Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: D90 with grip faster with AA batteries?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0cf4d98bd234f06e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 11:28 am
From: Paul Giverin

In message <pPednamaP5rl63vUnZ2dnUVZ8rmdnZ2d@novis.pt>, Focus
<dont@mail.me> writes

>I searched high and low, but I'll be a donkey's ass

Stop searching............ you've made it!

--
Paul Giverin

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Focus!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d4b654a4398ea89d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 11:50 am
From: ASAAR

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:46:52 +0100, Focus bla bla blabbed:

> http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25452/D5000.html
>
> FP high speed sync: up to 1/4000

You're blind as a bat. I already acknowledged that. Have you no
mental focus, my fine big-little man?

> The rest is only your bla, bla, dude.

Whoa, say what? Anyone who end his post with "dude" is not to be
taken seriously...

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 12:18 pm
From: "Focus"

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:4djhu4pstjs9ouqkiorva31kdnur3pg95i@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:46:52 +0100, Focus bla bla blabbed:
>
>> http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25452/D5000.html
>>
>> FP high speed sync: up to 1/4000
>
> You're blind as a bat. I already acknowledged that. Have you no
> mental focus, my fine big-little man?
>
>
>> The rest is only your bla, bla, dude.
>
> Whoa, say what? Anyone who end his post with "dude" is not to be
> taken seriously...

Hey Achmed, your goat just called me. She misses you...

--
---
Focus

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 12:36 pm
From: ASAAR

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:18:13 +0100, Focus wrote:

>>> The rest is only your bla, bla, dude.
>>
>> Whoa, say what? Anyone who end his post with "dude" is not to be
>> taken seriously...
>
>
>
> Hey Achmed, your goat just called me. She misses you...

Dude! As an insult, that, like, totally eats it. Your Ho-daddy
guru, he say long time, best to go back to tossing your shoes.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ho-daddy

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 1:49 pm
From: "Focus"

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:g2mhu4li5fl00auqku3higk3jb1dh9s22c@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:18:13 +0100, Focus wrote:
>
>>>> The rest is only your bla, bla, dude.
>>>
>>> Whoa, say what? Anyone who end his post with "dude" is not to be
>>> taken seriously...
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey Achmed, your goat just called me. She misses you...
>
> Dude! As an insult, that, like, totally eats it. Your Ho-daddy
> guru, he say long time, best to go back to tossing your shoes.
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ho-daddy
>

LOL! And someone here was complaining about my bad English?
ROFLOL!

Still no job, Achmed?

--
---
Focus

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 3:48 pm
From: ASAAR

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:49:41 +0100, Focus wrote:

>>> Hey Achmed, your goat just called me. She misses you...
>>
>> Dude! As an insult, that, like, totally eats it. Your Ho-daddy
>> guru, he say long time, best to go back to tossing your shoes.
>>
>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ho-daddy
>
> LOL! And someone here was complaining about my bad English?
> ROFLOL!

Your giggle's but a niggle. Aint'cha never heard of valley/surfer
speak, dude? Did'ja check the link, photo-dad wanna-be? If you
did, just ask and someone here will volunteer to explain it.

> Still no job, Achmed?

Your racist bigotry is showing. No soup for you, dude (sayeth the
soup nazi) and probably no virgins too, of whatever species. :)
More and more you sound like you should be wearing an ankle bracelet
- the monitoring type that is. Pardon me, but I must be going. I
just spied a really cute honey lamb, and she's got my goat.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I hate environmentalists
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 11:44 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Chris H wrote:
> In message <ve8hu4tdt7r7fg6auklmscdh4dn2g7n42r@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:58:36 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> If that. You equate abuse to sexual
>>>> abuse. Being bullied by other students, or by staff, is abuse,
>>>> but a far different thing than sexual abuse.
>>>
>>> Yes I agree. However some forms of S/M are sexual
>>
>> Do you use "S/M" to mean something other than sadism and masochism?
>> Is it *ever* non-sexual in nature?
>
> The answer is it depends. For the child victims it is non-sexual for
> the priest administering? . well.... you said it.

S&M and sexuality is a more complicated area than people who have not been
there would imagine it to be.

>>>> How about the English public schools? Just about all of the
>>>> students who attended them were abused in some form or the other,
>>>> but they weren't all buggered by staff.
>>>
>>> Not at all. By each other more often.
>>>
>> That's a similar problem to the Catholic church.
>
> I don't mind them consensual screwing each other. I don't have a
> problem with gays. It is the abuse of minors by adults.
>
>> In the US, about
>> 4,000 priests have been accused of molestation.
>
> See http://ncronline.org/node/2545
> In which a catholic priest says that as of October 2008 "nearly 5,000
> Catholic priests have sexually abused more than 12,000 children."

Actually he says that USA Today says that.

Was the 5,000 for the US alone?

> So that is 8% or Catholic Priests sexually abusing children It gets
> worse than the 2-6% I first found. (Remember The general population
> figure is 1-2%)

If the 5000 is accurate, for the US alone, and only involves currently
living priest.

>> While that is bad,
>> what is just as bad is that the system protected these priests and
>> allowed them to remain as priests.
>
> I agree. The number that protected them is at least another 8,000?
> assuming only two others knew of each case.... So we have 12,000
> priests who are bad...

Why would any others know of each case? How many child molesters tell their
mates? How many molested kids tell anybody in such a way that they are
actually believed?

> So about it is about 8% of the priests having abused over 12000
> children and if only two others are involved in cover ups for each
> priest you are looking at about a QUARTER of the US catholic church
> having some involvement.

You seem to be jumping to a great many conclusions here.

> Now are you telling me that a quarter of
> the general population is involved in sexual child abuse and cover up?
>
> BTW I don't really like Wikipeadia but the cases here are checkable.
> see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_scandal
>
> Archdiocese of Anchorage
> The Society of Jesus made a $50 million payout to over 100 Inuits who
> alleged that they had been sexually abused. The settlement did not
> require them to admit molesting Inuit children, but accusations
> involved 13 or 14 priests who allegedly molested these children for
> 30 years
>
> Archdiocese of Chicago
> Daniel McCormack, a self-confessed sexually abusive priest was
> sentenced to five years in prison for abusing five boys (8-12 years)
> in 2001
>
> Archdiocese of Los Angeles
> The Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay out 60 million dollars to
> settle 45 lawsuits it still faces over 450 other pending cases.
> According to the Associated Press a total of 22 priests were involved
> in the settlement with cases going as far back as the 1930s.
> 20 million dollars of this was paid by the insurers of the
> archdiocese. The main administrative office of the archdiocese is due
> to be sold to cover the cost of these and future law suits. The
> archdiocese will settle about 500 cases for about $600 million.
>
> Most are multiple abuses on multiple victims over long periods. In
> some cases by groups of priests.

And in each case they seem to have been caught and punished.

>> If public schoolboys are being buggered or otherwise abused by their
>> mates, and the system allows this to continue, the system is as
>> guilty as the abusers.
>
> It depends if it is consensual or not.

According to child protection advocates no child can consent.

>> The staff member who looks the other way is tacitly
>> contributing to the abuse.
>
> I agree.
>
>
> BTW I see hell is about to freeze over :-))
> http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/
>
> Though to put it in perspective the Priest does say "nearly 5,000
> Catholic priests have sexually abused more than 12,000 children. Many
> bishops, aware of the abuse, remained silent. These priests and
> bishops were not excommunicated. Yet the women in our Church who are
> called by God and are ordained to serve God's people, and the priests
> and bishops who support them, are excommunicated."

Since the rules do not allow priests and bishops to ordain women as priests
the Church is quite right to court martial and discharge them. If they want
to ordain women they need to get the rules changed. If they don't want to
play by the rules of the Church then they should go off and form their own
church that has rules that they like.

Note that the Church has worse punishments than jail and excommunication
available to it. How about sending a pedophile priest to run an orphanage
for kids with AIDS in Africa? Think he's going to be _happy_ there?

> So now we know what the Roman Catholic Church sees as important. It
> is a male ego trip... power.. Something that is at the heart of most
> peadphilia

I see. So the 28 year old woman who got herself impregnated by a friend of
mine who was 12 at the time and then dumped him when he turned 13 because he
was too old for her was on a "male ego trip".

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 2:05 pm
From: John McWilliams

DRS wrote:
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:904hu4hbch1i5oh9b3sfn9ku7f95460js4@4ax.com
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:58:36 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> The thin air of the figures from the web site cited further up the
>>> thread. General population 1-2% Priests 2-6%
>> C'mon, I know you are smarter than this. Your statement was "As we
>> know the REPORTED cases of sexual abuse by catholic priests seems
>> to be at least twice that of the general population."
>>
>> The figures in the report were:
>>
>> "Two widely circulated estimates suggest that approximately 2% to 6%
>> of Roman Catholic priests abuse children and youths. This compares
>> with other common estimates: that perhaps 1% of all adults and 2% of
>> all adult males are abusive pedophiles."
>
> Note that these figure confuse paedophilia with hebephilia. Remove the
> priests committing hebephilia and I suggest the number committing
> paedophilia would drop to that of the general population.

Given the pre-selection of those who went into the priesthood a
generation ago, and I suggest your guess is wrong.

--
John McWilliams

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 7:32 pm
From: tony cooper

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:37:24 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In message <ve8hu4tdt7r7fg6auklmscdh4dn2g7n42r@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:58:36 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> If that. You equate abuse to sexual
>>>>abuse. Being bullied by other students, or by staff, is abuse, but a
>>>>far different thing than sexual abuse.
>>>
>>>Yes I agree. However some forms of S/M are sexual
>>
>>Do you use "S/M" to mean something other than sadism and masochism?
>>Is it *ever* non-sexual in nature?
>
>The answer is it depends. For the child victims it is non-sexual for the
>priest administering? . well.... you said it.

Wha? How can it be non-sexual for a victim? How can sexual abuse be
non-sexual? "Non-sexual" doesn't mean "non-enjoyable" or "not
wanted".

>> In the US, about
>>4,000 priests have been accused of molestation.
>
>See http://ncronline.org/node/2545
>In which a catholic priest says that as of October 2008 "nearly 5,000
>Catholic priests have sexually abused more than 12,000 children."

Read more carefully. He didn't say that. He said that's what _USA
Today_ reported. There are bound to be discrepancies in numbers.
We'll never know the real count. We'll only know the number of
priests who have been accused of molestation, and not all those who
have been molested have come forward. The estimate used is a
projection based on what we do know.

>Out of a total number of how many? (Found it... less that 47,000
>according to the US government.
>http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/ooh20002001/248.htm quoting The
>Official Catholic Directory, That was in 1998...Over a decade ago and
>numbers have been falling.
>
>So that is 8% or Catholic Priests sexually abusing children It gets
>worse than the 2-6% I first found. (Remember The general population
>figure is 1-2%)

Is it math or logic that's your weak point? The 47,000 represents the
total number of priests in 1998. The 4,000 or 5,000 represents the
number of priests involved in reported molestations. The reported
molestations go back in some cases 20 to 40 years, and were committed
by priests who are now deceased, retired, or removed. Unless you have
a figure for the total number of priests who are in office, and have,
served over the past 4 decades, you can't do the math you've done.

Really, you should have been able to figure that out on your own.

>> While that is bad,
>>what is just as bad is that the system protected these priests and
>>allowed them to remain as priests.
>
>I agree. The number that protected them is at least another 8,000?
>assuming only two others knew of each case.... So we have 12,000
>priests who are bad...

>So about it is about 8% of the priests having abused over 12000 children
>and if only two others are involved in cover ups for each priest you are
>looking at about a QUARTER of the US catholic church having some
>involvement. Now are you telling me that a quarter of the general
>population is involved in sexual child abuse and cover up?

No. I'm telling you that your ability to generate meaningful
statistics is near zero.

The two covering up for the priests and tripling the figures doesn't
play out, either. The covering-up was done at the diocese and
arch-diocese level. Since a diocese includes several parishes,
cover-ups don't double or triple the numbers.

The cover-ups were still wrong - and, in one way, more serious than
the actual offenses because they allowed the problems to continue -
but your maths are in error.

>Archdiocese of Los Angeles
>The Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay out 60 million dollars to
>settle 45 lawsuits it still faces over 450 other pending cases.
>According to the Associated Press a total of 22 priests were involved in
>the settlement with cases going as far back as the 1930s.

This type of entry should have tipped you off that your maths doesn't
add up. How many priests who committed acts of molestation in the
1930s would be around today and in the 47,000 figure?

It's probably necessary to say again that nothing I've said is in
defense of the priests who committed the acts or the system that
protected them, but I do object bogus arguments.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon confirms D90 LV bug
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/25a283dc5b8506ab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 12:24 pm
From: ASAAR

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:50:04 +0100, Bruce wrote:

>> Nobel Alert! :)
>
>
> Should be "Darwin Alert" surely?
>
> ;-)

Ah, I see what you mean. My alert was for Focus's mother-in-law,
who is a professor specializing it abnormal psychology and who
happens to be on the Nobel's screening committee. Rumor has it that
she's heard of the Darwin Award and may be secretly contacting
Portuguese arsonists in order to hasten its happening.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 1:46 pm
From: "Focus"

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:rblhu450sv8ekkpc69lp7o2s7tcnol3j8c@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:50:04 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>
>>> Nobel Alert! :)
>>
>>
>> Should be "Darwin Alert" surely?
>>
>> ;-)
>
> Ah, I see what you mean. My alert was for Focus's mother-in-law,
> who is a professor specializing it abnormal psychology and who
> happens to be on the Nobel's screening committee. Rumor has it that
> she's heard of the Darwin Award and may be secretly contacting
> Portuguese arsonists in order to hasten its happening.

The camel is called the ship of the desert.

But what is the virgin of the desert?
A goat that can run faster than a muslim....

--
---
Focus

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 2:14 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-04-17 13:46:10 -0700, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> said:

> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> news:rblhu450sv8ekkpc69lp7o2s7tcnol3j8c@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:50:04 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>> Nobel Alert! :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Should be "Darwin Alert" surely?
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Ah, I see what you mean. My alert was for Focus's mother-in-law,
>> who is a professor specializing it abnormal psychology and who
>> happens to be on the Nobel's screening committee. Rumor has it that
>> she's heard of the Darwin Award and may be secretly contacting
>> Portuguese arsonists in order to hasten its happening.
>
>
> The camel is called the ship of the desert.
>
> But what is the virgin of the desert?
> A goat that can run faster than a muslim....

That's like the old one;
"where does virgin wool come from? -- The sheep which run the fastest."
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 2:25 pm
From: The Bobert

In article <YJCdnQlhp8AJd3XUnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@novis.pt>,
"Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote:

> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> news:rblhu450sv8ekkpc69lp7o2s7tcnol3j8c@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:50:04 +0100, Bruce wrote:
> >
> >>> Nobel Alert! :)
> >>
> >>
> >> Should be "Darwin Alert" surely?
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >
> > Ah, I see what you mean. My alert was for Focus's mother-in-law,
> > who is a professor specializing it abnormal psychology and who
> > happens to be on the Nobel's screening committee. Rumor has it that
> > she's heard of the Darwin Award and may be secretly contacting
> > Portuguese arsonists in order to hasten its happening.
>
>
> The camel is called the ship of the desert.
Because they are full of Arab Seamen
> But what is the virgin of the desert?
> A goat that can run faster than a muslim....
--
Flame on. I have a good plonker

Bobert in Central CA

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 2:45 pm
From: "Focus"

"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009041714141043042-savageduck@savagenet...
> On 2009-04-17 13:46:10 -0700, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> said:
>
>> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
>> news:rblhu450sv8ekkpc69lp7o2s7tcnol3j8c@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:50:04 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nobel Alert! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Should be "Darwin Alert" surely?
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> Ah, I see what you mean. My alert was for Focus's mother-in-law,
>>> who is a professor specializing it abnormal psychology and who
>>> happens to be on the Nobel's screening committee. Rumor has it that
>>> she's heard of the Darwin Award and may be secretly contacting
>>> Portuguese arsonists in order to hasten its happening.
>>
>>
>> The camel is called the ship of the desert.
>>
>> But what is the virgin of the desert?
>> A goat that can run faster than a muslim....
>
> That's like the old one;
> "where does virgin wool come from? -- The sheep which run the fastest."
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck

That triggers another old one:

Two friends are camping in Africa when they see an angry lion, ready to
attack them.
One of them takes of his boots and starts putting on his running shoes.

The other said:" What are you doing? You can never outrun a lion!"

"I don't have to. As long as I can run faster than you, I'll be OK"

--
---
Focus

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Black silicon" skeptics abound...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/906dd55a28649215?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 12:38 pm
From: RichA

See Photonics-Spectra magazine letters section for Apr. Seems that
the Harvard team is "reluctant" to publish any solid figures on the
product's sensitivity and that the articles about it have all be "puff
pieces," perhaps fit for business magazines hawking stocks but not
scientific journals.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 2:45 pm
From: Bruce

RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>See Photonics-Spectra magazine letters section for Apr. Seems that
>the Harvard team is "reluctant" to publish any solid figures on the
>product's sensitivity and that the articles about it have all be "puff
>pieces," perhaps fit for business magazines hawking stocks but not
>scientific journals.

Cold fusion will be next. Until Focus finds a "bug" in it. ;-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Just for Jerry...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7ba5f2892276f349?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 14 2009 7:14 pm
From: Jürgen Exner

"Matt Clara" <none@myexpense.com> wrote:
>"Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:tbb9u4plml7frptbhsrohs9bthiovhl9un@4ax.com...
>> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> put his foot in his mouth again when he
>> wrote:
>>
>>>One easy example: with only one or two exceptions in the last 40+
>>>years, your Canuck dollar, commonly called the Looney, has been
>>>valued well UNDER the US dollar. Right now, I think it is someplace
>>>UNDER 75-80 cents. So, if that doesn't tell you that your country is
>>>majorly fucked up by idiots like you, I don't know what will.
>>
>> Hmmm, applying this "logic" to other currencies:
>> The US dollar, commonly called green back, has always been valued well
>> under the British Pound. Right now it is someplace below 70 pennies.
>> In recent years the US dollar, commonly called green back, has been
>> valued well under the Euro. Right now it is someplace around 75 Cent.
>>
>> So, if that doesn't tell you that your country is majorly fucked up by
>> idiots like you, I don't know what will.
>
>The dollar's trading better against the pound today than it did in 2004,

Now, THAT is actually a valid argument that could be discussed.
However it is not the argument, that HEMI-Brain was using.

jue

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 6:13 pm
From: Robert Coe

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:49:35 -0700, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
: "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> put his foot in his mouth again when he
: wrote:
:
: >One easy example: with only one or two exceptions in the last 40+
: >years, your Canuck dollar, commonly called the Looney, has been
: >valued well UNDER the US dollar. Right now, I think it is someplace
: >UNDER 75-80 cents. So, if that doesn't tell you that your country is
: >majorly fucked up by idiots like you, I don't know what will.
:
: Hmmm, applying this "logic" to other currencies:
: The US dollar, commonly called green back, has always been valued well
: under the British Pound. Right now it is someplace below 70 pennies.
: In recent years the US dollar, commonly called green back, has been
: valued well under the Euro. Right now it is someplace around 75 Cent.
:
: So, if that doesn't tell you that your country is majorly fucked up by
: idiots like you, I don't know what will.

Jerry doesn't have the wit to fuck us up. It took Richard Cheney, George Bush,
and the rest of that crowd of evil but incompetent shitheads to do that. Jerry
was merely one of their clueless enablers.

Bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Spring Pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15229fadc7315e84?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 3:26 pm
From: "Russell D."

Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.

http://tinyurl.com/dhwv88

http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow

Thanks for looking.

Russell

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D40/80/90 MM Exposure Problems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2cf34097ab39052c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 3:51 pm
From: "PDM"

Just had a chat with Nikon UK. They say Nikon are not getting any feedback
on these problems. Also say there is a new system in operation when you
contact tech support by phone rather than by internet. They now have to log
every call. They suggest that anyone with this problem phone them (including
Nikon in other countires) so they can get enough feedback for them to
update the firmware. What they may do is to add an extra option to the menu
which allows you to set the type of exposure control: standard or expose for
the highlights.

As Ken Rockwell has mentioned this problem on his site, Nikon UK suggest
that they may actually be deliberately ignoring this problem as they tend to
take everything he says with a very large pinch of salt. Shame, because
there is a lot of useful stuff on his site.

Note: if you search www.saynoto0870.com for Nikon it will give alternative
cheap or free numbers rather than the premium lines. So get phoning.

PDM

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 4:08 pm
From: nospam

In article <49e90801$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, PDM
<pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> As Ken Rockwell has mentioned this problem on his site, Nikon UK suggest
> that they may actually be deliberately ignoring this problem as they tend to
> take everything he says with a very large pinch of salt. Shame, because
> there is a lot of useful stuff on his site.

except it's mixed in with all sorts of bogus info and no real way to
tell the difference.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 12mp and 24 zoom
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/365a5aaa0f05eda9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 4:55 pm
From: "JimW"

> Is there a good comparison of the Nikon P90, the Pentaz X70, and the Kodak
> ?,
> and other 12mp x 24 zoom cameras?
> tnx
> JimW

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 6:51 pm
From: Irwell

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:55:44 -0500, JimW wrote:

>> Is there a good comparison of the Nikon P90, the Pentaz X70, and the Kodak
>> ?,
>> and other 12mp x 24 zoom cameras?
>> tnx
>> JimW

Go to this website, pumch in the names of the desired cameras
for a comparison of the major features.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 6:55 pm
From: Irwell

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:55:44 -0500, JimW wrote:

>> Is there a good comparison of the Nikon P90, the Pentaz X70, and the Kodak
>> ?,
>> and other 12mp x 24 zoom cameras?
>> tnx
>> JimW

This is the site if you know the camera model.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Punography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 17 2009 5:14 pm
From: "Bowser"

"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gs9sv2$f0r$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
> http://www.spokane.wsu.edu/campusresources/aboutWSUSpokane/News_Events/images/NursingBuilding_construction.jpg
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Takapuna_Sentinel_Building_Construction.jpg
> Men in hard hats get it up!
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
>
> <jack@sprat.com> wrote in message
> news:t0mfu45t1vgj5akdtqqdgo172lu2aek3sl@4ax.com...
>
> Think of all the puns available in porn!

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Keep a stiff upper lip.

More?

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, April 17, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, April 17, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic