Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lighthouse-Keepers Cottage For Sale in South Carolina
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9d7fcc837765210c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 12:14 pm
From: "tconway"

"GregS" <zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com> wrote in message
news:gro5b2$9gg$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
> In article
> <f235bb86-b525-4643-8e2b-f5cecf886dae@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> LowCountry Joe <joe@lowcountryjoe.com> wrote:
>>Are you looking to purchase a beach cottage in South Carolina. If
>>your are you may want to consider the Bloody Point Lighthouse-Keepers
>>Cottage on Daufuskie Island just a nautical mile from Hilton Head.
>>
>>For more details for this once in a lifetime opportunity please visit
>>my blog at http://webebloggin.com for a video and more detailed
>>information.
>>
>>Have a great day.
>>
>>Joe Yocius
>>Re/Max Broker and Owner Bloody Point Light
>>www.LowCountryJoe.com
>>1-843-684-4445 (Cell)
>
>
> Nothing like clear pictures and a tour and listing, rather than a
> emotional blurry whatever.
>
> greg
Typical real estate agent. They won't pay a professional....They have their
own camera...
tim

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

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 12:16 pm
From: Twibil

On Apr 10, 6:18 am, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> Humans have some built-in
> instinct to seek the highest place available.

How odd then that around 50% of the human population live within 10
miles of the sea (you know: at "sea-level"), and a vanishingly small
proportion live in the highest available places.

Do you suppose you could be wrong?

> Why do you think humans
> can actually breathe fro below sea level, and up to 17 or 18,000 feet
> above? Did we evolve that high? Another small crack in the evolution
> theory.

Only for uneducated twits like you. We evolved as cursorial hunters:
animals who were -and still are- able to run down and kill
practically any game animal of the face of the Earth. And to do this,
one must have two things: really good lungs -which we do- and a
prolific number of sweat glands -which we also do.

A few biology classes would do you a world of good. For instance,
you'd learn that whales -which are rarely found at 18,000 feet- also
have an extremely good set of lungs.

~Pete

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 1:19 pm
From: George Kerby

On 4/10/09 2:16 PM, in article
8bf786b6-d19e-406c-a0f1-66f8cb3759cf@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, "Twibil"
<nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A few biology classes would do you a world of good. For instance,
> you'd learn that whales -which are rarely found at 18,000 feet- also
> have an extremely good set of lungs.
>
I've heard of "land shark" - but "land whale"?

Hmmmmm......

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 1:32 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-04-10 13:19:32 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> said:

>
>
>
> On 4/10/09 2:16 PM, in article
> 8bf786b6-d19e-406c-a0f1-66f8cb3759cf@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, "Twibil"
> <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A few biology classes would do you a world of good. For instance,
>> you'd learn that whales -which are rarely found at 18,000 feet- also
>> have an extremely good set of lungs.
>>
> I've heard of "land shark" - but "land whale"?
>
> Hmmmmm......

You are unaware of Rush Limbaugh???
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 2:27 pm
From: George Kerby

On 4/10/09 3:32 PM, in article 2009041013323842612-savageduck@savagenet,
"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote:

> On 2009-04-10 13:19:32 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> said:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/10/09 2:16 PM, in article
>> 8bf786b6-d19e-406c-a0f1-66f8cb3759cf@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, "Twibil"
>> <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> A few biology classes would do you a world of good. For instance,
>>> you'd learn that whales -which are rarely found at 18,000 feet- also
>>> have an extremely good set of lungs.
>>>
>> I've heard of "land shark" - but "land whale"?
>>
>> Hmmmmm......
>
> You are unaware of Rush Limbaugh???

Not really. I was thinking along the lines of The Unsinkable Teddy Kennedy.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 2:31 pm
From: George Kerby

On 4/10/09 3:32 PM, in article 2009041013323842612-savageduck@savagenet,
"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote:

<http://tinyurl.com/ccrdcd>

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 2:58 pm
From: Alan Browne

Ron Hunter wrote:

> OK, so YOU explain how evolution accounts for the ability of a species
> that 'evolved' on the African plains can easily survive at high
> altitudes, and in extreme cold. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

It's not that extreme as a difference but could not occur at all were it
not for man's intelligence and abilities at hunting as well.
Further, humans have never dwelled at those altitudes, only visited
briefly (days/weeks at most). I don't know what the highest altitude
that people dwell at, but I don't believe it to be over about 10,000 ft
or thereabouts. That is about economics (food mainly).

Said intelligence is in large part due to migrations due to cyclic ice
ages which force migrations over long distances, through wild
temperature changes and through mountain passes at altitude as well.
Whatever intolerance to altitude would have been weeded out in those
migrations. Indeed today, the Indians of the Andes have much more
capacity for high altitude than most people - though it's not clear to
me if this is a genetic or developed state.

In terms of air pressure 17,000 feet is about 1/2 of the atmosphere -
really not a huge excursion in terms of getting oxygen into the blood
stream - and humans certainly do not dwell there for very long. Pilots
of light aircraft have to don oxygen masks at 11,500 ft (IIRC) as the
lower oxygen impairs brain function - but the body does not suffer as much.

So yes, your 'crack in the evolution theory' is not only small and quite
repairable, it is nothing compared to much more challenging problems
with evolution theory. Nonetheless, evolution proves to be right,
amended, corrected and improved every time new evidence is found and
theories are improved and corrected too. For that is the scientific
method. Regretfully, faith based on oral myths do not seem to get such
rigorous editing.

Now, if you're really determined that it was all created by God, then I
guess God created the heavens and the earth to 'look' like evolution
might have happened. It is a job creation program that not only employs
a wide range of scientists but also keeps the God-squad occupied as well
defending the faith.

But you might remember that over time the Catholic Church was forced to
accept that the Earth is not the center of the solar system. Ooops,
then forced to accept that the solar system is not the center of the
universe. This starts to make any creation "theory" look pretty weak.
Further when one wonders why it is only Christian fundamentalists and
Muslims that are so hung up against evolution. How come Buddhists don't
get all upset?

Point is that "creationism" seems to have an origin time that is
slightly less than the time that humans have been writing things down.
That is the root of creationism: real written history.

I'll take the simpler path which is evolution. Inexorably each
so-called "hole" in the theory is filled while ever wilder counter
claims by creationists are debunked.

A most amusing trend of late being creationists 'back interpreting'
passages in the bible to make them fit various scientific proof (ref:
Scientific American, May 2009 issue, Shermer). This is really, per
Shermer, "hindsight bias".

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 2:59 pm
From: Alan Browne

Rich wrote:
> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,

What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written with
a Sharpie on a postage stamp.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 3:02 pm
From: Alan Browne

Jer wrote:

> Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that of
> horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less.

Not sure about that ... hiking in the Grand Canyon and a bunch of lazy
asses on mules go by (pun intended). Their mules decide to piss. It's
about 35C out under the hard sun and there is no wind.

I did not vomit by sheer force of will alone.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 3:39 pm
From: Twibil

On Apr 10, 1:32 pm, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
> On 2009-04-10 13:19:32 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>
>
> > On 4/10/09 2:16 PM, in article
> > 8bf786b6-d19e-406c-a0f1-66f8cb375...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, "Twibil"
> > <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> A few biology classes would do you a world of good. For instance,
> >> you'd learn that whales -which are rarely found at 18,000 feet- also
> >> have an extremely good set of lungs.
>
> > I've heard of "land shark" - but "land whale"?
>
> > Hmmmmm......
>
> You are unaware of Rush Limbaugh???

He shoots!............He *Scores*!!

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 5:18 pm
From: Twibil

On Apr 10, 2:58 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca
>
> I don't know what the highest altitude
> that people dwell at, but I don't believe it to be over about 10,000 ft
> or thereabouts.

Potosi, Bolivia: world's highest city at 13,451'.

Interestingly, the inhabitants -whose forbears have presumably lived
in the area for eons- not only have more red blood cells than do those
of us who hail from closer to sea-level, but each individual corpuscle
can transport about half-again more oxygen as well.

That nasty "evilution" stuff at work again.

~Pete

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is there anybody here that can read?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c9335bfe34017e91?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 1:57 pm
From: frank

On Apr 10, 5:19 am, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> frank wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...
>
> Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
> after each shot?
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge. Used to have one
that was blue for tungsten film I think. Somebody actually came out
with an adaptor to put on top of a 35mm so you could use the cubes.
Might have been some 3rd party that did it. One camera store used to
have all sorts of odd stuff by mail like that.

Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them. They were the
improvement over the small peanut flash bulbs. Damn, that's been....35
years???

Flash bulbs were fun as you couldn't carry a lot of them, came in huge
boxes, think long ship model kit type boxes, maybe 12 or 20. Surface
used to really melt after use. And they were hot. But way faster and
more stable than electronic flash. At least back then.

Used to carry pockets full of them.

Never had one explode during use, but heard they might do it. Came in
various sizes also.

Which is what the F mode was for on old PC flash connectors. no, not
personal computers.

Had IR ones for IR film also. Whoo hooo. High tech.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 4:34 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:38:12 +0100, "PDM"
<pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>> I'm now running a D300, and ditto except that I now use NX2.
>>
>> There is much more to be considered in the chain other than the simple
>> metering of the exposure. Maybe the problem varies from mode to mode.
>> Maybe the problem is in the camera's software, which I bypass by using
>> RAW and external processing. Who really knows at this stage?
>>
>Eric Stevens
>
>Metering is not affected by using RAW and/or NX2

I agree. But the OP only believes his metering is wrong on the basis
of what he sees in the image on the screen or print. I'm saying that
what he he sees depends in part on what has happened in between the
taking of the picture and display of the image.

In any case, the point is now moot as it seems that his problems may
have been due to a camera fault.

Eric Stevens

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 7:36 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:34:32 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

> In any case, the point is now moot as it seems that his problems may
> have been due to a camera fault.

"may", as in maybe, maybe not. It may also be a bit of
face-saving spin, as the tech might have said "well, that's
certainly possible" or some such. But even so, if the camera was
really defective, that just emphasizes Focus's immaturity, that he's
so often shows, that he's overly quick to blame someone or something
without having all of the facts.

> So, Nikon: explain yourself.

> Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM

>> It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
>> things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
>> differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
>> qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
>> photographer) is really tight.
>
> So you think making a MM worse than a cheaper D40, D40x or D60
> is a wise decision?
To which I replied "Prejudging a bit here, aren't you?" It now
appears that I was right, and Focus's vision was blurred.

> The link I gave to only one discussion on dpr, resulted in 34 people that
> agree there is a problem with MM, (among them a man with 50 years
> experience!) and 4 against. The rest is about how to avoid this crappy
> problem.
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31335581
>
> If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
>
> Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
> That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
> problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
> Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?

But if his personal D90 is defective and the problem isn't due to
a poor MM design, the mocking was deserved, and his early ill
considered comments show that Focus was the only one responsible for
making a fool of himself. Should we now assume that Focus will
never comment about any camera or lens that he hasn't used? I don't
think it's fair that he should so restrict himself. What the heck.
After all, owning a D90 didn't seem to be particularly beneficial.

> Maybe they should add a few more pictures to the "database of 30.000
> pictures". I just don't believe it.

And I don't believe that Focus should consider having a future as
a trouble shooting technician. :)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones,That 70s Show,Cinderella,Stargate
Atlantis ,& more for sale www.dvdssell.com
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b5125ec0e53d24bb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 2:27 pm
From: pefdr0532@gmail.com

Hello,

We will offer you the latest DVD information about various discount
and wholesale sources. You will not only save time and effort but you
can also save anything up to 90% off retail price, thus increasing
your profit margins by buying at extremely low wholesale prices.
Welcome to visit our website !
One order more than 1000 discs,you will get !FREE SHIPPING!
Pls be free to contact with us by email msn livehelp or Skype
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks and have a great day!

www.dvdssell.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another Camera Seized
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d817a4a6bad12460?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 2:50 pm
From: "jaf"

> Sorry for not following this thread, but under what circumstances
> would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty much forever some
> sort of criminal record even if you never go on trial? Or, are you
> perhaps suggesting this as a way to provide the proof that the cops
> at least had the opportunity to mess with the camera images for
> later use in a civil suit? I'm neither a lawyer nor a LEO, but it
> seems that simply being booked is hardly a definitive statement
> about what one did or didn't do, and certainly little to do with a
> camera.
>

Jerry,
In that situation I would insist the police officer arrest me.
Why?
Because this idiot cop was making up his own laws on the spot. Legislatures make laws, not cops.
Forcing the issue should cause any "normal cop" (if there such a thing) to re-think his actions and decide if he wants to whine
about his actions in front of a judge & jury.

"Oh judge, I know the bloody glove was obtained unlawfully, but I really really need it for my case."

John

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 7:10 pm
From: tony cooper

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:50:42 -0400, "jaf" <jaf.here@myfairpoint.net>
wrote:

>> Sorry for not following this thread, but under what circumstances
>> would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty much forever some
>> sort of criminal record even if you never go on trial? Or, are you
>> perhaps suggesting this as a way to provide the proof that the cops
>> at least had the opportunity to mess with the camera images for
>> later use in a civil suit? I'm neither a lawyer nor a LEO, but it
>> seems that simply being booked is hardly a definitive statement
>> about what one did or didn't do, and certainly little to do with a
>> camera.
>>
>
>Jerry,
>In that situation I would insist the police officer arrest me.
>Why?

Because you work for a newspaper, and "cop arrests reporter" is always
good for a front page story. Boosts circulation.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 7:27 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rprvt4dvv86ijisc2ap9mtgb4q39k5qbuv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:50:42 -0400, "jaf" <jaf.here@myfairpoint.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Sorry for not following this thread, but under what circumstances
>>> would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty much forever some
>>> sort of criminal record even if you never go on trial? Or, are you
>>> perhaps suggesting this as a way to provide the proof that the cops
>>> at least had the opportunity to mess with the camera images for
>>> later use in a civil suit? I'm neither a lawyer nor a LEO, but it
>>> seems that simply being booked is hardly a definitive statement
>>> about what one did or didn't do, and certainly little to do with a
>>> camera.
>>>
>>
>>Jerry,
>>In that situation I would insist the police officer arrest me.
>>Why?
>
> Because you work for a newspaper, and "cop arrests reporter" is always
> good for a front page story. Boosts circulation.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I think the point he was making is that by insisting on being arrested, cops
trying to bluff compliance from the reporter will either have to put up or
explain to a judge. If the cop's demands are based on shaky grounds,
chances are the officer will back down.

In the case of the original incident, that wouldn't have worked, since the
officer on scene had been taking directions (bad directions) from a senior
officer. Somebody didn't know proper procedures, so the photographer
(sorry, Tony, I almost wrote "reporter") would have been arrested.

Still, I like that route since the charges would have been dropped (if ever
filed), and the guy with the bad advice would have had to take
responsibility for an even bigger mess. Episode = more care by the involved
officers at subsequent crime scenes.

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faster and better pictures in PS CS4
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d792b6b32b56e072?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 3:53 pm
From: "Focus"

Depending on your graphics card, your pictures in PS can be much faster and
better looking, for example in 33% it looks pretty bad, but in 50 it's OK.
Go to:
Edit -> Prefs -> Performance

Click the box under GPU.
Restart.
If it's all OK you should now see in and out zooming in real time and all
levels sharp.

If it doesn't, get a better graphics card: it's worth it!
--
---
Focus

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 3:55 pm
From: "pupick"

The way CS4 taps the GPU is underwhelming at best.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon & Nikon Image Stabilisation
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa42f50d8a88f1c8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 4:00 pm
From: Doug McDonald

Bob Larter wrote:
>
>
> It wouldn't work. Having both a lens IS & a body IS active at the same
> time would likely result in oscillation of both IS systems, & might even
> result in physical damage to one or both of them.

These systems are open loop; they
won't oscillate.
>
>

Doug McDonald

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 4:38 pm
From: Chris Malcolm

Doug McDonald <mcdonald@nospamscs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>>
>>
>> It wouldn't work. Having both a lens IS & a body IS active at the same
>> time would likely result in oscillation of both IS systems, & might even
>> result in physical damage to one or both of them.

> These systems are open loop; they
> won't oscillate.

They may be inidividually open loop, but if the output of each affects
the input of the other...

--
Chris Malcolm

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 6:17 pm
From: Doug McDonald

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Doug McDonald <mcdonald@nospamscs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> Bob Larter wrote:
>>>
>>> It wouldn't work. Having both a lens IS & a body IS active at the same
>>> time would likely result in oscillation of both IS systems, & might even
>>> result in physical damage to one or both of them.
>
>> These systems are open loop; they
>> won't oscillate.
>
> They may be inidividually open loop, but if the output of each affects
> the input of the other...
>

No. They are open loop optically. The weight of each is not enough to effect the
accelerometer sensors that do the measuring. Being open loop means that he
computer that drives them would decide how much to move each system.

Doug McDonald

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 4:10 pm
From: "Focus"

You can use a universal TV remote for your Nikon D40 -D90.
Use one that supports Sanyo and search for the right code. Bingo!

--
---
Focus

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Resolution of a Photocopier
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/664e61dae3a93c4e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 10 2009 5:57 pm
From: Pat

On Apr 10, 12:36 am, Mark Franzels <markfranz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 9:57 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ofnuts wrote:
> > > Mark Franzels wrote:
> > >> Hi,
>
> > >> I compared a scanned copy of a 300 dpi document
> > >> printed on an inkjet printer versus that taken by a photocopier. The
> > >> photocopier seems to have better quality. What is the equivalent
> > >> resolution of a
> > >> photocopier. Is it laser copy? I'm asking this because I wonder
> > >> whether to just photocopy a
> > >> b/w photo or scan/print it for id purposes.
>
> > > How old was the copier? Recent copiers seem to be always a
> > > scanner/printer combo under the hood.
>
> > An original Xerox had no digital elements at all--it scanned a white light
> > across the page and the image was focussed on the drum. Resolution was
> > limited by the optics and the toner grain size. On the other hand, while it
> > did OK on half tones, it was horrible on large black areas and really bad
> > for gray scale.
>
> So the average non digital photocopier machine is only good for black
> and
> white and not grayscale? But comparing it to a scanner and printer set
> at black and white (not grayscale), the photocopier seems to produce
> better resolution and definition. Also since a laser print uses a
> drum,
> so a photocopier printing has same nature as the laser print except
> the latter is digital?
>
> Mark

A photocopier is a scanner and printer -- they are no longer analog.
They are strictly digital. I don't know about anyone else's, but mine
does a pretty decent job on photos. In fact it has a photo mode.

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

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