- Active Autofocus is not cheap but quite expensive because you need an
additional transmitter and receiver
- to the best of my knowledge there is not a single P&S camera using
active autofocus. It was the big hype some 20+ years ago but is very
much obsolete today
- active autofocus is neither as fast nor as as accurate as phase
detection for various reasons. You cannot focus the beam very narrow.
You cannot aim the beam precisely. You are not focussing through the
actual lens. And although it is faster than contrast optimization it is
still not as accurate for pretty much the same reasons as compared to
phase detection.

And dSLRs don't use the the P&S method of contrast optimization because
phase detection is much faster and it can be done without raising the
mirror to expose the sensor.

jue

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Self Portrait
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a73412955e1b3513?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 8:41 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

I've placed a self-portrait on my gallery.

I took the pic, and my daughter cropped it.

Jerry, feel free to use it as a dart board. Just print it off before
throwing your darts. I wouldn't want you to ruin a perfectly good
monitor... :)

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/gallery

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Portugese convertible !!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/82d9d8b041ec3d8c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 8:54 pm
From: "Frank ess"

Bruce wrote:
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>>> Paul Giverin <paul@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <N6ednUn8YIsgyHPUnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@novis.pt>, Focus
>>>>>> <dont@mail.me> writes
>>>>>>> 70 MPG
>>>>>>> http://caldasdarainha.olx.pt/magalhaes-movel-iid-16058871
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>> Do you really have to cross post this shite to all these
>>>>>> groups?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does he ever post anything else?
>>>>
>>>> I dono. I never look at them.
>>>>
>>>> It's nice that you both left the URL unmolested, so others could
>>>> judge for themselves. Very considerate. Equitable, even.
>>>
>>>
>>> My pleasure, Frank.
>>>
>>> A minor detail: No-one forced you to click on the link. ;-)
>>
>> You got the "minor" wrong; did you read where I didn't ever look at
>> them? ... "never", "ever", pretty difficult to make the
>> conversion, eh?
>
>
> I couldn't find "dono" in the dictionary so I gave up reading after
> that. ;-)

A freaking lie on the face of it.

Buh bye.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Haifa, Kishon - new slide video!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd46785c98494d62?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 10:42 pm
From: Alexander Blokhin

http://localcraft.blogspot.com/

Please see!

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

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