rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Another Camera Seized - 8 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d817a4a6bad12460?hl=en
* I hate environmentalists - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
* Canon & Nikon Image Stabilisation - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa42f50d8a88f1c8?hl=en
* Is there anybody here that can read? - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c9335bfe34017e91?hl=en
* Resolution of a Photocopier - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/664e61dae3a93c4e?hl=en
* Solution for D90 matrix..(update) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2c77d17e540a942b?hl=en
* square negs - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another Camera Seized
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d817a4a6bad12460?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 8:04 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
> Without wanting to appear overly dramatic, you might want to
> keep in mind that I had been diagnosed at the age of 14 with a
> condition that would result in a slow, permanent, and complete
> loss of vision. I was highly graphical, and had been taking
> pictures of top-shelf rock bands since the age of 18. How many
> 18 year old photographers do you know who were allowed backstage
> to shoot (unsupervised) Supertramp, Trooper, Peter Frampton,
> Eddie Money, Heart, etc...??
Sorry to hear that. Retinitis pigmentosa, I assume? I know a couple
of unlucky fellows that were eventually totally blinded by this
insidious disease.
> Also, I was racing my Mustang with only about 10% normal vision
> without having an accident.
Excuse me, but what the Hell were you doing street racing with only
a 10% cone of vision?! Besides risking your own life, you might
have killed your opponent or innocent bystanders.
>
> At the age of 22, my vision deteriorated to the point of
> no-return, and I had to give up my license, and I went into a
> rather hazy stage of drug and alcohol use in order to cope with
> the depression.
Yeah, booze and drugs always help - to fry one's brain permanently.
There were a few rather fuzzy years about that
> time, and I didn't pull out of it until I met my wife-to-be at
> around 28, which is when I started getting my life back on
> track.
>
> Did I have a "chip on my shoulder," as has been suggested?
> Yeah, probably, but I think most psychologists would think that
> normal for the circumstances.
Yeah you did, still have, but no, shrinks would most certainly NOT
give you a pass. I understand debilitating diseases, having a few
nasty conditions myself, but that just isn't a reason to be
reckless nor to take on the cops and take such a deep dive into
alcoholism and drugs that you don't even remember a number of years
of your life. I sincerly hope that you obtained both rehab to get
off the junk and professional help to deal with your problems in a
way less dangerous to yourself and others.
> Did I rather tenaciously pursue my rights, more so than Mr. or
> Ms. Average Joe(sephine)? Probably, and I still do because
> able-bodied people continually trample them. A right is only a
> right when it is granted by others, or defended by the claiming
> party. Hence, I have learned that, if I want to pursue
> happiness, as most North Americans like to do, I sometimes have
> to beat my way through a rather callused crowd. I think you
> will find this sentiment rather wide-spread in any disabled
> community -- especially when dealing with the more highly
> motivated members of those communities.
>
> Take Care,
No, you really didn't defend you rights. You vastly exceeded your
rights and freedoms and thus gave up most of the protections
allowed by your laws. Honestly, I've been courteous to you but what
you have described should have landed you in jail for most of your
life. You just can't go around whacking cops, pushing your way onto
potential crime scens, street racing without adequate vision,
possibly in a drug or booze haze, and a number of other things
you've bragged about. My hope for you is that you've intentionally
over dramatized your exploits to look cool and really didn't do
that crap.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 8:28 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
Chris H wrote:
> In message <6liDl.19783$%e2.17319@newsfe24.iad>, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>> However, there is a D-notice in force.
>
> Really? Do you know that for a fact?
ISTR they used those exact words on the BBC 10pm news last night.
> I thought that system had long since got to be replaced by something
> less formal.
I think they were *very* annoyed yesterday and wanted to be absolutely
certain of enforcing the no show ban on the unwelcome pictures.
I just hope that having the operation go off at half cock doesn't
completely screw up all chance of obtaining a conviction. Or worse still
result in some innocent harmless individuals being snatched at gun
point, locked up for 28 days and then released without charge.
Regards,
Martin Brown
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 8:30 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:adZQB7Hule3JFAU3@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <grklcd$g8b$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
> writes
>>There'as an interesting situation in London during G20 where a 48 year-old
>>man was pushed to the ground by a policeman and has since died.
>>What I can't understand is where all the CCTV footage is considering how
>>many cameras are about.
>
> Now that crossed my mind. As the event took place at an intersection in an
> open area there must have been several cameras not to mention building
> Security CCTV and other people who captured it.
>
>> Now just suppose you had a picture(s) of this incident would you have to
>>had over the images to the policeman or should you wait until there is an
>>authoritive
>>figure on the scene who'll distribute those picture(s) to everyone that
>>wants/needs them.
>
> When you say "everyone who wants/need them" does that include competing
> newspapers, TV and magazines etc...
Can't see why not, but the idea would be not to discriminate between them.
i.e the scum, the smirror, and the shit of the world, if they all have them
then no one
will be making obscene profits from having an exclusive.
> No. You back up the photos to the lap top or storage device.
You gotta get home first.
I was thinking that mr Plod sees you taking a picture and then telling you,
you have to surrender your camera to him.
>Many press
> people have the laptop in the car/bag or a mobile storage device and only
> give the pictures ot the Police for a receipt. As evidence
That would be the best option, and making a copy first of course.
If you take a picture of say mr Plod kicking someone and then you give the
picture
up, what evidence is that once the original has been handed over.
One resson for handing duplicates over to many people.
> Many people trip, fall or are pushed (either by accident or intent by
> their own side or the ether side) many times in a demonstration so not all
> incidents are photographed and no one at the time realised the
> significance of the incident. He got up and walked off.
It is a strange one, but then people get up from car accidents, in this
instance pictures
could prove either innocence or guilt, we've always been told that about DNA
evidence, must be the same for photographic evidence too.
> BTW what is significant the, to my mind, somewhat stunned reaction of the
> officers colleagues. I think they thought he had overstepped the mark.
I guess we've all overstepped the mark whether it be shouting at kids or the
cat for
getting under our feet, or the misses for talking while star trek is on.
As with all assults it's down to what can be seen as intent.
Was the push/punch etc.. done in such a way that serious injury could be
caused,
or was it just a shove, like you'd do to say go home to a drunk hassling
you.for beer money.
Either way any evidence, photographic or not should not be given to just one
'side'
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 9:18 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-04-09 05:26:22 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
> In message <grklcd$g8b$1@qmul>, whisky-dave
> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> writes
>> There'as an interesting situation in London during G20 where a 48 year-old
>> man was pushed to the ground by a policeman and has since died.
>> What I can't understand is where all the CCTV footage is considering how
>> many cameras are about.
>
> Now that crossed my mind. As the event took place at an intersection in
> an open area there must have been several cameras not to mention
> building Security CCTV and other people who captured it.
>
>> Now just suppose you had a picture(s) of this incident would you have to
>> had over the images to the policeman or should you wait until there is an
>> authoritive
>> figure on the scene who'll distribute those picture(s) to everyone that
>> wants/needs them.
>
> When you say "everyone who wants/need them" does that include competing
> newspapers, TV and magazines etc...
>
> No. You back up the photos to the lap top or storage device. Many press
> people have the laptop in the car/bag or a mobile storage device and
> only give the pictures ot the Police for a receipt. As evidence
>
> Many people trip, fall or are pushed (either by accident or intent by
> their own side or the ether side) many times in a demonstration so not
> all incidents are photographed and no one at the time realised the
> significance of the incident. He got up and walked off.
>
>
> BTW what is significant the, to my mind, somewhat stunned reaction of
> the officers colleagues. I think they thought he had overstepped the
> mark.
The cop in this case was an ass. The victim had his hands in his
pockets and hd no way to protect himself in his fall. There was no
provocation on his part.
The presumption is that the shove precipitated the unfortunate death.
We have no knowledge of his health issues, or other injuries he might
have sustained in the fall. People do have health crises when on the
way home from work, and sometimes the die without a cop anywhere near.
Even seemingly benign falls can have tragic consequences, just look to
Natasha Richardson.
That said that cop remains an ass. I also found it interesting that all
the police in that clip had their faces covered.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 10:45 am
From: Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> saying something like:
>> Turned out they'd botched the processing...
>
>A bit naive taking the unprocessed film into the local paper. Even 20
>years ago you could get under 4 hour C41 processing with proof prints at
>many labs (24 hour turnround much cheaper, and 1 hour extortionate).
>Always keep hold of your negatives - they are irreplaceable.
Oddly, since I had dealings with the local rag for years, and actually
knew a couple of staffers, I had an element of trust in them to do the
right thing. Turned out the right thing for them was to lose the pics.
Never again. I since learned, from other encounters, that local rags are
often staffed with people who are trying to keep in with local politicos
and police.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 11:04 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009040909183516807-savageduck@savagenet...
> On 2009-04-09 05:26:22 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
>
>> In message <grklcd$g8b$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
>> writes
>>> There'as an interesting situation in London during G20 where a 48
>>> year-old
>>> man was pushed to the ground by a policeman and has since died.
>>> What I can't understand is where all the CCTV footage is considering how
>>> many cameras are about.
>>
>> Now that crossed my mind. As the event took place at an intersection in
>> an open area there must have been several cameras not to mention building
>> Security CCTV and other people who captured it.
>>
>>> Now just suppose you had a picture(s) of this incident would you have to
>>> had over the images to the policeman or should you wait until there is
>>> an
>>> authoritive
>>> figure on the scene who'll distribute those picture(s) to everyone that
>>> wants/needs them.
>>
>> When you say "everyone who wants/need them" does that include competing
>> newspapers, TV and magazines etc...
>>
>> No. You back up the photos to the lap top or storage device. Many press
>> people have the laptop in the car/bag or a mobile storage device and only
>> give the pictures ot the Police for a receipt. As evidence
>>
>> Many people trip, fall or are pushed (either by accident or intent by
>> their own side or the ether side) many times in a demonstration so not
>> all incidents are photographed and no one at the time realised the
>> significance of the incident. He got up and walked off.
>>
>>
>> BTW what is significant the, to my mind, somewhat stunned reaction of the
>> officers colleagues. I think they thought he had overstepped the mark.
>
> The cop in this case was an ass. The victim had his hands in his pockets
> and hd no way to protect himself in his fall. There was no provocation on
> his part.
>
> The presumption is that the shove precipitated the unfortunate death. We
> have no knowledge of his health issues, or other injuries he might have
> sustained in the fall. People do have health crises when on the way home
> from work, and sometimes the die without a cop anywhere near. Even
> seemingly benign falls can have tragic consequences, just look to Natasha
> Richardson.
>
> That said that cop remains an ass. I also found it interesting that all
> the police in that clip had their faces covered.
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
>
Having been in the middle of a number of Oilers Cup celebrations, years
back, I can vouch that more shoving happens because of civillians than from
cops.
I remember one time, I had my guitar out and was busking on a popular strip
since the money was good during a cup run. The game finished; the Oilers
won, and everyone was in a jubilant mood. Great situation for a blind
busker, right?
Well, not really, I was slugged by one fan passing by, and another berated
me because I needed a dog to follow around...
There was also a couple of thuggish sounding blokes who offered to help me
(and my guitar) get off the busy street by heading down a side alley. I
liked my chance in the throng a lot better.
It takes all kinds to make the world spin round and round...
The cops in those situations did their best to look out for me, which was
more than I can say for the "average" Joe.
Take Care,
Dudley
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 11:10 am
From: jls
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:12:38 -0400, TonyCooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:33:19 -0400, jls <notvalid@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I have to say that I am distressed at how little value some people are
>>placing on our liberties and rights.
>
>I am also distressed at how little value some people place on common
>decency and the feelings of others.
>
While I may agree with you, I would stop at the point where some
others feel that legislative action is a valid response.
The old adages are that you can't legislate decency, morality, or
common sense.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 11:19 am
From: jls
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:31:24 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
wrote:
>
>Officer involved shootings are a sensitive issue for the officers on
>scene and they may not be thinking as they should if they are being
>protective of a brother officer(s). An on scene supervisor would
>normally get the involved officer(s) away from the scene and advise
>them of their rights under POBAR (Peace Officer's Bill of Rights, the
>cop's Miranda) as there will be a shooting review and there is always
>the possibility of adverse action being taken against the officer(s) up
>to the level of criminal prosecution. This is what happened with the
>recent BART shooting in Oakland. That officer is currently facing
>murder charges.
Not knowing anything about the case you reference, I am loathe to
consider any shooting by an officer to be 'murder'. Just from
personal perspective, having some appreciation for the extreme
circumstances under which officers often find themselves, it is a
dangerous thing to expect perfection from them.
For me it wouild have to be a pretty extreme circumstance, involving
at the least a complete negligence in disregard for others, and/or
some form of abuse of power, for me to ever consider this a reasonable
action. Yes, "we the people" do need to make sure we are protected
from abuse and tyranny from our government "agents", but we also need
to make sure they have enough freedom to act in our interests as well.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I hate environmentalists
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 8:07 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for
> their kind, the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest
> G20 meetings. It reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban
> envirokooks in California who banned mountain bikes from
> wilderness areas for "degrading to the environment" while they
> rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
>
> amateurphotographer.com
>
> Birdwatching photographers under fire in Peak District
>
> Tuesday 7th April 2009
> Chris Cheesman
>
> Photographers' behaviour has been blamed for a fall in the
> survival rates of nesting dipper birds in the Derbyshire Peak
> District, prompting an appeal by conservationists.
>
> 'Unfortunately, disturbances at one or two of the key dipper
> sites has had a direct and negative impact on their nesting
> success in recent years,' said Phil Bowler, senior reserve
> manager at the Derbyshire Dales National Nature Reserve.
>
> If disturbed, dipper 'chicks' may leave their nest too early -
> increasing their vulnerability to predators, warns the
> conservation watchdog Natural England.
>
> The risks to a bird's survival also include the attraction of
> predators to the nest itself if it is disturbed as a result of
> it being inspected.
>
> Natural England has issued written advice for photographers
> which states: 'A number of isolated instances of photographer
> behaviour have called into question the ethics of some
> photographers.'
>
> It continues: 'We do not wish to stop photography, but to
> encourage photographers to behave in a responsible manner at
> nesting sites, reducing disturbance levels to dippers as much as
> possible.'
>
> The watchdog's advice leaflet warns photographers to not attempt
> any photography during the nesting season (March to July) until
> they know where the dipper's nest is. 'This may mean that you
> will need to retreat a few metres and watch the movements of the
> birds until you have located it [the nest].'
>
> The leaflet was drawn up with the help of photographer Paul
> Hobson who said: 'As a photographer, I know that it is entirely
> possible to get shots of these beautiful birds successfully,
> without disturbing them.'
>
> Hobson, whose work has been featured in Amateur Photographer,
> added: 'We are hoping photographers and other interested people
> understand the reasons behind this code of conduct and follow
> it.'
>
> Bowler said he hopes the leaflet will raise awareness of the
> problem among photographers and casual visitors. He added:
> 'Simple things such as limiting the time at the site can make a
> real difference.'
>
> The advice concludes by telling photographers: 'The welfare of
> the subject is more important than your photography.'
>
Like all liberal Far Left Loons, and the subset of Green Nazis,
these clowns don't like to be confused by the facts. I don't have
the time and inclination to cite the truth, so I'll only comment
that the particular genre of Far Left Loons protesting in London
were not only Green Nazis, but Socialist Loons and avowed
anarchists who resorrte do damaging private property and attempting
to garner attention by painting themselves with fake blood to make
it look like they were victims of police brutality.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 8:22 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-04-08 16:31:14 -0700, Rich <none@nowhere.com> said:
> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings.
Those guys are running things now. At the more extreme end, people like
Bill McKibben, author of "The End of Nature," are demanding a
moratorium on ALL wildlife photography. McKibben says that there are
already plenty of photos available for publication and that we do not
need any more. More moderate types favor varying degrees of
restrictions to access.
Irresponsible photographers who damage wildlife habitat and stress
animals provide a great deal of ammunition to the Bill McKibbens of the
world. We either clean up our act or the curtain comes down,
permanently. And we would not want to see that, would we?
One of the problems that the more extreme activists do not seem to see
or care about is that as they continually add more and more
restrictions to public access to wildlife and wilderness, the public
becomes more and more detached from our natural wonders -- and they
will begin to care less about them, not more. This form of activism may
well be the environmental movement's worst enemy.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 8:41 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
HEMI-Powered wrote:
> Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for
>> their kind, the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest
>> G20 meetings.
Unlike the rednecked fuckwits who drive everywhere in their 5mpg monster
trucks tearing the land to shreds and shooting everything in sight.
>> It continues: 'We do not wish to stop photography, but to
>> encourage photographers to behave in a responsible manner at
>> nesting sites, reducing disturbance levels to dippers as much as
>> possible.'
>>
>> The watchdog's advice leaflet warns photographers to not attempt
>> any photography during the nesting season (March to July) until
>> they know where the dipper's nest is. 'This may mean that you
>> will need to retreat a few metres and watch the movements of the
>> birds until you have located it [the nest].'
>>
>> The leaflet was drawn up with the help of photographer Paul
>> Hobson who said: 'As a photographer, I know that it is entirely
>> possible to get shots of these beautiful birds successfully,
>> without disturbing them.'
>>
>> Hobson, whose work has been featured in Amateur Photographer,
>> added: 'We are hoping photographers and other interested people
>> understand the reasons behind this code of conduct and follow
>> it.'
>>
>> Bowler said he hopes the leaflet will raise awareness of the
>> problem among photographers and casual visitors. He added:
>> 'Simple things such as limiting the time at the site can make a
>> real difference.'
>>
>> The advice concludes by telling photographers: 'The welfare of
>> the subject is more important than your photography.'
> Like all liberal Far Left Loons, and the subset of Green Nazis,
Did you read this piece at all before you started mouthing off.
Encouraging photographers to behave in a responsible manner is not an
unreasonable request.
It gave good practical advice on how to find and photograph these ground
nesting birds *without* disturbing them. Wildlife photography requires
patience and careful observation.
> these clowns don't like to be confused by the facts. I don't have
How funny that you of all people should say that.
> to garner attention by painting themselves with fake blood to make
> it look like they were victims of police brutality.
You mean like the poor newspaper vendor on his way home who was the
victim of an unprovoked police attack and shortly afterwards died of a
heart attack? That gratuitous assault happens to be partly on video.
Regards,
Martin Brown
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 11:36 am
From: Twibil
On Apr 9, 3:21 am, Bruce <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >Good to hear that you hate environmentalists. But to remain self-
> >consistant, from now on you're going to be limited to breathing only
> >diesel exhaust and drinking only industrial waste.
>
> >If you *truly hate* those nasty environmentalists I'm sure that you
> >won't mind making this small sacrifice, and besides: it's a good bet
> >that nobody here is going to miss you much anyway.
>
> I'm sure that one of the people who will miss him most is you, because
> you will lose the opportunity to appear as "clever" in replying to the
> "idiot" as you did above.
Erm, I said nothing about being "clever", nor did I call the OP an
"idiot", so apparently you are "uneducated" and have no idea what
purpose quote marks actually serve.
> Don't feed the trolls!
>
> (Yes, I know. I just did)
Better yet, don't be a net-nanny.
~Pete
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon & Nikon Image Stabilisation
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa42f50d8a88f1c8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 8:07 am
From: "Ron Recer"
"ransley" <Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f0c9e73-641c-4662-ad80-e68ddd2a8781@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 8, 2:32 pm, "Paul B" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Does any agree that both Canon & Nikon should fit sensor based image
>> stabilisation to their DSLRs? Lens based stabilisation may well be better
>> but is rather dependent on the lens having it to start with! So why not
>> have
>> the option of either?
>
> I agree, why be forced to buy a more expensive lens with IS, then you
> could also have dual IS Lens and camera working together. I have old
> good Canon lenses that could benefit from an IS body. Canon should
> wake up it would be a good selling point. Knowing everything
> advances , features sell, it should happen, someday.
>
Most people use the lens longer than the camera body. Why keep paying for
sensor stabilization boby after body when you can have an IS lens that works
with many bodies and most agree the lens IS is superior to the sensor IS.
Ron
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 8:48 am
From: Wally
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:36:02 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:
>Charles wrote:
>> "Paul B" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:_46dnWwZcr4wZkHUnZ2dnUVZ8jednZ2d@pipex.net...
>>> Does any agree that both Canon & Nikon should fit sensor based image
>>> stabilisation to their DSLRs? Lens based stabilisation may well be
>>> better but is rather dependent on the lens having it to start with!
>>> So why not have the option of either?
>>
>> Not me. It makes no sense for companies and customers that have
>> invested heavily in lens based stabilization systems that are known
>> to work better.
>> The option for folks who disagree is to check out other types of
>> cameras.
>> I have both types of IS and much prefer the in-lens method.
>>
>> Having both could be a problem, by the way. Both IS systems
>> could/should never be active at the same time (chaos!).
>
>In-lens stabilisation also gives you the advantage of a stable image in
>the viewfinder. I can appreciate that for those with existing lenses
>without IS/VR the in body stabilisation offers /some/ improvement, albeit
>a limited one. Today, the extra cost of stabilised lenses is not great,
>and even the 3rd party suppliers offer in-lens stabilisation.
On the other hand, lens stabilization can reduce optical performance
because the stabilizing elements will be off center. And besides, the
lens design will need to be compromised to accomodate those
stabilizing elements to begin with.
Wally
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 9:39 am
From: "David J Taylor"
Wally wrote:
[]
> On the other hand, lens stabilization can reduce optical performance
> because the stabilizing elements will be off center. And besides, the
> lens design will need to be compromised to accomodate those
> stabilizing elements to begin with.
>
> Wally
Whilst in theory that sounds plausible, do you have actual evidence of
your supposition? Comparisons of MTF curves?
For the moving sensor on the other hand, the lens would need to be
designed to cover a bigger image circle, and I have not seen evidence that
this is done.
So both systems may have compromises....
David
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 10:29 am
From: Chris Malcolm
C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In-lens IS works better with long lenses. In-body works better with
> wide angle lenses. Reason would say that long lenses need the
> stabilization more.
Depends what you're doing and how you're doing it. If you're shooting
from the window of a moving vehicle a long lens is out of the
question, and a wide lens benefits greatly from stabilisation. I do
use long lenses as much as wide, but I nearly always use them with a
support with stabilisation turned off, so I find stabilisation more
useful at the wide end.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 11:36 am
From: ransley
On Apr 9, 10:07 am, "Ron Recer" <RonRe...@aol.com> wrote:
> "ransley" <Mark_Rans...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4f0c9e73-641c-4662-ad80-e68ddd2a8781@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 8, 2:32 pm, "Paul B" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:>> Does any agree that both Canon & Nikon should fit sensor based image
> >> stabilisation to their DSLRs? Lens based stabilisation may well be better
> >> but is rather dependent on the lens having it to start with! So why not
> >> have
> >> the option of either?
>
> > I agree, why be forced to buy a more expensive lens with IS, then you
> > could also have dual IS Lens and camera working together. I have old
> > good Canon lenses that could benefit from an IS body. Canon should
> > wake up it would be a good selling point. Knowing everything
> > advances , features sell, it should happen, someday.
>
> Most people use the lens longer than the camera body. Why keep paying for
> sensor stabilization boby after body when you can have an IS lens that works
> with many bodies and most agree the lens IS is superior to the sensor IS.
>
> Ron
Why not have it both ways, in camera and lens at the same time. For me
id rather save the expense of in lens IS but my lenses are small.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is there anybody here that can read?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c9335bfe34017e91?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 8:32 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-04-07 05:50:47 -0700, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> said:
>
> Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous picture was taken by pure
> accident/coincidence. The man jumping over the water was shot through a
> fence of planks, when he just pointed and shot, without even looking. Later
> at home he saw the picture for the first time.
> So I guess that makes him a P&S shooter ;-)
Somehow I sincerely doubt that story, though Bresson himself might have
told it. Even Bresson did not just walk around pointing the camera
aimlessly, squeezing the shutter with his shut. Bresson worked hard to
capture his moments. He was not a chimpanzee randomly pecking keys on a
typewriter to produce the works of Shakespeare. Bresson's work is a
tribute to the documentary photographer's ability to anticipate,
visualize and capture a moment all in a split second. But he did not
skip any of those steps, whether he realized it or not.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 8:36 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-04-09 08:00:15 -0700, ASAAR <caught@22.com> said:
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:01:20 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY
> REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>
>> However, I would posit that if a camera offers a multipoint
>> "matrix" scheme that claims "30,000 reference images", it
>> would be able to get it right. But what is "right? Ignore the sky
>> and expose the land as if a big mountain is in the background?
>> Cut exposure so that the sky is not clipped and underexpose the
>> foreground, at least in the "landscape mode" high contrast JPEG?
>> Cut the contrast in the JPEG so the sky is not clipped and
>> the foreground at least passable? Expose so a RAW file has
>> a non-clipped sky and the JPEG be damned?
>>
>> I'd of course take the last option. But others might differ.
>
> Well, that's the nub of Focus's problem. He expects that the
> camera really has a matrix metering mind reading system that will
> infallibly provide the exposure that will keep him grinning.
Yes. He wants the camera to read his mind and automatically expose for
the sky when he wants it to do that, and expose for the ground when he
wants it to do that, or miraculously come up with a perfect exposure
for both in the same frame!
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 8:55 am
From: Bruce
C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Even Bresson did not just walk around pointing the camera
>aimlessly, squeezing the shutter with his shut. Bresson worked hard to
>capture his moments. He was not a chimpanzee randomly pecking keys on a
>typewriter to produce the works of Shakespeare. Bresson's work is a
>tribute to the documentary photographer's ability to anticipate,
>visualize and capture a moment all in a split second. But he did not
>skip any of those steps, whether he realized it or not.
All true, but HCB was a prolific shooter and took a great many photos
while out shooting. Even though there are many volumes of his published
work, we have seen only very few of those shots.
Perhaps there is a valid comparison to be made with National Geographic
shooters who typically produced over 10,000 shots on film in order to
illustrate an article with only a couple of dozen, if that.
I am not suggesting (in either case) that the published shots happened
by chance. Far from it: I have no doubt that great care was taken with
the majority of shots taken, and that a very large percentage of them
would be considered suitable for publication.
However, I also have no doubt that the taking of such large numbers of
images in both cases actively contributes to the extremely high standard
of published work - work to which we are privileged to have access at
the small cost of buying a book, or the magazine.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 9:22 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-04-09 08:55:37 -0700, Bruce <no@nospam.net> said:
> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Even Bresson did not just walk around pointing the camera
>> aimlessly, squeezing the shutter with his shut. Bresson worked hard to
>> capture his moments. He was not a chimpanzee randomly pecking keys on a
>> typewriter to produce the works of Shakespeare. Bresson's work is a
>> tribute to the documentary photographer's ability to anticipate,
>> visualize and capture a moment all in a split second. But he did not
>> skip any of those steps, whether he realized it or not.
>
>
> All true, but HCB was a prolific shooter and took a great many photos
> while out shooting. Even though there are many volumes of his published
> work, we have seen only very few of those shots.
>
> Perhaps there is a valid comparison to be made with National Geographic
> shooters who typically produced over 10,000 shots on film in order to
> illustrate an article with only a couple of dozen, if that.
Gregg Gibson told me that he typically takes over 7,000 frames at a
wedding. He winnows those down to about 130 that he shows the happy
couple, and they make their selection from those.
Gibson did not win two Pulitzer Prizes by taking 10,000 copies of the
same image with only slight variation among them. I have seen him at
work; he takes one shot -- then changes position, focal length, or
something else. When he is done with a shoot he is literally dripping
with sweat because he is moving around so actively. He may shoot 100
frames or more in the space of a minute or two. Each frame will be
radically different.
How he keeps that energy level up at an entire wedding is beyond me.
Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only
a dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
way the cookie crumbles.
I do not know how many pictures Eddie Adams took on February 1, 1968.
He got the Pulitzer for only one of them -- the execution of a Viet
Cong officer by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan. This execution was also
filmed by a TV crew. A documentary interviewing Adams, showing the
picture, and also a film clip of the execution can be seen here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6459381285349469159
Obviously, Adams could not take 10,000 images of this execution. He had
time for one. The entire execution, from the time that they start
dragging the Viet Cong into the street to the time that he is lying in
it, is less then 5 seconds. That was it. I do not know what else he
shot that day, but for that day, and perhaps for the entire war, it was
"the" picture.
>
> I am not suggesting (in either case) that the published shots happened
> by chance. Far from it: I have no doubt that great care was taken with
> the majority of shots taken, and that a very large percentage of them
> would be considered suitable for publication.
>
> However, I also have no doubt that the taking of such large numbers of
> images in both cases actively contributes to the extremely high standard
> of published work - work to which we are privileged to have access at
> the small cost of buying a book, or the magazine.
Indeed. I don't think people fully appreciate this. We have come a long
way from attempting to communicate with stained glass windows and
illuminated manuscripts painstakingly constructed over a period of
decades. I am not sure that it is always for the better, but on the
whole I believe it is.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 12:54 pm
From: Alan Browne
C J Campbell wrote:
> Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only a
> dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
> Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
> way the cookie crumbles.
Actually some nat geo photogs don't even see the photos until they're
published, and they might see only a small percentage of the remaining
stock photos. In the film days they would ship undeveloped film back to
DC for development and the photo editors, working with the article
writer would decide which photos to use.
In the digital age, I'm not sure what the modus operandi is, but it
probably involves electronic transfer to DC, and again the photog is not
the one choosing what goes into the article.
--
-- 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.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Resolution of a Photocopier
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/664e61dae3a93c4e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 9:18 am
From: Pat
On Apr 8, 7:20 pm, Mark Franzels <markfranz...@gmail.com> 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.
>
> Also what newsgroup especially deal with scanners
> and photo editing. I presume this rec.photo.digital
> is about digital photography and not exactly
> about photo editing. Thanks.
>
> Mark
I think my copier scans at 2400 dpi. There is no difference between
scanning, storing and printing or just copying (which is scanning and
printing).
The major difference between a copier and a ink-jet is that a copier
(at least mine) is CMYB and a ink-jet is RBY.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 9:47 am
From: J�rgen Exner
Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:
>Bob Larter wrote:
>> Mark Franzels wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Unless it's a digital copier, it doesn't have an equivalent resolution,
>> because the scan is optical, all the way to the drum.
>>
>Analog systems DO have a resolution. Folks were working with, and
>measuring image resolution, for a century or more before the digital
>imaging technology arrived.
True. But those resolutions were measured in microns, not in DPI or SPI
or PPI and they cannot easily be compared to each other.
jue
>
>For instance, most professional films gave resolution measurement
>results in their data sheets. Lenses were measured by several types of
>resolution tests, the best eventually were MTF methods, but bar charts
>and knife edge scans were common.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Solution for D90 matrix..(update)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2c77d17e540a942b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 11:07 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-04-09 04:11:26 -0700, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> said:
> I had Nikon Netherlands look at the pictures and they agreed my camera over
> exposes.
> Nobody less then the coordinator is going to personally supervise the
> repair.
>
> Strange nobody here seem to have come up with that idea; most people
> preferred to argue the fact that I wasn't able or professional enough to
> adjust the camera.
>
> Something to think about, CJ Campbell, before you point your finger in the
> wrong direction....
>
> Can you still enjoy your food with that boot in your mouth? ;-)
Actually, I did consider the possibility that there is something wrong
with your camera. I believed, however, that you had already checked
that out. I guess you aren't as smart as I thought.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
==============================================================================
TOPIC: square negs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/24f109ea8dea3b01?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 9 2009 12:01 pm
From: Dave Busch
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?
Back in the darkroom days, we could put the edge of a neg between our
lips. The emulsion side would stick to one lip. Of course, it was
pretty easy to tell the matte from shiny side by the enlarger light.
In addition to avoiding reversing, you wanted the emulsion side
closest to the paper, so that the light went directly to the
photosensitive surface after already having passed through any
imperfections in the film base. Theoretically, you'd want the
emulsion side closest to the scanner for the same reason, and also
because the imaging path of many non-CCD scanners has less
depth-of-focus. As a practical matter, you probably won't notice an
IQ difference from 120/220 film negs.
-------------------------------------
Everything I know, and then some:
http://www.auctionmyths.com
==============================================================================
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment