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: See what the RED camera can do.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/53b1b5b26bcbb2f3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 29 2009 11:24 pm
From: Me

Eric Stevens wrote:
> http://www.gregfoto.com/portfolio/image.php?album_id=43&album_item_id=574
>
ummmm...
wow!

To be very critical, the high (full) res 4k sample is noisy. But 35mm
cine frames are much much worse at that size.

Peter Jackson (yeah I'm a kiwi too, but not a hobbit last time I checked
in the mirror) commented that Red One at 4k was like "70mm" WRT
resolution. To make it look like 35mm, his comment was that it's easy,
shoot at 2k (or convert to 2k), and add grain.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 1:06 am
From: Bigguy

Eric Stevens wrote:
> http://www.gregfoto.com/portfolio/image.php?album_id=43&album_item_id=574
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
The still is very noisy - has this been shot at high ISO using available
light?

Guy

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 1:55 am
From: bugbear

Bigguy wrote:
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> http://www.gregfoto.com/portfolio/image.php?album_id=43&album_item_id=574
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
> The still is very noisy - has this been shot at high ISO using available
> light?

If you have to smooth or sub sample to get rid of the noise,
the resolution claim would become questionable.

BugBear

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 6:18 am
From: "Not Given"

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:go4iv41l71upkko2i17ojfqh0ahed4pm4g@4ax.com...
> http://www.gregfoto.com/portfolio/image.php?album_id=43&album_item_id=574
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

It reminds me of 35mm Agfachrome 1000, pushed +1 stop. That sequence could
have been easily (and better image quality) with any dSLR.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 8:29 am
From: "Matt Clara"

It's interesting that the high res example they offer has not a single thing
is in focus.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Highest Megapixels Possible in APS-Cs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b91b9724c6671278?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 12:00 am
From: Kennedy McEwen

In article
<9bb8f907-0887-4851-ba00-906110f58977@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
jdear <jdear64@yahoo.com> writes
>I don't see how your idea would work. The single bit ADCs you talk
>about
>are sigma delta converters, that is, the next sample is either one
>bit
>value higher or one bit value lower than the PREVIOUS sample.

No that isn't how sigma-delta ADCs work.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_to_analog_converter

These are oversampling DACs with noise shaping digital filters. The
same effect can be achieved in ADCs with the digital filter on the
output, as I suggest.

>Still
>image
>data is not temporal data, so there is no previous data to compare to.

Ignoring your previous error, this is also irrelevant because whilst
there is no temporal previous data there is adjacent spatial data, not
only that, but unlike the time axis, there are two relevant orthogonal
spatial axes.

>A single bit
>sensor
>wouldn't know the difference between a patch of grey and a patch of
>white
>in the scene.
That is precisely the point. At the individual sample there are only
two levels, however that sampling density is so high - much higher than
the optical capabilities of any lens - that the useful image information
is achieved by averaging over a dynamically variable area, matched to
the capabilities of the lens. What you are measuring is a canonical
ensemble, the electron density on the silicon. Current devices
effectively have a single bit sensor already, individual electrons, but
they are spatially clustered - averaged over relatively large, fixed,
areas which are below the resolution of the best glass.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 12:59 am
From: Bob Larter

Yes.

> When you look at original RAW without interpolation
> (or demosaicing), are you supposed to see colors
> or just greyscale image which is what the sensor
> see? But in the following site:
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bayer.htm#
>
> It gives comparison between images with and
> without interpolation by rolling over the mouse in
> the image. Both shows colors. But in pure RAW,
> it is just data and no colors should be seen, so
> is the site incorrect to show RAW in colors before
> Bayer Interpolation applied?

No, because each pixel has a red, green or blue colour filter over it.

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

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 1:01 am
From: Bob Larter

Hughes wrote:
> On Apr 29, 10:39 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article
>> <3edbe01e-0ab2-406d-b018-de22b2b86...@v1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Hughes <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I downloaded some Canon Raw images. I want to see the image
>>> before Bayer demosaicing occurs. In Photoshop 4, when you
>>> open RAW files, it automatically demosaice it.
>> photoshop 4 is over ten years old and does not support raw at all. do
>> you mean cs4 or perhaps photoshop elements?
>
> Yes, it's CS4. As I understood it. All programs that
> open RAW automatically demosaice (apply
> Bayer Interpolation) to it. If one can open it RAW
> (or raw since RAW is not an acronym) that is
> not demosaiced, the image would look very
> green. However, in the following site:
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bayer.htm
>
> One can compare between image that has
> undergone Bayer Interpolation and one without.
> I think it's wrong because the one without doesn't
> look green enough. Look at it and let me know
> your comment. Both seems to have Bayer
> Interpolation (put your mouse over the first
> message and out of it to switch it).

Read the text under the image for an explanation.

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

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 1:53 am
From: bugbear

You've already been told of dcraw, that can be told (the -D flag)
to do what you want.

Please have the courtesy to read people answers, and do some
work yourself.

BugBear

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 5:09 am
From: Hughes

On Apr 30, 4:53 pm, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> Hughes wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 10:39 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <3edbe01e-0ab2-406d-b018-de22b2b86...@v1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> Hughes <eugenhug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I downloaded some Canon Raw images. I want to see the image
> >>> before Bayer demosaicing occurs. In Photoshop 4, when you
> >>> open RAW files, it automatically demosaice it.
> >> photoshop 4 is over ten years old and does not support raw at all. do
> >> you mean cs4 or perhaps photoshop elements?
>
> > Yes, it's CS4. As I understood it. All programs that
> > open RAW automatically demosaice (apply
> > Bayer Interpolation) to it.
>
> You've already been told of dcraw, that can be told (the -D flag)
> to do what you want.
>
> Please have the courtesy to read people answers, and do some
> work yourself.
>
> BugBear

Well. When I posted the first reply to "nospam".
I thought it was lost because Google didn't post
it for hours. That is why I wrote a second message
that practically rephrase the same contents as
the first reply. This is also why I posted 3
duplicates of another message, because I
thought it was lost. Maybe google was
congested by panic about the Swine Flu.

Hughes

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New digital camera-billionth of a second
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fa46ac405eddd69e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 1:10 am
From: Bigguy

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
> http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/tech/0,1518,622008,00.html
> Unfortunately only in german....
>
>
>
Another graphic artist who does not understand the difference between
bullet and cartridge case.... ;-)

Guy

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 1:54 am
From: bugbear

Bigguy wrote:
> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
>> http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/tech/0,1518,622008,00.html
>> Unfortunately only in german....
>>
>>
>>
> Another graphic artist who does not understand the difference between
> bullet and cartridge case.... ;-)

The fewer people that need to understand that, the better.

BugBear

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 4:50 am
From: Docteur Durien

On Apr 29, 9:02 pm, Matt Ion <soundy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
> >http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/tech/0,1518,622008,00.html
> > Unfortunately only in german....
>
> That's why God invented Babelfish.
>
> The fastest camera of the world
>
> This camera is faster than all other, many faster: With a perfectly new
> digital camera technology researchers reached exposure times of
> trillionth seconds. The rapid camera is to help scientists and physicians.
>
> London - the new camera works a thousand times faster than conventional
> cameras, says Keisuke Goda of the university of California in Los
> Angeles and its colleagues. Besides reach it exposure times of 440
> trillionth seconds and can picture series shoot, with which the frames
> in the distance of only 163 billionth seconds are shot, explain the
> researchers taken part in its development.
>
> Potential applications see the developers racing fast of the camera for
> example in the medicine. With laser operations or with photographs of
> shock waves the singular equipment could carry useful services out,
> writes the researchers in the technical periodical "Nature" (Bd. 458,
> S.1145, doi: 10.1038/nature07980).
>
> Past digital cameras worked with the so-called CCD technology. For
> information forwarding electrical loads from a CCD cell are passed on to
> the next. With the new camera the scientists used however no CCD
> detectors, but a technology, with which the two-dimensional picture is
> time-dependently coded and strengthened optically. The signal can be
> seized then by one only from a pixel existing light detector. From this
> signal the picture is reconstructed digital finally.
>
> Because the camera strengthens the optical pictures, it goes around the
> compromise between a high sensitivity and a high picture speed, as it
> must be entered with the usual CCD detectors. The new camera necessarily
> neither cooling still another particularly bright source of light. The
> authors already demonstrated, for example the function of the camera at
> real time photographs of so-called laser ablations. The surface of a
> material, in the medicine about fabric, is cleared away with laser pulses.
>
> mak/strip packing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8025211.stm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c74cad4ac255f35?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 4:37 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Roy G <royphot@virgin.net> wrote:

> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:75le53F18vavvU2@mid.individual.net...
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Gary Edstrom <GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> wrote in
>>> news:jb09v49aeql3e7vijm33ulahte7dclfau6@4ax.com:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
>>>> La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb <michaelnewport@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots
>>>>>
>>>>>nuff sed
>>>>
>>>> So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
>>>> really into photography, why not have both?
>>>>
>>> Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to
>>> use a DSLR each and every time.
>>
>> Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend
>> a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium
>> balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which
>> most avoid for good practical reasons :-)
>>
>> --
>> Chris Malcolm

> That is a load of rubbish.

> I know of a business who suspend both a Film Hassleblad and a DSLR from a
> Helium balloon at the same time.

> There is a local business who suspend a DSLR from a small Hot Air Balloon.
> It is small enough that his own weight prevents it from drifting off.

Obviously you can loft any weight you like with a big enough balloon
or kite. Zeppelin had orchestras in their passenger balloons.

The point is that the costs of the balloon and kite and its tethering
and control rise very dramatically as the weight required to be lifted
increases, and the size of the kit required shifts quickly from being
easily carried in a backpack to needing a car to needing a special
trailer or large van. That's why many people using that technology
prefer to settle on the lightest camera whose quality will be
acceptable. There's a very big difference between the cost and
portability of what will loft a few pounds weight and several pounds.

--
Chris Malcolm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is my monitor not coping with the number of pixels in my shots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/60f3dd9082d09c83?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 4:43 am
From: Chris Malcolm

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <75qq1nF18q7ogU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>> >>> Because it uses a crap size-changing for view interpolation
>> >>> method. Irfanview and I believe Gimp are among the several editors
>> >>> which do it better.
>> >>
>> >> bullshit.
>>
>> > I second your "bullshit"--I have and like Irfanview, but Chris's assertion
>> > is patently, and obviously, untrue.
>>
>> I haven't Photoshop myself,

> yet you insist it's worse.

see my other post.

--
Chris Malcolm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: suggestions for large group shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/49b3da273bd74bd7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 5:35 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"

I remember my Dad telling me of that same kind of thing. The
kid who runs around the back. Yes, that's essentially
correct. Tall, thin lens. The gear that rotates the camera,
also advances the film. Very clever process.

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

"Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote
in message
news:49f939d9$0$62165$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote

> A panoramic shot might work best.

That reminds me of those special film cameras they used to
take school group
shots. The lens slowly panned across the sea of faces while
exposing a long
frame on the roll of film inside. At least I think that's
how they worked.

Of course there was always one wag who jumped down from the
starting end,
ran around the back of the benches and repositioned himself
on the opposite
side, so he appears twice! (Not me though, I was a good
boy...)

Paul

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 5:37 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"

You've had a couple good ideas. Flash only works to about
six feet or so. Lighting is going to be one of the big
concerns. The only group shots I've done have been
impromptu, not posed. I remember using a larger frame size
(3 megs, not my usual 1 megabyte or something) to get better
detail. I'd suggest using your camera's biggest number of
megabytes.

With the time to pose, I'd be thinking hazy sun, over my
left shoulder.

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

"Lloyd W." <lloydwells2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:75p725F19hjl0U1@mid.individual.net...
I'm the team photographer for my daughter's crew team and
I've always taken
candids and photos of individual boats, for example:
http://robertmacturk.smugmug.com/gallery/8006300_HPvpc#520634538_kTWVa

I'd like to get a shot of the entire team (41 athletes and 5
coaches) on the
dock with the obligatory crossed oars. I've never done as
large a group as
this and am looking for some tips from anyone who has
experience with large
group photos.

I'll be using a Pentax K10D and have both 18-55mm and
50-200mm lens
available. I have access to the boat house, which overlooks
the dock, and
planned to have an assistant use my Canon G9 (24-44mm) as
backup and
different perspective.

Any ideas/tips/caveats/etc. will be greatly appreciated.

Rob

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 6:47 am
From: Pat

On Apr 29, 11:11 pm, "Lloyd W." <lloydwells2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:2d6ced20-9a44-4403-9c15-0076be08c233@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 8:00 pm, Nicko <nervous.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 12:27 pm, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
> > > Find a great lab to make your prints. If you hang one near the water
> > > in a barn or clubhouse, make sure you use UV glass.
>
> > In a barn?
>
> > WTF?
>
> I don't know. Where do you store that type of boat when it isn't in
> the water? A barn is as good of name as anything.
>
>
>
> > --
> > YOP...
>
> Actually, it's called a boathouse - an 8 person boat is about 60 feet long
> and, unrigged, maybe 3 feet wide so the boathouses tend to be long and
> narrow with multiple bays
> [http://robertmacturk.smugmug.com/gallery/7438385_QSK3H#479641606_jEhA4].
>
> Rob

Boathouse. Boatbarn. Whatever. Nonetheless, if you are going to
hang a picture in the what-ya-ma-call-it, you need UV glass.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New York scare
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ff3340dc8043e435?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 6:34 am
From: "Not Given"

"Roy G" <royphot@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:vj4Kl.2$iK7.1@newsfe08.ams2...
>
> "Not Given" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gtafn5$nuq$1@aioe.org...
>>
>> "Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:49f7eaf1$0$62174$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>>> Reading news reports of the panic caused by a photo shoot of Air Force
>>> One over New York yesterday, I can't help wondering if whoever ordered
>>> that mission had ever heard of Photoshop? Would have been easier,
>>> cheaper, and wouldn't have scared the cr*p out of a hell of a lot of
>>> people.
>>>
>> Did they not think of sending out a Media Release, saying on such and
>> such day and time there will be a photo flight of SAM a/c and F-16's.
>> Seems simple enough.
>>
>
> They couldn't do that, they had to keep it secret to ensure there would be
> no terrorist attack.
>
> Roy G
The chances of that are slim, as it's is just a basic 747. As the President
wasn't aboard it would be a poor target. OK some propaganda value. But as
terrorists rely on terror.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photo Frame, Slide-Show Without Video Files?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b6495ca52c41f858?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 6:38 am
From: "Talal"

The size problem is not only in the MP3 files, but also in the picture file
that is converted to video. Some video modern video compressions techniques
can compress to small files, yet the frames I tried could not read these
files.

"83LowRider" <oblig@torymungehere.com> wrote in message
news:gt7j8r$4ih$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Talal" wrote
>>
>> I am displaying pages of a book, scanned, and the audio reads the page
>> displayed. The user can flip a page, and the audio for the new page
>> plays automatically. The frames I tried did not let me do that. I can
>> flip pages, yet the audio cannot be synchronized with pages. I thought
>> some frame(s) should enable me to associate an MP3 file with a JPG file.
>
> I seriously doubt any of the frames will be able to do such.. but you
> should be able to link the mp3 to the scan using Windows Movie
> Maker. If the resulting file is too large, you can use a lesser size
> (lower quality) mp3.. which shouldn't matter too much as it's not
> a 'musical quality' issue. If the resulting avi doesn't play, it can
> always
> be re-encoded. I don't think you're going to find an easy way out on
> this.
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon's tips for semi-pros
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/83dd5dc1e72232a9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 6:47 am
From: Morton

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:15:57 -0500, Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:

> "Avoid problems with equipment in the field, buy Nikon?"

That is why I moved to Canon!

Morton.
.
--------------------------
The Internet will become the
Sacred Sanctuary for Nutters and Idiots.
(Michel Nostradamus, December 14, 1503, July 2, 1566).
--------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: White House using stitched photos?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad87701241b66ca4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 8:58 am
From: Annika1980

This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
stitched.
And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 9:12 am
From: "Hans Kruse"

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2c2b8ca1-204a-4284-960d-8e394251602d@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
> stitched.
> And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454

Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.

--
Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 9:38 am
From: "D. Peter Maus"

On 04/17/09 17:48, ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:49:41 +0100, Focus wrote:
>:::um, yes....well...let's just say 'content stipuluated'::::

This thread is a scream. It's like someone shouted 'Fragile' at a
Baggage Handler's Convention at O'Hare.

I"ve been forever amazed at the vitriol that can develop among
people who come together with common interests. I saw it in Radio
clubs. I saw it in Auto clubs. (Just MENTION Chapman at a Ferrari
Club meeting....I dare you.) Pilots are nearly as bad, though they
tend to remain a lot calmer about things when they're at the airport.

And it always starts the same way: Someone offers a contrary
opinion, and tags it with a personal dismissal. Usually over some
choice of language. And then the shooting war starts. And the
usefulness of the group ends.

C'mon, folks. There's a lot of useful knowledge and experience,
here. I've been shooting since grammar school. Only recently have I
done anything with it, and have found the opinions and experience in
this group useful in turning what was once a take-it-or-leave-it
hobby into a nice sideline business doing something I really enjoy.
If someone's experience is different than mine, great. I've missed
something. I can turn that into a new skill, and ultimately new
revenue. The need for bitterness doesn't apply. If I can pass along
something of my own, great again. More photographers, as in most
freelance businesses, ultimately creates more work.

And if someone gets pissy and a thread like this erupts with
accusations flying, name calling sprayed, and abject dismissals
scattered like dog droppings on a lawn, that's even better. Not only
can I be amused, but while you're hammering each other over who's
called who 'dude,' and who or who isn't the Nikon Whore, you're
spraying the screen with tiny details about how you're better than
the next guy, and WHY you're better than the next guy, and I'm
walking away with all the tricks and techniques that come up on the
screen, and applying them to my photography, and then going after
YOUR clients with a much more fun attitude, using your own signature
styles.

Carry on. You're going to make me rich.

Like I said...a scream.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Saif Durbar et le dernier maharaja
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d1549a6eca4bf6ab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 10:10 am
From: saif.durbar@yahoo.com

Saifee Durbar: Mon grand-père est le dernier Maharaja. Mon père s'est
exilé au Pakistan après l'indépendance de l'Inde en 1947, puis en
Arabie Saoudite. Il a acquis beaucoup de fortune dans le textile, la
finance. Mais, moi je me suis réalisé avec mes propres moyens, sans
l'argent familial. J'ai commencé à Londres en 1986 par un boulot dans
une station-service. Après j'ai été coiffeur. J'ai lancé par la suite
un bureau d'import/export. Je connaissais toutes les ficelles. En
1989, je me suis intéressé à la banque. J'étais un broker dans les
opérations immobilières. Beaucoup de fortunes saoudiennes passaient
par moi pour réaliser leurs transactions. Ce sont des métiers que je
connais presque de manière naturelle.

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

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

Thursday, April 30, 2009

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

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Thursday, April 30, 2009

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

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic