Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 14 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: square negs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 7:40 am
From: George Kerby

On 4/3/09 8:58 AM, in article gr54n9$gu8$1@news.motzarella.org, "Stormin
Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the field report. I had forgotten.
>
> Nothing like a black salad with white tomatos?
<G!>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 7:42 am
From: George Kerby

On 4/5/09 12:38 AM, in article 88dgt4d6hhfiidmrni8e55q3s2a6eblpbi@4ax.com,
"Fred Flintstone" <brubble@spambegone.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:26:21 +0100, "eugene" <eugene@home.com> wrote:
>
>> A friend has asked me to get some prints from negs that are 30 years old. On
>> a flatbed scanner, should the shiny neg surface be up or down?
>
> This was a fun thread to read. Showing explicitly (yet again) how many
> full-time resident trolls without a clue haunt this place daily and provide
> nothing but their cyber role-playing "photographer" experience for
> everyone. Do take note of all the nyms that tried to guess how to find the
> right orientation but didn't know exactly why. Then killfile them
> immediately because they are always spouting their imaginary
> pretend-photographer nonsense.
>
> The emulsion (dull) side of the film ALWAYS faced toward the lens in the
> camera, facing in the direction of the light coming from the original
> scene. Therefore the recorded image orientation will always be properly
> seen when looking THROUGH the film from the shiny side to the dull
> (emulsion) side. As if you were looking through the back of the
> camera--orienting the emulsion toward the same direction from which the
> image had originally been recorded.
>
> In case you haven't figured out how to lay them on the flatbed scanner from
> this, the scanner's optics are now acting as your eye(s). Proceed
> accordingly.
>
> Positive films (color transparencies, slides) are sometimes a little more
> difficult to discern the emulsion side. In this case hold the film to a
> light source reflecting off of the surface of the film at a glancing angle.
> You can usually see a bias-relief image in the emulsion side caused by the
> varying densities in the different color layers. The clear backing/carrier
> side will always be perfectly smooth. Positive film also has more of a
> tendency to have a concave surface (curls inward) on the emulsion side.
> (Bonus points if you know why. I won't bother to explain.)
>
> I'll leave it to these role-playing resident trolls to go "net-educate"
> themselves to figure out why the emulsion side always faced toward the lens
> in the camera. If they read enough from fellow role-playing website authors
> then they too can write books about photography without ever having
> actually held any camera, just like many photography-book and website
> authors do today.
>
And it took a Caveman to teach all these Techies the truth. Imagine that.

Thanks Fred!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: B/W Laserjet Printer shadings
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fe324d3e291641cf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 7:42 am
From: Bob Larter

Paul wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:18 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> How many shadings is available in a black
>>> and white laserjet printer such as the
>>> HP Laserjet 1010? For example, I'm
>>> printing a photo that has 16 million colors.
>>> Using the black laserjet... how many
>>> shadings would it convert it to? 256?
>>> 1024? 50K? or 16 million shadings??
>> 64 shades, if you're lucky.
>
> How using an inkjet printer with pure black ink
> only. 64 shades too? Or is the 64 shade
> only exclusively for laser jet black printers
> of any brand?

This is where it starts getting dependent on your drivers & whether they
dither, etc.

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

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 7:47 am
From: Bob Larter

Sure, in theory. Actually producing 256 shades on paper is another story
altogether.

> How come the HP Laserjet 1010 can't produce
> 256 shadings?

See above. It's due to the practicalities of dithering or halftoning.

> How did you calculate the 64
> shades thing?

It was a guesstimate from memory. It might be fewer shades than that,
but I think 64 shades is roughly correct for most laser printers.

> Is this 64 shade limitation also
> true in inkjet black only printing?

Ink jets can probably produce more shades than that.

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

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 9:01 am
From: Don Stauffer

Paul wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How many shadings is available in a black
> and white laserjet printer such as the
> HP Laserjet 1010? For example, I'm
> printing a photo that has 16 million colors.
> Using the black laserjet... how many
> shadings would it convert it to? 256?
> 1024? 50K? or 16 million shadings??
>
> Now a color inkjet printer with separate
> black and tricolor cartridge such as the
> HP Deskjet 2560. How many colors would
> it produce in the paper? 16 million colors?
>
> J

Assuming the inkjet uses only the black catridge, not complementary
mixtures, a laser printer should have the same number of shades as the
inkjet of the same pixel density- assuming a similar dot gain (which
might, of course, NOT be the same).

Keep in mind that different colors might have exactly the same
luminance. That is, there will be a certain shade of blue that has the
same reflectance as a certain shade of red. So it would not take as
many shades as the number of colors.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 3:06 pm
From: Doug Jewell

Paul wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How many shadings is available in a black
> and white laserjet printer such as the
> HP Laserjet 1010? For example, I'm
> printing a photo that has 16 million colors.
> Using the black laserjet... how many
> shadings would it convert it to? 256?
> 1024? 50K? or 16 million shadings??
A laser printer can print exactly 2 shades. 100% black, and
0% black (ie white of the paper). No more, no less. To
achieve something looking like grey they dither. The number
of acceptible looking shades you get will depend on the
resolution of the printer, and the dithering function within
the driver. Since these are variables you have no control
over, there is no one simple answer.

If I wasn't happy with the default output from the printer
driver, I'd convert the image to a B/W image in photoshop,
and play with the dithering settings until I got something
respectable. Important to make sure the image is at the
printers ACTUAL print resolution when doing the conversion.
Be aware that some printers claim figures like 2400dpi or
more, but it is not real dots per inch, it is "perceived" -
IOW, marketing speak. Most laser printers are 600dpi actual
resolution.
>
> Now a color inkjet printer with separate
> black and tricolor cartridge such as the
> HP Deskjet 2560. How many colors would
> it produce in the paper? 16 million colors?
Most of the modern inkjets are capable of a few techniques
to extend the number of colours/tones an individual dot can
hold. A basic printer, or a colour laser can deliver
2^[number of colour inks] distinct colours at a dot. However
techniques such as variable droplet size and/or layering
extend this somewhat. Most modern printers are capable of
between 3 and 9 shades of each colour on a single dot
(counting 0% or white as a a shade), so the number of
distinct colours of a single dot increases to [no of
densities]^[no of colour inks]. Once again to increase the
number of perceived colours they employ dithering. In most
cases the standard dithering algorithms in the drivers are
capable of delivering true photo quality output. Another
thing to be wary of with inkjets is that again their print
resolutions are more marketing speak than actual resolution.
"9600dpi" doesn't mean it puts down 9600 distinct dots in an
inch, instead it means that over an inch it may have fired a
nozzle 9600 times. It's probably more like 1200 actual dots,
but it layers each dot up to 8 times, giving the 9600dpi figure.
>
> J

--
Have you ever noticed that all legal documents need to be
completed in black or blue pen, but we vote in pencil?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Most Intelligent Interpolation Software
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4e2858c8f8bb9ce4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 7:48 am
From: John McWilliams

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "T. Parker" <tomparker52@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page.
>
> Well, JPEGs of text for *printing* is stupid...
>
>> Well. Google books use text in jpegs. There are
>> millions of pages of them.. jpegs of text. This
>> is because they got their books from scanning
>> them with scanners. See www.books.google.com
>
> Scanners do not directly produce JPEG images. They
> almost all produce TIFF (or something similar), which
> can then be converted to JPEG. No doubt Google converts
> to JPEG because the intention is to provide a readable
> copy, but not necessarily a copy that can be printed.
> Note that JPEG also creates the smallest file size for a
> readable copy, so it best accomplishes Google's goal at
> minimum cost.

I'm rather sure Google uses this method to prevent HQ copies of either
print or electronic use, don't you?
As for readable at minimum cost, you can't beat text in HTML or other
formats that scale. Smaller, too. So, Google has clearly got additional
goals than cost and readability.

Mr. Parker: What is your ultimate goal here??

--
John McWilliams

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 3:21 pm
From: "T. Parker"

On Apr 5, 7:28 pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> "T. Parker" <tomparke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page.
>
> Well, JPEGs of text for *printing* is stupid...
>
> >Well. Google books use text in jpegs. There are
> >millions of pages of them.. jpegs of text. This
> >is because they got their books from scanning
> >them with scanners. Seewww.books.google.com
>
> Scanners do not directly produce JPEG images. They
> almost all produce TIFF (or something similar), which
> can then be converted to JPEG. No doubt Google converts
> to JPEG because the intention is to provide a readable
> copy, but not necessarily a copy that can be printed.
> Note that JPEG also creates the smallest file size for a
> readable copy, so it best accomplishes Google's goal at
> minimum cost.
>

So is there a program or software that can
increase the density of the characters or
alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
characters deeper and blacker and print
at much better quality? What functions in
software are available that is close to that
goal?

parker

> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 3:50 pm
From: Jürgen Exner

"T. Parker" <tomparker52@gmail.com> wrote:
>So is there a program or software that can
>increase the density of the characters or
>alphabeths in the jpeg files to make the
>characters deeper and blacker

Open the file in your favourite photo editing SW and increase the
contrast. That should do it.

>and print at much better quality?

That is a different question, and no, I don't have an answer.

jue

==============================================================================
TOPIC: life after Windows....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 7:49 am
From: Bob Larter

George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 4/4/09 1:37 PM, in article 49d7a8f6$0$1585$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net, "Ray
> Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer writes:
>>>>
>>>>> As YOU define "misuse".
>>>> The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
>>>> misuse.
>>> Ray, MxsManiac is trolling you, using his standard technique. You're
>>> wasting your time talking to him.
>> I don't mind embrrassing him. He's an idiot.
> Said the mullet on the hook.

Heh. I was too polite to say it...

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

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 10:13 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bob Larter"
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>> Ray Fischer writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As YOU define "misuse".
>>>>> The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
>>>>> misuse.
>>>> Ray, MxsManiac is trolling you, using his standard technique. You're
>>>> wasting your time talking to him.
>>>
>>> I don't mind embrrassing him.
>>
>> You're not embarrassing him - this is what he does for fun.
>>
>And FisHead Rot is his Piñata...

Oh my! Do we all need some Anger Management courses in here, or what?
kerby in <C55E9C54.1A409%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 10:15 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer writes:
>
>> They know more than you ...
>
>I know that embedded systems exist,

According to you, but you're an idiot who doesn't know anything

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 3:38 pm
From: Mxsmanic

Ray Fischer writes:

> According to you, but you're an idiot who doesn't know anything

Since we are discussing embedded systems, I cannot be ignorant of their
existence, which invalidates your assertion.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: olympus lenses
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4182cdc7e990aa69?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 8:28 am
From: aniramca@gmail.com

On Apr 5, 8:15 am, "geoff smith" <geoff1...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I have an assortment of Olympus lenses used with an OM2n camera.Can they be
> used with a digital camera ?
> Geoff.

Visit
http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewforum.php?id=2
or
http://www.mflenses.com/
or places like below to check for an adapter from OM lenses to be used
for 4/3 digital cameras (Lumix, Olympus), or Canon
http://www.fotodiox.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=179

Surprisingly, savvy people utilize more of their old lenses and found
out interesting results in their usage (and open new horizon and
possibilities). This is even more so in continents where people are
not being driven by commercials and the push to buy, buy and buy.

Hope this helps

==============================================================================
TOPIC: scan dpi for photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fe5edae91010d2ad?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 8:57 am
From: Don Stauffer

HEMI-Powered wrote:

>
> But, I think that telling everyone they need 300 PPI - NOT dpi - to
> get good prints does them the same kind of disservice that digital
> camera makers do with their nonsense about "more mega pixels means
> better pictures." It is simply NOT enough to have more and more and
> more pixels unless the quality in the entire workflow is there to
> support that. Depending on the type of subject attempted to scan
> and later print, 300 PPI may be really required but if viewing
> distance is kept reasonable, 200 works fine in most cases, often
> even less.
>
>
Could we say that high resolution is a necessary but not sufficient
requirement for good results?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 3:42 pm
From: van dark

I am very sorry, but what it is PPI, please? Is it a gread difference
from DPI?
Thank you for your reply and explanation, for me, as ugly boy.

Don Stauffer napsal(a):
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>>
>> But, I think that telling everyone they need 300 PPI - NOT dpi - to
>> get good prints does them the same kind of disservice that digital
>> camera makers do with their nonsense about "more mega pixels means
>> better pictures." It is simply NOT enough to have more and more and
>> more pixels unless the quality in the entire workflow is there to
>> support that. Depending on the type of subject attempted to scan and
>> later print, 300 PPI may be really required but if viewing distance is
>> kept reasonable, 200 works fine in most cases, often even less.
>>
>>
> Could we say that high resolution is a necessary but not sufficient
> requirement for good results?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Slide scanner recommendations?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/61f85bb1ee34bc69?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 9:00 am
From: "TonyD"

"Ron" <RonTheGuy@null.com> wrote in message
news:1ixk92c.19ss5kgpi3mvmN%RonTheGuy@null.com...
> I'm shopping for a slide/negative scanner and currently considering the
> following units: Canon CanoScan 8800F, Epson V500, Pacific Image
> PrimeFilm 3600.
> These all seem to scan at good resolution, have USB2 interface, and
> include Mac support. Which do you think is best? Other in this price
> range (under $200)?
> Ron

I have the Prime Film scanner. Don't waste your money.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Freeware to make animated GIF (can Irfanview make an animated GIF?)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e369f16a92fbbcd7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 9:06 am
From: M.L.

>> http://encoderx.co.uk/imageeditors/

>Your pointer URL is great because it holds GIF animation freeware that's no
>longer available elsewhere!
>
>1. Unfreez http://www.whitsoftdev.com/unfreez
>
>2. Ulead GIF Animator (apparently no longer available as freeware)
>
>3. Microsoft GIF Animator (apparently no longer available as freeware)

4. Photoscape has a feature called AnimGif
www.photoscape.org

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D90 defective Matrix metering
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c9335bfe34017e91?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 11:30 am
From: Paul Furman

Focus wrote:
> "Doug Jewell" <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
> news:49ceb01b$0$29863$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Gemini wrote:
>>>
>>> "Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
>>> news:kfqdnVx2AsQNglPUnZ2dnUVZ8j6WnZ2d@novis.pt...
>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
>>>>
>>>> I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's
>>>> OK for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
>>>>
>>>> Here what they promise in their advertisement about the D90:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System:
>>>> Nikon's renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with
>>>> the exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
>>>> on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched
>>>> exposure accuracy."
>>>>
>>>> A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in
>>>> them?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
>>>> shooter, does it?
>>>>
>>>> So, Nikon: explain yourself.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ---
>>>> Focus
>>>>
>>> I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot on
>>> with exposure.
>> When I was selling cameras, it was a very common scenario that people
>> would bring back Nikon cameras (D40, 50, 70, 80, 90) claiming the exposure
>> was faulty because they were getting white skies.
>>
>> There were 2 ways to correct it and get exposures that one would consider
>> normal - use centre-weighted average, and take a reading with the horizon
>> exactly in the middle of the frame, or on matrix use minus 1 to minus 2
>> EC.
>>
>> The matrix metering put far too much emphasis on the land part of a
>> landscape, and would blow the sky every time. In fact I would call the
>> land part over-exposed too - medium greens became insipid yellow greens
>> etc. As you say, the database of 30,000 images obviously didn't include a
>> sunny landscape scene.
>>
>> To be fair to Nikon, my own Canon 450D & Samsung GX10 also overexpose
>> landscape scenes when on their equivalents of matrix metering - although
>> not as severe as the Nikon. The Canon & Samsung give washed out but still
>> blue skies, and only need -1/3 to -2/3 EC to get acceptable results.
>>
>
> Thanks for sharing that.
> Nobody can make a point better than someone who sells or sold camera's,
> because you're at the receiving end of the problem car.
> I had other camera's as well, like the D300 (much better with MM)

Perhaps the D90 is tuned for snapshooters who want to expose for the
people in the center of the frame rather than the sky?

> and even
> the cheaper Sony 350 was much better at their version of MM. I would still
> have that camera if:
> 1. the noise wasn't so terrible and
> 2. if the flash wouldn't close peoples eyes
>
> The tilting screen for liveview is a blessing in a lot of situations and
> much under estimated by pro's. It also sports a liveview histogram that's
> very accurate and helpfull in decision making.
>

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 12:38 pm
From: "Focus"

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:4N6Cl.28452$ZP4.17646@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Focus wrote:
>> "Doug Jewell" <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
>> news:49ceb01b$0$29863$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> Gemini wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
>>>> news:kfqdnVx2AsQNglPUnZ2dnUVZ8j6WnZ2d@novis.pt...
>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
>>>>>
>>>>> I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's
>>>>> OK for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
>>>>>
>>>>> Here what they promise in their advertisement about the D90:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System:
>>>>> Nikon's renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed
>>>>> with the exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images,
>>>>> referencing an on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes,
>>>>> for unmatched exposure accuracy."
>>>>>
>>>>> A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in
>>>>> them?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
>>>>> shooter, does it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Nikon: explain yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Focus
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot
>>>> on with exposure.
>>> When I was selling cameras, it was a very common scenario that people
>>> would bring back Nikon cameras (D40, 50, 70, 80, 90) claiming the
>>> exposure was faulty because they were getting white skies.
>>>
>>> There were 2 ways to correct it and get exposures that one would
>>> consider normal - use centre-weighted average, and take a reading with
>>> the horizon exactly in the middle of the frame, or on matrix use minus 1
>>> to minus 2 EC.
>>>
>>> The matrix metering put far too much emphasis on the land part of a
>>> landscape, and would blow the sky every time. In fact I would call the
>>> land part over-exposed too - medium greens became insipid yellow greens
>>> etc. As you say, the database of 30,000 images obviously didn't include
>>> a sunny landscape scene.
>>>
>>> To be fair to Nikon, my own Canon 450D & Samsung GX10 also overexpose
>>> landscape scenes when on their equivalents of matrix metering - although
>>> not as severe as the Nikon. The Canon & Samsung give washed out but
>>> still blue skies, and only need -1/3 to -2/3 EC to get acceptable
>>> results.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for sharing that.
>> Nobody can make a point better than someone who sells or sold camera's,
>> because you're at the receiving end of the problem car.
>> I had other camera's as well, like the D300 (much better with MM)
>
> Perhaps the D90 is tuned for snapshooters who want to expose for the
> people in the center of the frame rather than the sky?

I would assume that's what center weight is for.
Otherwise Nikon should call it "center people happy faces with blown sky
mode" and not "3D color matrix II with database of over 30.000 pictures
mode"
Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM, because a lot
of pro's might concider taking a D90 as a backup, due to the fact that it's
also 12 MP and has a lot in common.
--
---
Focus

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 2:20 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:38:28 +0100, Focus wrote:

>> Perhaps the D90 is tuned for snapshooters who want to expose for the
>> people in the center of the frame rather than the sky?
>
>
> I would assume that's what center weight is for.
> Otherwise Nikon should call it "center people happy faces with blown sky
> mode" and not "3D color matrix II with database of over 30.000 pictures
> mode"
> Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM, because a lot
> of pro's might concider taking a D90 as a backup, due to the fact that it's
> also 12 MP and has a lot in common.

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.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/256feefad4f3ad75?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 12:57 pm
From: frank

On Apr 4, 9:42 am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message <Xns9BE36AEC1D376ReplyScor...@216.168.3.30>, HEMI-Powered
> <n...@none.sn> writes
>
>
>
> >Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
> >>>Are you off your meds entirely or did you perhaps double up by
> >>>accident?
>
> >> China was pulling the strings and has put up the most money.
> >> The US is a basket case thanks to GWB and needs anyone who can
> >> help it.
>
> >You really need better meds, you Far Left Loon! Barack Hussein Obama
> >has ALREADY racked up MORE approved deficit spending than his
> >previous 43 predecessors combined. But, let's look at the numbers to
> >prove this.
>
> >When George W. Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at
> >about $4.7T. Just before the huge TARP bailout and the previous
> >Fannie and Freddie debacle - approved by a Democratic Congress I need
> >to point out - the debt had risen to about $9.1T. Right now, even
> >without any spending on the 2009 budget, Obama's national debt
> >already stands at $11.3T. That's over 2 TRILLION dollars HE has added
> >in just 2 1/2 months! And, if he gets his way with the new budget,
> >meaning the Republicans don't cut off his balls in 2010 and shut this
> >horsehit down, he will add another 3-5 TRILLION dollars in national
> >debt in just 3 years, and OVER 10 TRILLION within 8-10 years.
>
> >Sorry, Chris, but it just doesn't wash continuing to blame Bush. This
> >is nor Obama's recession, it is now Obama's war, except he refuses to
> >call it a war, and it is Obama's gigantic expansion of the federal
> >governement.
>
> >But just to make sure that you and the other Far Left Loons and
> >Socialists out there understand this correctly, these are NOT my
> >numbers, they aren't Fox News' numbers and aren't even the Republican
> >minorities numbers. They are - you ready for this, Socialist? - the
> >CBO (Congressional Budget Office) numbers. And, if you still can't
> >see correctly without your meds calming you down, then point out even
> >ONE example of the president, Turbo Tax Cheat Tim Geithner, Nancy
> >Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd or any of the Loons telling you
> >THEIR deficit and national debt projects. You CAN'T prove me wrong,
> >because these clowns refuse to commit to a number and pretty much lie
> >through their teeth.
>
> Well that post just conclusively proves the stupidity of the Hemi...
>
> .
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Yeah not to mention how Greenspan let the stock market go on a run
away bubble for a few years so that it ended up being worth HALF THE
WORLD'S GDP. It historically was worth HALF THE US GDP. Big
difference. About $7 trillion were lost while the Republicans were
running Congress before Bush took over. He didn't help with the war in
Iraq and more of his insane tax cuts. It didn't help all the loonies
on Wall Street who should know better (note: hang the finance majors
along with the lawyers) were doing buy recommendations while it was
tanking.

When the Europeans say the world's economic problems are our fault,
they're right. Too bad our business press isn't competent.

Enron used to be the accounting case study du jour its going to be a
footnote to the current mess.

Maybe when Dubai finds out its sitting on a house of cards with a
foundation of sand things will get better. Start seeing used gold
plumbing fixtures in the pawn shops you know the bottom has been
reached.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Claimed high scanned film "information" is mostly garbage
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/945d6f2385eb0b52?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 1:04 pm
From: frank

On Apr 5, 2:11 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <is2dndocWcQ34kjUnZ2dnVY3goqdn...@giganews.com>, David J.
> > Littleboy <davi...@gol.com> writes
>
> >>> Digital runs out of resolution at the Nyquist limit, where the MTF is
> >>> typically 65%.
>
> >>Huh? Most Bayer cameras are doing OK at 70% or so of Nyquist
>
> > You are clearly talking about the luminance Nyquist, not the Nyquist of
> > the Bayer filter array!
>
> No, I'm talking about the response of real Bayer sensors in real cameras:
> it's close to zero at the Nyquist frequency, and quite uselessly low in the
> range just below Nyquist. So digital runs out of photographically meaningful
> resolution way below Nyquist. Or at least that's what all the test charts on
> Dpreview show. (My rule of thumb is that if you can put a 50% MTF image on
> your sensor at 75% of Nyquist, you'll have a nice sharp image. For example,
> I really can't see any diffraction induced softening at f/16 in the 5D or
> f/11 in the 5DII.)
>
> >>All the squawking about resolution and information and K25 and 8000 ppi
> >>drum
> >>scans is completely irrelevant to real life: when you enlarge any current
> >>practical film the 13x required to get you to 12x18, it looks like cr@p.
> >>But
> >>the 5D hangs in there just fine.
>
> > Utter bollocks. I have a stack of 12x18" prints hanging on my walls, some
> > made with film (Provia and Velvia) and some made with the 5D. You would
> > be hard pressed to tell the difference.
>
> Really? I've scoured the net looking at every 4000 ppi scan I could find:
> drum, Imacon, Nikon.
>
> They all look the same: way to soft (and/or grainy) to print at 300 ppi and
> look anywhere near as good as the 5D does at 240 ppi. And, 300 ppi is what
> you have to print 4000 ppi scans at to get 12x18 from 35mm. It's not even
> close (assuming one is coming from an MF/LF landscape print quality
> standpoint).
>
> And every larger 35mm print I've seen in galleries is the same story: grainy
> and/or mush.
>
> So the idea that one would be "hard pressed to tell the difference"
> indicates that you must not look very closely. Or have different standards.
> Or something.
>
> > None of them are from K25 originals, but I don't expect that would be any
> > worse, given the performance of the emulsion.
>
> The reason I bring up K25, is that most people who claim 35mm is just as
> good (or better) than the 5D put up micrographs of high contrast targets
> taken on K25 to "prove" it.
>
> >>>Indeed, I
> >>> have a link somewhere to one of your own images which demonstrate the
> >>> resolution limits of the 5D, with aliasing all over the place. I bet
> >>> you
> >>> could get way beyond that limitation on Provia film!
>
> >>Presumably, you are thinking of this image:
>
> >>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/102380922/original
>
> > No - I'll post the link when I find it. I was sure it was yours.
>
> The 5D does occasionally produce Moiré, but except for the images in my test
> gallery, all my "originals" are downsampled, so what Moiré you'll find is
> mostly due to the downsampling.
>
> But the idea that 24x36mm of Provia could come close to the 5D at 12x18 is
> not believable.
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Looking at anything through your monitor is a waste of time. Go for
original film look at that against digital output.

Anyway, you don't understand either the math or the optics behind what
you're talking about.

We spent $20 mil on a digital system and went BACK to film as it
didn't have resolution or contrast of film.

There is a big difference between digital data and film. You don't
understand that.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dpreview can be SOOOO funny sometimes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/dfba7ba033a86d3d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 2:10 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:41:45 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

> IMO, the similarity between the names "Barbella" and "Balboa" could hardly
> have been coincidence. It suggests at least a familiarity with Barbella's book
> on Stallone's part. Stallone's character lacks the seedier aspects of
> Barbella's early life, but the scrappy club fighter scrambling to reach the
> top is integral to both narratives.

I think that your opinion errs in assuming probability instead of
possibility. Many people make that leap which allows them to
believe what they want to believe, regardless of improbability. I
think it's fair to assume that Stallone has a good familiarity with
the history of boxing, the many boxers that fought as "Rocky", and
even "Somebody Up There Likes Me". I see more coincidence in the
first letter of Barbella and Balboa than you because (as I hinted)
Stallone gave Balboa a character that would have been quite
tarnished had it been associated with Graziano/Barbella. What about
the possibility that Rocky Balboa's quest for gold (championship)
had something in common with Vasco Nunez Balboa? A weak theory to
be sure, but no weaker than yours based on a 'B'. :)

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/explorers/page/b/balboa.shtml

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dog race Portugal
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b57766c9e8a031a3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 3:48 pm
From: "Focus"

Darn, those things are fast!
Makes my car look like a lawnmower...
Top speed I found for a greyhound was 84 M/ph ! (about 138 km/h, Wiki
answers)

http://atlantic-diesel.com/
Acceleration is like shooting them from a canon (not the camera).
--
---
Focus

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Online Backup
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/42dbb5294c04e50c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 5 2009 2:53 pm
From: "Bill Graham"

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:h4gma6-eg7.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but what protects the "on line" computer from the viruses? Or, to
>> put
>> it another way, why don't the viruses infect the people who are handling
>> your backup files?
>
> If you choose a sane service, they'll not use Windows for anything
> important, like running their datat storage.
> That step alone cuts out 99+% of all viruses in existance.
>
> I'd be more worried about some cracker breaking into their
> computers and doing malicious damage than worry about viruses.
>
> -Wolfgang

Yes....Or a fire burning their whole installation down. Or a disgruntled
employee intentionally wiping out all their hard discs, or any of a dozen or
more possibilities.....There is nothing like doing it yourself for peace of
mind, even if it's a little more trouble. The problem is, once the files
leave my domain, then I haven't got the faintest idea where they are, or
what teenager is supposed to be watching them instead of thinking about
their boyfriends pants.....

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

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