Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 9 new messages in 8 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: canon ps sx1 raw -> adobe camera raw
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/95ee196915c03e6a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 25 2009 5:59 pm
From: sobriquet

On 25 apr, 03:19, sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Since the recent firmware update, it's possible to shoot raw images
> with the canon powershot
> sx1 (.cr2 files).
>
> The camera raw plugin for photoshop cs4 (version 5.3) however, doesn't
> recognize these raw files yet, and the standard utility that canon
> provides, "Digital Photo Professional" (version 3.6), can't save to
> DNG or some other format that is compatible with camera raw.
> I can save it as a 16 bit tif file and open it, but I don't know if
> that has any drawbacks compared to using the original raw files or the
> dng file format.
>
> What's the best way to import those raw files into camera raw?
>
> Greetings and thx in advance for any suggestions, Niek

Hmmmm.. I've managed to get CHDK working on the sx1, which was a bit
of a hassle (having to split up a 16 GB SDHC card into two separate
partitions so it will boot CHDK from a write-protected card).
Now it will safe pictures in the DNG format.
Irfanview reads them fine, but neither photoshop (cs4), bridge (cs4)
or camera raw (5.3) will read the DNG files.
Anyone out there who has any suggestions on how to convert the raw
files (either the original CR2 files or the DNG files that CHDK
produces) into a format that ACR will swallow or do I simply have to
wait for the next update of ACR for SX1 RAW support?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 25 2009 10:12 pm
From: jimbok

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:59:15 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
<dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Now it will safe pictures in the DNG format.
>Irfanview reads them fine, but neither photoshop (cs4), bridge (cs4)
>or camera raw (5.3) will read the DNG files.
>Anyone out there who has any suggestions on how to convert the raw
>files

I use CHDK in a Canon A720IS and the DNG files it creates read without
any problems, in Photoshop CS4. It sound like your version of CHDK
might still be a little buggy. Drop an inquiry to the CHDK forum
about your problem. The developers are pretty responsive.
Another possible workaround is to convert the CHDK RAW files to DNG
with a freeware program such as "DNG4PS-2" which might work with your
camera's RAW files. It does work with my A720 RAW files.
http://code.google.com/p/dng4ps2/

Other programs that will read CHDK RAW files directly are
"RawTherapee, DCRAW, and a few others.
If these options don't work for you, you might have to wait for ACR to
catch up with the native Canon SX1 raw files.

--
jimbok

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Portrait of my daughter...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e784a66b8ac5b3af?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 25 2009 6:04 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:14:38 +0100, "Bertram Paul,
Atlantic-Diesel.com" <dont@mail.me> wrote:

>Like I said: it isn't perfect. I didn't have a good background; the curtain
>in the back is very narrow. Cutting her arm like that was the only option,
>because otherwise I would have part of a blue curtain on the left. Besides,
>it shows off her self designed dress better with the left sleeve.
>
>The grey I don't see. I looked on two different computers, both calibrated.
>It is kind of dark, because I like it that way.
>Better next time.
>
>I did read a lot of books and have quite a video collection from Ansel
>Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson (3) up to Annie Leibovitz. But I'm still
>learning every day!

You have to keep in mind that you are posting in photography
newsgroups. When a photograph is critiqued, and that photograph is of
a family member, it's difficult not be defensive. Doubly, even,
because you are defending the family member and your own photographic
skills.

I, too, get an impression of grayness about the image. The gray cast
of the curtain behind the subject dominates the photograph. The dress
is rather playful looking with the faux leopard and it clashes with
the old-timey look of the curtain. You already know of the lighting
problem.

I'd take that photograph, knock-out all of the background, and
experiment with some different background colors in Layers. Not to
get a final image, but to learn what colors work with her hair and
skin tones to set her off. Something to learn for the next portrait.

The subject's skin is lovely, but it's mostly in shadow. It will hold
up under more lighting.

A personal comment about your daughter...she has more sense than many
of her years. She's applied make-up to enhance, and not to dominate.
Most young girls don't know when to stop.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The dog ate my homework and now we ate the dog....True!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f9fe05ca03da801d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 25 2009 6:24 pm
From: "Aggreived"

"Bertram Paul, Atlantic-Diesel.com" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
news:37SdnU1Hk56mBG7UnZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@novis.pt...
> http://atlantic-diesel.com/index.php?topic=33.0

Your wife is Korean, then?

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 25 2009 9:40 pm
From: RichA

'Fraid it's too late. The 20 megaxpixel, 1/2.5 sensored camera is
bound to appear.

ABC
Why More Megapixels Don't Make Better Pix
Have a Pocket-Sized Camera? Watch Out for Too Many Megapixels
By CHRIS GAYLORD

April 25, 2009 —

When it comes to electronics, more is better. Consumers want more
features, more hard-drive space, more cellphone minutes and more
battery life.

But with digital cameras, it's not that simple. Many stores will tell
you that the worth of a camera is measured in megapixels. The more
manufacturers can pack in, the better, right?

Not necessarily, says Amit Gupta, founder of Photojojo.com, an online
newsletter for camera tips and projects.

A high-megapixel count doesn't always equate to better image quality.
Actually, if camera designers try to cram too many megapixels into a
small camera, it can have the opposite effect.

Such a counterintuitive snag mostly affects tiny digital cameras, the
ones compact enough to fit in your pocket.

To keep sizes down, manufacturers place itty-bitty image sensors
inside their point-and-shoot models. These small parts perform well
within a certain range. But when companies try to raise the megapixel
count without increasing the dimensions of the camera, the same size
sensor now has to do more work.

The result are larger but less accurate images, Gupta says. The
overburdened sensor can lose sharpness, struggle in low-light
situations and add "noise" (small blotches or odd colors).

Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots, but the
extra room allows for much bigger sensors and often better image
quality per megapixel.

Cameras are rarely advertised on their sensor sizes, which makes the
warning difficult to act on. But the problem usually pops up when
companies release two very similar models, one with more megapixels
and, most likely, a higher price. In those situations, the extra few
hundred dollars doesn't necessarily buy you a better camera.

Sensor technology improves all the time, making the issue of cramped
megapixels less important each year. Improved lenses and anti-shake
features also dampen the effect.

But even if companies could make a flawless 18-megapixel camera the
size of a deck of cards, few people will ever need that much, Gupta
says.

Start With 8 Megapixels

He suggests that shoppers start looking at eight megapixels, consider
10, but think hard before shelling out for a 12-megapixel camera or
higher.

"Six megapixels is great for 8-by-10 prints," he says. "We use a six-
megapixel camera for everything on the site. ... In fact, we're making
a Photojojo book and shooting with the same camera for all of those
pictures."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Great forum!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ac2220a39a1c052b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 25 2009 10:06 pm
From: "Atheist Chaplain"

"Bertram Paul, Atlantic-Diesel.com" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
news:P6udnV-f5cpaBW7UnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@novis.pt...
>
> "Michael" <adunc79617@mypacks.net> wrote in message
> news:2009042510123816807-adunc79617@mypacksnet...
>> On 2009-04-22 19:58:55 -0400, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> said:
>>
>>>
>>> http://atlantic-diesel.com
>>>
>>> International forum with very much possibilities.
>>>
>>> Check it out. Free and no advertisements.
>>
>> Now it's up to 57 posts, all but 4 or 5 from Betram Paul.
>> --
>> Michael
>
>
> And even after reading my name so many times, you still can't spell it
> correctly?
> LOL!
>
> --
> ---
> Bertram Paul
> http://atlantic-diesel.com
> Digital Photography Forum
>

that would imply that we actually cared about you or your name, after all
you have now reached the same status as so many other cross posting
spammers, but instead of selling cheap watches or shoes your trying to sell
your forum, the forum I suspect you created so you can edit the dissenting
comments as you regularly get your arse handed to you when you post your
drivel on Usenet.
Anyway Bertram Paul or Focus or whatever you call yourself today, welcome to
the back of my bozo bin.

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Epson Class Action
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0f3627153d4def1b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 25 2009 10:21 pm
From: Kevin McMurtrie

What's left in the tank is nothing. Open up the printer and take a look
at the giant sponge Epson hides in the bottom of it. It holds about
$1000 of ink. Happy printing.

--
I will not see your reply if you use Google.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I like this picture ...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0bc27def753341f6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 25 2009 11:59 pm
From: Paul Furman

Deputy Dog wrote:
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>
>> I like this picture of the Veterans Memorial atop Mt Soledad, La
>> Jolla, California:
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3388492642_7c9555d9ff_o.jpg
>>
>> The pole at right is bending in a 30mph gale.
>>
>> Image is uncropped, almost un-processed, reduced to size.
>>
>> --
>> Frank ess
>
> I like it too, nice composition the flag and the cross.............nice eye

Agreed.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 26 2009 12:04 am
From: Paul Furman

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

Great shot.
Looks like Rita trying to post art in the groups...
<evil grin>

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Sunday, April 26, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 9 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic