Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Contest With Cash
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5a530e4228a67e44?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 19 2009 10:06 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:d2TGl.24405$PH1.5274@edtnps82...
>
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:92c02603-50ec-44b0-b232-b8ca242cfbcd@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 7:31 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad/index.php?topic=5.0
>>
>> --
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>> --
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
> In the 50/50; who get's the other 50%
>
> If I collect the funds, host the event, set up the polling mechanism, and
> disperse winnings, I do...:)
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>Let me elaborate a bit...

I can assure the entrants a fair, transparent and impartial count of the
votes, with only the entrants casting ballots.

In order to make sure that everyone doesn't end up with a single vote, each
entrant would get two or three votes, depending on number of entries.

That should make a winner more likely.

However, in the event of a tie, the winner's share would go to support disk
space for the SI... (Eliminating much of the incentive to try to rig the
voting)

All transactions would be run through PayPal for accountability and
arbitration should there be any complaints.

I'm just thinking about it, so this isn't written in stone. Ideas are
welcome. Also, I have to check local gaming laws to see if it floats...

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The cat
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02f501584965a915?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 1:28 am
From: "MJK"

http://images-piegees.over-blog.com/article-30453719.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheap remote for Nikon Dxx
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d7be18a67e18073d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 2:39 am
From: Willy Eckerslyke

Pete D wrote:

> You can also get wired interval timers, brilliant bit of kit for under $50.

You can get wireless ones too.
I bought one called a GentLED for about 20 GB pounds. Great piece of
kit, thoroughly recommended.

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:22 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Dudley Hanks <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:74ti5rF15228oU1@mid.individual.net...
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:44:30 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:qssiu454158m2nu31r560vl4d7nil294rk@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:45:53 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1ckfu49hsv0m64smb1d55u6e9kv63sdimq@4ax.com...

>>>>>>You need to distinguish between Divine Inspiration and it's inevitable
>>>>>>implications, as opposed to the more mundane mortal version...
>>>>>
>>>>> Inspiration is inspiration.
>>>>
>>>>Not when you are dealing with the Almighty...
>>
>>> So he's not so powerful he can create a word that retains its meaning
>>> in his presence?
>>
>> Of course He could. But He wouldn't. Seems your theological education
>> omitted the central fundamental topic of free will.

> That's one of the problems with trying to say that the Bible is "the Word of
> God," or the "Words of God," or any other way you want to create a
> connection between a man-made organization (the Church) or written document
> and the infallibility of an all-powerful authority...

> But, hey, that hasn't stopped the zealots from trying for as long as
> history's been recorded.

> But, as I've noted in other posts, this is getting way to off topic. So, if
> you'd like to discuss it further, either e-mail me, or go to:

> http://www.discussion.dudley-hanks.com/opinion

> Or, find another, more appropriate group and point me towards it.

> Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote connection
> to recreational photography here...

I do try, but I think my mental AF is easily distracted. All it takes
is a few twigs to move in front of the subject and the entire
concentration focusses down on the twiggery and won't let go :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:38 am
From: Bob Larter

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
> news:2009041800084431729-savageduck@savagenet...
>> On 2009-04-17 23:43:30 -0700, John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:16:19 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-04-17 06:26:13 -0700, "whisky-dave"
>>>> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ysOFl.23805$PH1.12017@edtnps82...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm, divine flaws. However will the zealots dismiss them...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even when I was young and 'learnt' that jesus died for our sins,
>>>>> I couldn;t work out why God let King Herrod go around killing all those
>>>>> babies
>>>>> while looking for the baby Jesus, why didn't God just say he's over
>>>>> there
>>>>> in the stables don't kill all these innocent babies, which I assuemd
>>>>> they
>>>>> were
>>>>> all innocent, Jeus coudl have still have said to have died for ours
>>>>> sins.
>>>>> And then there's Brutus surely he's a hero, without him Jesus wouldn't
>>>>> have
>>>>> been
>>>>> caught and executed in the way he was.
>>>> "Brutus?" Could you mean that other plot villain Judas?
>>> Or maybe Bluto.
>> I like that. "The Popeye Bible," or perhaps "The Spinach Papers."
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Savageduck
>>
>
> SD, haven't you heard about Shakespeare's religious folios?

Did they involve spinach?

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

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

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:46 am
From: Bob Larter

HEMI-Powered wrote:
> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>> Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote
>> connection to recreational photography here...
>>
> Good idea, you mean like your attacks on me, oh ye drug addict mit
> der fried brain and unrecovered alcoholic? Don't bother replying as I
> no longer read your demented rants.

Well seeing as you reply to them, you obviously read them.

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:54 am
From: Bob Larter

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> wrote in message
> news:Xns9BF26778F8890ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131...
>> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>
>>> Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote
>>> connection to recreational photography here...
>>>
>> Good idea, you mean like your attacks on me, oh ye drug addict mit
>> der fried brain and unrecovered alcoholic? Don't bother replying as I
>> no longer read your demented rants.
>>
>> --
>> HP, aka Jerry
>>
>> "The government is best which governs least" - Thomas Jefferson
>> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
>> problem!" - Ronald Reagan
>
> Bit off more than you can chew?

Apparently so.

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

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

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:33 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>>In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>
>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
>>> pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
>>
>>A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>would be language-independent.

> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without language...
> 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....!

I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I guess
it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical problem
I think purely in terms of mental images of things interacting with
one another. Not only are no words involved, but it can be quite hard
to find the words to describe what can be easily seen in the mind's
eye. It's also famously the case that musical thinking can be very
detailed and precise yet often impossible to put into words.

The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
purely visual puns that do not depend on words.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:24 am
From: Bob Larter

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:14:48 -0400, Bowser wrote:
>
>> "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?
>
> A bird in the hand is worth getting in the bushes.

A bird in the hand means you have one in the bush...

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

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

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:59 am
From: Bob Larter

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Leon@here.com wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>> In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
>>>> pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
>>> A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
>>> would be language-independent.
>
>> It would be quite hard to describe a photo, or even think, without language...
>> 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....!
>
> I often see this claim that it's hard to think without words. I guess
> it depends on what kind of thinking you habitually employ. For
> example, when trying to think of some solution to a mechanical problem
> I think purely in terms of mental images of things interacting with
> one another. Not only are no words involved, but it can be quite hard
> to find the words to describe what can be easily seen in the mind's
> eye. It's also famously the case that musical thinking can be very
> detailed and precise yet often impossible to put into words.
>
> The paintings of Salvador Dali sometimes employ quite outrageous
> purely visual puns that do not depend on words.

Indeed. But how many of us can compete with Salvadore Dali?

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Being Forced Back To A Safe Distance With The 500/4!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/969efbf8ec7f8dc6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:27 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:oNydnVmfSu_vAXbUnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@supernews.com...
> When a cat puts its whiskers in the sand you better step back to get it in
> focus.
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Cat_Whisker.jpg>

I cod do that too.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/698953895/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:53 am
From: Bob Larter

Larry Thong wrote:
> When a cat puts its whiskers in the sand you better step back to get it
> in focus.
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Cat_Whisker.jpg>

Well, that fish is about as dead as it gets.

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Endless stream of "me too" P&S crap released
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7437e6aec8662b70?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 5:36 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:RfWdnbIkx91KKnfUnZ2dnUVZ_j9i4p2d@giganews.com...
> "JohnD" <JD@thisis.invalid> wrote in
> news:gsdcad$ad3$1@news.motzarella.org:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>> Latest ones:
>>>
>>
>> Endless stream of "boo hoo" P&S (Pigheaded & Stupid) crap released --
>> by an idiot with a giant chip on his shoulder.
>>
>>
>>
>
> That implies P&S's have cost me something, they haven't. P&S's: Choosing
> cameras by their exterior colours, not their image quality.

I'd like the choice, nothijng wrong withy having differtn coloured camera,
any more than having different coloured cars, computers, curtains or cats.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Diff Nikon and Canon Lens System
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5f02839e1bcce9a3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:23 am
From: Bob Larter

PDM wrote:
> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49e589f9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> measekite wrote:
>>> Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon
>>> Lens
>>> Line?
>>>
>>> Does it just boil down to the fact that each as a few lenses that are
>>> marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or
>>> is
>>> there a significant difference?
>> To really simplify things, Canon tends to be better at teles & Nikon tends
>> to be better at wide-angles. Other than that, neither is, in general,
>> significantly better than the other.
>>
> Suggest that Nikon has better quality lower cost lenses than Canon
> (particularly for the C / DX size sensor). You have to pay premium for a
> good lens from Canon. Canon has more lenses. There are some gaps in the
> Nikon line.
> PDM

I was assuming full-frame lenses. I don't have enough experience with
non-full-frame sensors to have an opinion.

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

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

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:31 am
From: Bob Larter

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:17:12 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
> : measekite wrote:
> : > Basically what is the primary differences between the Nikon and Canon Lens
> : > Line?
> : >
> : > Does it just boil down to the fact that each as a few lenses that are
> : > marginally better than the other with the remainder being comparable or is
> : > there a significant difference?
> :
> : To really simplify things, Canon tends to be better at teles & Nikon
> : tends to be better at wide-angles. Other than that, neither is, in
> : general, significantly better than the other.
>
> Well, as Albert Einstein is supposed to have said, "Everything should be made
> as simple as possible, but not simpler." The complication is that there are
> very good third-party lenses at both ends of the spectrum. So for your Canon
> you might have the Sigma 10-20, and for your Nikon you might have the Sigma
> 50-150 f/2.8. Or similar lenses from Tamron, Tokina, et al.

To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

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

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:09 am
From: nospam

In article <49ec7941$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:

> To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
> me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.

<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20>

sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
(and that particular lens isn't cheap either).

also,

<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga>

Since day 1 the Sigma brand has always been a bit of a money loser
for us: they broke more frequently than the other brands.

Sigma lenses failed at a rate of 30% per year, compared to less than
5% for Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, and Zeiss.

We aren¹t going to stop renting Sigma entirely but we are going to
close out two lines (the 150-500 and 120-400) that have developed so
many problems as to be unusable.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:34 am
From: measekite

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:09:29 -0700, nospam wrote:

> In article <49ec7941$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
>> me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.
>
> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20>
>
> sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
> they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
> (and that particular lens isn't cheap either).

What exactly do you mean by lens failure. Is it just poor image quality
or is the build quality so bad it just falls apart?

>
> also,
>
> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga>
>
> Since day 1 the Sigma brand has always been a bit of a money loser for
> us: they broke more frequently than the other brands.
>
> Sigma lenses failed at a rate of 30% per year, compared to less than
> 5% for Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, and Zeiss.
>
> We aren¹t going to stop renting Sigma entirely but we are going to
> close out two lines (the 150-500 and 120-400) that have developed so
> many problems as to be unusable.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Testing Forum
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1271e50f62d744e9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:41 am
From: Bob Larter

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> I'm trying to set up a board where you won't have to register in order to
> post messages and use polls. I've set up a couple of catagories, and added
> a poll.
>
> For those who are looking for something to do, logging on and giving it a
> quick test would be greatfully appreciated.
>
> The forum is located at:
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad
>
> And, a direct link to the poll is:
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad/index.php?PHPSESSID=c4686f23383ac7d69de3a88957b2dc3c&topic=2.msg2#new

The results of the poll aren't a big surprise! ;^)

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 6:51 am
From: Bob Larter

Focus wrote:
> "Clayton Ramsey" <cramsey@wherewithall.org> wrote in message
> news:ke0nu4tkmckb0npmchd0fgtgplrhcpsg36@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:53:05 +0100, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote:
>>
>>> "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20090417011628.7f9b9510@bluemoon...
>>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:38:31 +0100
>>>> Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any item on the ever-longer list of things that Focus
>>>>> cannot understand is defined as "a bug".
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not knowledgeable about psychology, neurophysiology etc. but
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's particularly things he can't understand so much as
>>>> things that aren't as he thinks they should be - he seems to have a
>>>> very rigid world view, and has problems when reality doesn't match his
>>>> preconceptions. He has to dismiss or ignore anyone who points out his
>>>> flawed reasoning, because accepting that they may have valid views
>>>> would effectively be an admission that he doesn't have as firm a grip
>>>> on reality as he needs to believe that he does. Without any other
>>>> history I'd say autistic spectrum disorder, but as he said he's had
>>>> brain injury you'd have to consider that as at least a contributing
>>>> factor. The brain is remarkably good at recovering from injury, in
>>>> some cases it will re-task different areas to replace lost
>>>> functionality, but sometimes it simply provides "appropriate"
>>>> information without the underlying functionality, so that areas which
>>>> rely on that information have some chance of doing their job. That
>>>> can actually work quite well in simple familiar situations, but beyond
>>>> that it's a lottery whether the fabricated information will match the
>>>> actual situation that requires a response.
>>>
>>> Well, thank you Dr. Freud.
>>> For someone who opens his post with:
>>> " I'm not knowledgeable about psychology, neurophysiology etc."
>>> You sure seems to "know" everything about those matters.
>>>
>>> What I write is things I discover about hardware or software. Most people
>>> that react in some more opr less "funny" way, are not able to graps what
>>> it
>>> is I'm stating. When people don't understand something, combined with a
>>> low
>>> IQ ( and for the ones blessed with less than average intelligence: I don't
>>> mean Image Quality), they don't ask questions, but rather draw conclusions
>>> based on their own limited view of life.
>>> You don't know me and they don't know me. You have no idea of what I have
>>> or
>>> may not have achieved in life, yet you and a few others think they know
>>> all
>>> about me and even can predict what I will do next.
>>> People that react in this matter, more often than not, don't have a real
>>> interesting life of their own, so they get their kicks by trying to put
>>> other people down. Most of those people seldom or never start any
>>> interesting topic of their own, simply beacuse they don't have anything to
>>> tell.
>>> Intelligent people understand this and rarely react, just shaking their
>>> heads.
>>> I doubt very much, that any well known and busy photographer (i.o.w.: one
>>> that has enough work) would spent his time digging in my past postings and
>>> come up with things I stated in the past.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a lot of people just don't understand what I mean, when I post
>>> something. I make a statement about something I found and wait for
>>> reactions
>>> to see if my statement is warranted or not. My final conclusions are drawn
>>> long after I evaluated reactions.
>>> A lot of people here don't seem to understand the difference between a
>>> statement and a conclusion.
>>>
>>> Just a few examples:
>>> About the faulty matrix metering on the D90:
>>> I merely stated that it doesn't work as wel on *my camera* as it did with
>>> other camera's, like my (last ;-) Sony, D300.
>>> Some people even pointed out, that it works less than a P&S. Yet a bunch
>>> of
>>> people's reactions are, to make fun of me and quickly point out, that a
>>> "real pro" knows how to get about these issues, I don't know how to get a
>>> shot right, it's the man behind the camera and more nonsense like that.
>>> Nobody questions the "authority" of those many self appointed reviewers,
>>> that more often than not miss a lot of facts about camera's and some even
>>> make completely false statements, like the well known Rob Galbraith.
>>> About the Nikon D5000, he wrote:
>>> "This camera isn't capable of FP High Speed Sync."
>>> See, while I may have brain damage, I check the facts: Nikon states that
>>> it
>>> *is* capable, up to 1/4000 sec.
>>> Another, in my opinion, dumb remark:
>>> "The D5000 offers pro photographers in the Nikon camp a way to try their
>>> hand at digital SLR video, at a price that's even lower than the D90."
>>>
>>> "Pro photographers"? Like amateurs can't buy it or wht does it mean?
>>> Nothing! Exactly.
>>> I can shoot holes in almost all reviews I read, yet the majority of
>>> posters
>>> here answer to them like sheep.
>>> Worst of the reviewers is beggar Ken Rockwell. Reading through his
>>> "reviews"
>>> I get the idea of someone with ADHD on a mixture of cocaine, glue and
>>> gasoline...
>>>
>>> If I find a problem with my car and put in a newsgroup a post if anybody
>>> else has a new Jaguar that consumes a lot of oil or the heater is
>>> defective,
>>> they likely give me a normal answer or ask some questions.
>>> If you put the same question here, a bunch of peoples reaction is
>>> something
>>> like:
>>> It's not the car, it's the driver. A professional wouldn't have that
>>> problem, etc.
>>>
>>> It says more about the quality and intellect of those people than it says
>>> about me.
>> Don't worry about it Focus. What is happening is that the usual pack of
>> full-time resident pretend-photographer role-playing newsgroup trolls have
>> decided to use you for their "fun" this time. The rest of the real
>> photographers who sometimes read this group already know who they are and
>> ignore them. Same stalking tactics, same armchair-photographer bullshit
>> advice, another lost year of their miserable wasted lives.
>>
>> I surmise they are just sad and emotionally desperate agorophobics in
>> wheelchairs that haven't had their colostomy bags changed recently. They
>> have nothing better to do while living in their mommies' basements.
>>
>> FYI: That's not a put-down for people in wheelchairs, mind you. I used to
>> volunteer for an organization that took the blind and paraplegic on 3-5
>> week wilderness adventures into remote areas that even some seasoned
>> backpackers and canoeists would hesitate to go. Portaging a wheelchair is
>> a
>> bitch but I always volunteered for that job for some strange reason,
>> mostly
>> because nobody else would take on that job. Those spokes and hardware will
>> try to latch onto any snag 100-yards away every chance they could. Those
>> people in wheelchairs were worth knowing. The stalking trolls living out
>> their imaginary lives in this newsgroup are not even worth acknowledging
>> their sadly self-inflicted useless existence.
>
>
> Thank you.
> I admire people that do voluntary work. Usually they're are the "non-BS"
> kind.
> I voluntered for the fire department, but as a photographer to document the
> things they do. I would like to be a firefighter but I have some limitations
> that prevent me from doing that (bad back, age, fear of heights, etc.).

I used to be scared of heights, then I had a job that required me to
climb to the top of tall buildings no a regular basis. I got over it,
but I still feel kind of weird on the top of tall buildings! ;^)

PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google Alerts!

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:02 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)

In article <7e166a02-4f14-4fb1-a907-041ab3b59c99@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, 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.

SiOnyx had some inspiring offering. I hope it works out.
Hee is what he told me.

Our measured performance today (with very crude prototypes) routinely performs like what we describe on our webpage. There is
tremendous skepticism about our technology and that is OK. What I can tell you is that we have validated our performance via
independent measurements in NIST traceable Government and commercial labs.

greg

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 7:28 am
From: "Sharon"

"Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote in message
news:74se0tF150vreU1@mid.individual.net...
> Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dhwv88
>
> or
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
>
> Thanks for looking.
>
>
> Russell

Very nice shots. Where were these taken?

Sharon

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:20 am
From: John McWilliams

Sharon wrote:
> "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote in message
> news:74se0tF150vreU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
>>
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
>>
>> Thanks for looking.

> Very nice shots. Where were these taken?
>
Somewhere cold! I am betting Colorado or Utah....
And, agreed, nice stuff.

--
john mcwilliams

==============================================================================
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 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:04 am
From: Chris H

Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)

What is "full frame"?
Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc

There are also several formats of digital sensor size.

All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
their own design parameters.

So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
particular film size? Especially when all the lenses for the film
cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?

As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
"full frame" in its own system.

However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
format market to use a larger sensor. But does it need to be the same
as the old 35mm film size? On that score the Medium format cameras do
have digital backs.

Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?

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

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:20 am
From: zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)

In article <gYyOwpJz7I7JFAS9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
>What is "full frame"?
>Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
>cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
>film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
>
>There are also several formats of digital sensor size.
>
>All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
>their own design parameters.
>
>So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
>particular film size? Especially when all the lenses for the film
>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>
>As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
>gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
>"full frame" in its own system.
>
>However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
>grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
>format market to use a larger sensor. But does it need to be the same
>as the old 35mm film size? On that score the Medium format cameras do
>have digital backs.
>
>Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?

This is what the old lens system uses, and all the new DSLR's,
else your wide angle goes to hell. Large sensors are better
today.

greg

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:35 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Chris H wrote:
[]
> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR
> is "full frame" in its own system.

I prefer the DX size of DSLR as it provides me with lighter weight, more
compact and easier to carry lenses.

> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so
> why?

In almost all compact cameras there is no relationship, and a lot of the
population are quite happy taking and enjoying their photos with such
cameras.

Cheers,
David

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

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

Monday, April 20, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, April 20, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic