Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 11:58 pm
From: Chris H

In message <60dtu4hkuit13uruta8n0fgvs0rjnfetjq@4ax.com>, rwalker
<rwalker@despammed.com> writes
>On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:34:55 +0100, bugbear
><bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>
>>I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
>>
>>If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
>>sensors than so-called-full-frame.
>>
>> BugBear
>
>Exactly. When I think "full frame" I think 6 x 7 cm.

:-)

That was my point. It is relative. So the DX size sensor is "full frame"
for DSLR's and all this rubbish about going "full [35mm]frame" is just
marketing.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 12:04 am
From: Chris H

In message <Q4eKXCHJll7JFw3L@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy McEwen
<rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <mKbvkHPXWb7JFACv@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
><chris@phaedsys.org> writes
>
>>There is no real need to relate the
>>digital sensor size to that of one of the many film sizes.
>>
>That is the way it is, it is a reference to a known standard - live
>with it, whether you like it or not.

So it seems. Though as I said in other places I wonder how much longer
it will last as over the last decade the 35mm camera usage has shrunk
dramatically. In another decade, bar the enthusiasts no one is going to
remember 35mm cameras

>>So I think it is time to loose this ridiculous idea of "full frame" for
>>Digital cameras.
>
>What you "think" is irrelevant, being merely one of 6,770,000,000, and
>less if we include your reasoning, which amounts to making every
>reference meaningless.

Sadly you are almost correct. The world is ignoring a prophet though my
Mother thinks my opinion is important even if my kids don't :-)

>>They are DX and FX (or whatever the Canon, Olympus,
>>Sony etc equivalent is) The APS-C format is effectively "full Frame"
>>for Digital cameras.
>>
>No it isn't, because "full frame" is an established term - whether you
>like it or not, does not change that.

True. A lone voice of sanity in the wilderness :- )

>Before heading off to tilt at the windmill of "Full Frame" Mr Quixote,
>there are a few giants closer to your ivory tower that need to be slain
>first. A 16mm inch won't please your wife!

:-))))) Though no need to worry just yet as my Birthday is not for a few
months ......
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 2:19 am
From: bugbear

rwalker wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:34:55 +0100, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
>>
>> If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
>> sensors than so-called-full-frame.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> Exactly. When I think "full frame" I think 6 x 7 cm.

Well, "full plate" is 6 1/2" x 8 1/2".

BugBear

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 2:37 am
From: Chris H

In message <BPqdnZSz4P-kfHPUnZ2dnUVZ8vti4p2d@posted.plusnet>, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes
>rwalker wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:34:55 +0100, bugbear
>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>> I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
>>>
>>> If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
>>> sensors than so-called-full-frame.
>>>
>>> BugBear
>> Exactly. When I think "full frame" I think 6 x 7 cm.
>
>Well, "full plate" is 6 1/2" x 8 1/2".

Sorry that is full PLATE not full FRAME :-))))

The point still holds there is no reason why anyone should use "full
frame" for FX digital sensors rather than DX sensors.

So how about:-
DX for standard digital
FX for the next size up similar to the old 35mm size
MX for the frame sizes similar to the Medium format cameras
PX for the very large "plate" size sensors?

Not a "full frame" in sight :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 4:14 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Chris H wrote:
> In message <BPqdnZSz4P-kfHPUnZ2dnUVZ8vti4p2d@posted.plusnet>, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes
>> rwalker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:34:55 +0100, bugbear
>>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>> snip
>>>
>>>> I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
>>>>
>>>> If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
>>>> sensors than so-called-full-frame.
>>>>
>>>> BugBear
>>> Exactly. When I think "full frame" I think 6 x 7 cm.
>>
>> Well, "full plate" is 6 1/2" x 8 1/2".
>
> Sorry that is full PLATE not full FRAME :-))))
>
> The point still holds there is no reason why anyone should use "full
> frame" for FX digital sensors rather than DX sensors.

That ship has sailed. Accept it and move on.

> So how about:-
> DX for standard digital
> FX for the next size up similar to the old 35mm size
> MX for the frame sizes similar to the Medium format cameras
> PX for the very large "plate" size sensors?
>
> Not a "full frame" in sight :-)

Have all manufacturers adopted that nomenclature? Will they?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Genuine Fractals
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/48484611a04ef3f9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 12:22 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>

whinee wrote:

> Genuine Fractals and its ilk do not create data that is not there.

What they can do on a good day with the right source material is produce
a larger image with less obtrusive artifacts. However, it doesn't always
work so very definitely try before you buy.

> Unlike in the movies and television you cannot magically add image
> details to a low resolution original.

The best you can ever hope for under perfect conditions is a roughly
factor of 2 to 3 improvement in resolution at the expense of introducing
certain artifacts. Most times you do not have anything remotely close to
the controlled conditions needed for this to work. The Hubble Space
Telescope is an example where signal to noise and an extremely well
determined point spread function allows this to be done.

An ordinary photo with finite depth of field issues is pretty much
impossible to process.

> Many users, myself included, do not see significant differences using
> third party resizing tools instead of Photoshop's built-in tools for
> ordinary printing tasks.

Genuine fractals can on a good day with the right source material make a
larger image containing artifacts that do not stand out to the eye.
Essentially it creates self similar scaled textures at the higher
resolution. These might not have really been present in the actual
scene, but they don't look out of place.

Most other mathematical interpolation methods tend to produce artifacts
that are aligned with the image grid structure.

> If you are planning to try to create poster-sized images you may want to
> try downloading trials of several resizing programs and compare them to
> PS before buying as some of these programs are quite expensive for the
> single task they perform and which you may rarely use.

Good advice. Do not expect miracles.

Regards,
Martin Brown

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 2:36 am
From: van dark

Yes, thank you for your help and advice, of course. The GF is BMHO
expensive one and in addition is not running my Photoshop 7.0,
unfortunately. The S-Spline 2 is better from this view (is running in
W2K independently on Photoshop. As for the price, it´s similar one as GF.
Nice day,
rene

whinee napsal(a):
> Genuine Fractals and its ilk do not create data that is not there.
> Unlike in the movies and television you cannot magically add image
> details to a low resolution original.
> Many users, myself included, do not see significant differences using
> third party resizing tools instead of Photoshop's built-in tools for
> ordinary printing tasks.
> If you are planning to try to create poster-sized images you may want to
> try downloading trials of several resizing programs and compare them to
> PS before buying as some of these programs are quite expensive for the
> single task they perform and which you may rarely use.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Converting old laptop to PC monitor and digital frame...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3009de7932c60dea?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 1:08 am
From: "John"

> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:263bbb81-1c00-41cb-912c-47ad1ab8aba1@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 20, 8:48 pm, zalek <zalekbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I have a very old working Dell laptop. On ebay it is worth $30-50 -
> > but screen is perfect. I saw some sites which use whole laptop to
> > convert it to a digital frame, but I would like to use screen only,
> > without PC part. Also - I would like to use it from time to time as
> > screen monitor (using VGA cable).
> > Maybe someone knows about a such project - to remove screen, connect
> > it to some kind chip with SD,CF or USB flash drive?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Zalek
>
> Pop the bezel off. Unscrew the hinges. Don't disconnect the wires.
> Pop the bezel back on. Rotate the computer and screen so that back
> side of the screen (top of the computer when closed in the normal way)
> is up against the back of the computer (bottom of the computer when
> closed in the normal way). Put velcro on each piece. Stick the
> together. Now you have the computer "backwards" with the keyboard
> facing out in one direction and the screen facing out in the other.
> Load you pictures. Use the microsoft screensaver gadget that allow
> you to rotate through your pictures. Firmly attached a picture
> hanging from to the area above the keyboard. Mount on wall. Done.
> No cost. No nothing. Easy to do. Interesting conversation piece.

Done this a couple of years ago. And it works. I did have a little problem.
The wires to the screen needed extending. Just cut them and added some extra
pieces.

John.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 4:14 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"John" <john.langfield@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:49eed08b_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>> news:263bbb81-1c00-41cb-912c-47ad1ab8aba1@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 20, 8:48 pm, zalek <zalekbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > I have a very old working Dell laptop. On ebay it is worth $30-50 -
>> > but screen is perfect. I saw some sites which use whole laptop to
>> > convert it to a digital frame, but I would like to use screen only,
>> > without PC part. Also - I would like to use it from time to time as
>> > screen monitor (using VGA cable).
>> > Maybe someone knows about a such project - to remove screen, connect
>> > it to some kind chip with SD,CF or USB flash drive?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Zalek
>>
>> Pop the bezel off. Unscrew the hinges. Don't disconnect the wires.
>> Pop the bezel back on. Rotate the computer and screen so that back
>> side of the screen (top of the computer when closed in the normal way)
>> is up against the back of the computer (bottom of the computer when
>> closed in the normal way). Put velcro on each piece. Stick the
>> together. Now you have the computer "backwards" with the keyboard
>> facing out in one direction and the screen facing out in the other.
>> Load you pictures. Use the microsoft screensaver gadget that allow
>> you to rotate through your pictures. Firmly attached a picture
>> hanging from to the area above the keyboard. Mount on wall. Done.
>> No cost. No nothing. Easy to do. Interesting conversation piece.
>
> Done this a couple of years ago. And it works. I did have a little
> problem. The wires to the screen needed extending. Just cut them and added
> some extra pieces.

How about battery life or does the 'picture frame' need to be constabntly
connected to
a power outlet, what a waste of trees ;-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rolex Oyster Perpetual Day-Date Mens Watch 118239-WR
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/63d5d3b7a2d4155b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 1:18 am
From: fashionbag12@gmail.com

Rolex Oyster Perpetual Day-Date Mens Watch 118239-WR

Watches Collection Site : http://www.watchepay.com/
Rolex Oyster Perpetual Day-Date Mens Watch 118239-WR View Full :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/watch_357.html

Rolex Oyster Perpetual Day-Date Mens Watch 118239-WR AdditionalInfo :

Brand : Rolex Watches ( http://watchepay.com/watchs/rolex-watches.html)
Handbags Name : Rolex Oyster Perpetual Day-Date Mens Watch
118239-WR 
Code : Rolex Oyster Perpetual Day-Date Mens Watch 118239-
WR 
Gender : Mens 
CaseMaterial : 18kt White Gold 
Bezel : White Gold Domed Bezel 
Movement :

18kt white gold case and bracelet. White dial. Date displays at 3
o'clock position. Day displays at 12 o'clock position. Synthetic
sapphire crystal. Case diameter 36mm. 31 jewel chronometer automatic
movement. Water resistant at 30 meters (100 feet).

Rolex Watches Collection Series :

Raymond Weil watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/raymondweil.html

Movado Rondiro Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/movado-rondiro-watches.html

Bedat & Co watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/bedat_co.html

Omega Constellation Double Eagle Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/omega-constellation-double-eagle-watches.html

Jaeger LeCoultre Reverso Duo Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/jaeger-lecoultre-reverso-duo-watches.html

Chopard watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/chopard.html

Rado Florence Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/rado-florence-watches.html

Tag Heuer 2000 Classic / Exclusive Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/tag-heuer-2000-classic-exclusive-watches.html

Oris Artelier Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/oris-artelier-watches.html

Audemars Piguet Charleston Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/audemars-piguet-charleston-watches.html

Gerald Genta watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/gerald_genta.html

Movado Portico Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/movado-portico-watches.html

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 2:15 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:GL2dnfCROt7f0HDUnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> STILL guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun that
>> does not depend on words.

> Isn't the definition of a pun a "play on words"? - If it is, then a pun that
> doesn't depend on words would be impossible.

I think you're missing that important feature of human natural
language which allows the meanings of words to be extended. That's why
for example we can talk of cameras having a family resemblance even
though cameras don't have families, why we can talk of high contrast
even though it's no higher off the ground than low contrast, and so
on. And why we can talk of visual puns.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 3:50 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ugasu45pt5285bhstafnlao1gbmfbj65m4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:55:49 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>>news:GL2dnfCROt7f0HDUnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> STILL guess I need to have someone show me an example of a visual pun
>>> that
>>> does not depend on words.
>>>
>>Isn't the definition of a pun a "play on words"? - If it is, then a pun
>>that
>>doesn't depend on words would be impossible.
>
> Yes, but I'm approaching the mandate on the basis that photo pun is a
> visual scene that *suggests* a common expression. That's not truly a
> pun, but I think that's what's being suggest here.
>
> For example, a photograph of someone holding a bird would suggest the
> saying "A bird in hand". A second photo of two birds perched in
> vegetation would suggest the rest of the expression.
>
> That's how I'm going to approach it, anyway.
>
> The word "pun" seems to confuse everyone, so perhaps the mandate
> should be "Photo Phun". (Which is a pun of sorts)

But we should have some f'in fun, but no f'in photos.

If I had a picture of a pair of womens breasts with a mouse trap (without
cheese)
on them, would that be a booby trap ?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 3:57 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:1cmdnWDBi86tlXDUnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Leon@here.com wrote:
>
>> and the word 'pussy' is used for the same thing even in French. I've
>> heard the
>> word 'chat' used in France to describe a womans....!
>
> Chatte, actually. (feminine of chat) or "Minou".
>
> With Minou being the more acceptable 'slang' and
> 'chatte' being the obscene.

I thought it was chat because French women can't stop talking :)

Although that's rather unfair, I mean isn't it that all women can;t stop
talking ;-)

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 4:02 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Bruce" <no@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4tbru4pbk121c5vqin52q7laoa30i6podh@4ax.com...
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>Fish puns anyone?
>
>
> The only fish puns I know would be better not repeated here. ;-)

you, mean this isn't the write plaice.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Militant Rain of Digital Cameras a stones throw away from the pond
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/85ed385717884e9b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 2:20 am
From: "Roy G"

<kevinkatovics@email.com> wrote in message
news:d39bc7cc-1ef1-4c03-9adf-10db237274fa@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> http://xxxxxxxxxblogspot.com/2009/04/earth-day-2009-earth-day-activities.html
> - Yes I think I remember philip he had a militant rain for quite some
> time in the uk from amazon to digital cameras to sony to almost every
> brand.

Oh, a different piece of spam for the same crappy blogspot site.

Roy G

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 3:55 am
From: Bruce

SoShinethTheIdiotASSAR <replyingtoidiots@youreafool.net> wrote:
>
>You really need to get out of your basement

Perhaps you should just crawl back under your stone, and stay there.

Have a nice day.

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 4:04 am
From: Eugene

Hi,

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?

Also anyone owns any one of these Canon Live View DSLR?

I'd use a 1000mm f/10 Russian Telephoto on
it. Can the contrast autofocus work? The
telephoto is manual and have to turn it
manually. So I guess that I can see the view
direclty in the LCD to see the best focus?
What then is the function of Contrast or
AF autofocus in this case?

Thanks.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 4:28 am
From: "N"

"Eugene" <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c6c28aa-a852-4739-a050-2b5d2daa24c7@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> 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?
>

For the same reason that climate control wasn't available on a Model-T Ford.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 4:42 am
From: Eugene

On Apr 22, 7:28 pm, "N" <N...@onyx.com> wrote:
> "Eugene" <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6c6c28aa-a852-4739-a050-2b5d2daa24c7@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi,
>
> > 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?
>
> For the same reason that climate control wasn't available on a Model-T Ford.

All predecessors and point&shoot use Live View.
If what the XS did is simply hold the mirror upward
while the view is being seen live. Earlier model
could have use such simple principle like in
Canon 300D.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 4:52 am
From: Eugene

Hi guys,

When digicam autofocus, does the lens supposed
to move or is it all software or is there another
lens on top of the CCD which can focus the
image?

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 4:57 am
From: "N"

"Eugene" <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a61171bc-8d5f-43e5-aae1-8d54f913ad9a@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 22, 7:28 pm, "N" <N...@onyx.com> wrote:
> "Eugene" <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6c6c28aa-a852-4739-a050-2b5d2daa24c7@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi,
>
> > 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?
>
> For the same reason that climate control wasn't available on a Model-T
> Ford.

Yes, sure, and Henry could have put a full roof and sides on the M-T.
Oh, and why wan't there a sensor in your first film camera?

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 4:40 am
From: me@mine.net

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:38:39 -0400, in rec.photo.digital Robert Coe
<bob@1776.COM> wrote:

>I did, and it didn't help. But I figured it out, right after I posted my
>earlier message. It turns out that I'm using a slow line, and in most cases
>the browser will draw the picture, slowly but in full resolution, from top to
>bottom. But not in this case. From that site, the pictures get drawn in very
>low resolution, and successive waves of new information make all of them
>sharper and sharper. I left the browser open while I composed my message; and
>after I sent it, I was surprised to see that the pictures had sharpened up
>considerably. So I just kept waiting until the images that others had been
>raving about finally materialized. And, yes, they are quite good.

FWIW, it's probably not the browser, but the image format. JPGs can be
written in either "standard" or progressive format. The progressive
format is what you are seeing.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Color matching with Nikon D80 & D90
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/26f93a0b3e4b7bbd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 6:09 am
From: me@mine.net

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:00:02 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital eNo
<grandepatzer@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, as an engineer, this not-so-experienced photographer would
>expect engineer/designers to provide a mechanism to achieve consistent
>results across the product line. They do so for the higher end models,
>BTW -- the whole point of the D2X... Picture controls. And while
>engineers may like certain color profiles better, why they would
>change their mind by the time the next model is realized is more
>puzzling than expecting different models to give me the same colors,
>don't you think? I have a feeling that engineering preference for one
>color profile over another had nothing to do with why the D90 and D80
>render colors differently. It has to do with limitations or
>performance profiles of the underlying electronics.

As an engineer you do understand that these two cameras utilize
sensors of a completely differing technology, right? CCD vs. CMOS.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cardinal Holding a Bouquet of Flowers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a0b95d675dabf1d2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 6:15 am
From: M-M

Uncropped, reduced in size.

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_18086w.jpg

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 22 2009 6:26 am
From: Eugene

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?

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

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