Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: P&S'ers, your day has come
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/def65d0abf6b4a11?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:48 pm
From: Bob Larter

Troll Killer wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 06:02:16 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
[...]
>>> See if you can get th[*SLAP!*]
>> I take it that nobody has explained to this kook how we can spot his
>> posts every time? *GOOD!*
>
> I hope nobody's explained to this resident role-play "photographer"
> DSLR-Troll, how up to 15 different servers (proxies) and 6 different usenet
> clients are used to post to this newsgroup on various occasions.

Bullshit. Your posts are trivially easy to spot, regardless of which
sock puppet you're currently using.

> When
> between photo treks and bored it's fun to play with all the full-time
> pretend-photographer resident trolls, like "Bob Larter", nospam, ASSAR,
> Rich, SMS, savagefuck-head, et.al. You know, all the major morons that live
> and breathe their pathetic imaginary-photographer lives in this newsgroup.
> Those who don't have a single clue about real cameras and real photography.

We're still waiting to see some or your (no doubt imaginary) photos, kook.

[further kookery snipped]

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Ultimate Photo-Bag
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d379eb3ce3f36aff?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:55 pm
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

? "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> ?????? ??? ??????
news:1tKdnbgZl-g4SL_XnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 31-05-09 14:00, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-31 10:05:37 -0700, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>
>> On 31-05-09 08:41, Robert Coe wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:09:12 -0400, Alan Browne
>>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> : Peter wrote:
>>> :> "Alan Browne"<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> :> news:wemdnUYIivEdmJLXnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> :>
>>> :>
>>> :>> And really, shouldn't you grab your pregnant wife's ass in a
>>> portrait?
>>> :>> After all they are half nude.
>>> :>
>>> :> Look closely at their faces. She may be his sister, not his wife.
>>> :> Oops! OTOH they may be in Applachia.
>>> :
>>> : I really don't think terms like sister/brother/cousin/uncle/aunt are
>>> : used the same in Appalachia as we use them... I saw a side splitting
>>> : video of a guy from Arkansas, singing, trying to explain his family
>>> tree.
>>> :
>>> :>> The Anglican priest in shorts with the kid choking mommy is actually
>>> :>> great as long as you have some sense of humour.
>>> :>>
>>> :>
>>> :> Whenever will you Aussies learn there is only one "u" in humor.<G>
>>> :
>>> : We Canadians are a confused lot and we use or drop the "u" at will.
>>> : Tell ya what though, when you yanks learn to write something as simple
>>> : as the date properly I'll change my "colours".
>>>
>>> That from someone who thinks Arkansas is in Appalachia.
>>
>> Close enough. I was really referring to the notion that people in the
>> Appalachian region and surrounding states such as Arkansas have
>> somewhat confused family trees.
>>
>> Thanks for the geography tip though. I always think of Arkansas as
>> further east than that.
>>
>> But as to comparative geographic knowledge I will blow away 9 out of
>> 10 Americans. And so would a 10 year old in Poland or S. Korea.
>>
>> Still, the American practice of writing the date in month-day-year
>> order would only hilariously stupid if it weren't for the fact that it
>> leaks out of the US to confuse everyone else.
>
> Strangely enough the US military convention is dd/mm/yy.

YYYY-MM-DD actually (ISO 8601). It's not strange at all. The US
military uses a lot of international standards such as that date format
and a thing called the Le Système International d'Unités.

In large part for NATO conformity (operations) and for R&D, specs, and
so on.

So do the japanese. They write (eg) 2009 (year) 5 (month) 31 (day) where
year, month , day put the appropriate pictogramms.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:01 pm
From: "J. Clarke"

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-31 10:05:37 -0700, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>
>> On 31-05-09 08:41, Robert Coe wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:09:12 -0400, Alan Browne
>>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>> "Alan Browne"<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in
>>>>> message news:wemdnUYIivEdmJLXnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And really, shouldn't you grab your pregnant wife's ass in a
>>>>>> portrait? After all they are half nude.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look closely at their faces. She may be his sister, not his wife.
>>>>> Oops! OTOH they may be in Applachia.
>>>>
>>>> I really don't think terms like sister/brother/cousin/uncle/aunt
>>>> are used the same in Appalachia as we use them... I saw a side
>>>> splitting video of a guy from Arkansas, singing, trying to explain
>>>> his family tree.
>>>>
>>>>>> The Anglican priest in shorts with the kid choking mommy is
>>>>>> actually great as long as you have some sense of humour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whenever will you Aussies learn there is only one "u" in
>>>>> humor.<G>
>>>>
>>>> We Canadians are a confused lot and we use or drop the "u" at will.
>>>> Tell ya what though, when you yanks learn to write something as
>>>> simple as the date properly I'll change my "colours".
>>>
>>> That from someone who thinks Arkansas is in Appalachia.
>>
>> Close enough. I was really referring to the notion that people in
>> the Appalachian region and surrounding states such as Arkansas have
>> somewhat confused family trees.
>>
>> Thanks for the geography tip though. I always think of Arkansas as
>> further east than that.
>>
>> But as to comparative geographic knowledge I will blow away 9 out of
>> 10 Americans. And so would a 10 year old in Poland or S. Korea.
>>
>> Still, the American practice of writing the date in month-day-year
>> order would only hilariously stupid if it weren't for the fact that
>> it leaks out of the US to confuse everyone else.
>
> Strangely enough the US military convention is dd/mm/yy.

The Navy taught me dd MMM yy, with the MMM being the first three letters of
the name of the month. Much, much less potential for confusion that way.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 1:23 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 31-05-09 15:55, Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
> ? "Alan Browne"<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> ?????? ??? ??????
> news:1tKdnbgZl-g4SL_XnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 31-05-09 14:00, Savageduck wrote:

>> Strangely enough the US military convention is dd/mm/yy.
>
> YYYY-MM-DD actually (ISO 8601). It's not strange at all. The US
> military uses a lot of international standards such as that date format
> and a thing called the Le Système International d'Unités.
>
> In large part for NATO conformity (operations) and for R&D, specs, and
> so on.
>
> So do the japanese. They write (eg) 2009 (year) 5 (month) 31 (day) where
> year, month , day put the appropriate pictogramms.

Think you could use a newsreader that does proper quote / attribution?

--
-- 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: CF dying?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2d949e57f899e814?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 1:32 pm
From: Bob Larter

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>> I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
>> for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB. SEcond, those that do can
>> probably afford the new cards, readers, and computers to support new
>> standards. I believe my camera currently has a 512 meg card, which can
>> store about 400 pictures. I can't even imagine needing more than the
>> 1600 or so pictures I could put on the 2GB card my camera will support,
>> and my card reader will read. Certainly I wouldn't put that may images
>> on a single media of any type. Those with huge cameras that make huge
>> files can usually afford to keep up with current technology.
>
> That's because you shoot JPEG images. Start shooting RAW which most SLRs are
> capable of and you will quickly find the limitations of a low capacity card.

Indeed. I shoot RAW with 4GB CF cards. Most of the time, I only need one
card, but every now & then I need a second. (Last time was when I shot
three bands in one night.)

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

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 1:33 pm
From: Bob Larter

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <77o0miF1gli6gU1@mid.individual.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
> says...
>
>> That's because you shoot JPEG images. Start shooting RAW which most SLRs are
>> capable of and you will quickly find the limitations of a low capacity card.
>
> Still, even if you shoot RAW it's not wise to keep thousands of shots on
> a single card. If something happens to that card you might lose
> thousands of shots.

<shrug> If you drop your camera at the start of the shoot, it amounts to
the same thing. Shit happens.

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

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 1:35 pm
From: Bob Larter

David J Taylor wrote:
> Wally wrote:
> []
>> On average, you will lose the same number of shots with 8 1gb cards as
>> with 1 8gb card, except with 8 cards, there is a greater chance of
>> losing the card or bending pins.
>
> I'd like to see the maths behind that.

You're certainly more likely to lose or damage your card or socket while
swapping cards during a shoot than you are by simply leaving one in the
camera the whole time.

>> When 32 gb cards come down in price a bit, that's what I will buy.
>> Should be enough for most 2 week excursions, and I won't have to take
>> the card out till I get home.
>>
>> Wally
>
> I'd also like to see independent measurements of failure rates of
> different brands and capacities of both CF and SD cards. Fat chance!

Ayup.

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

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 1:39 pm
From: Bob Larter

Stan Trenton wrote:
> There have been quite a few memorable moments where, after the subjects
> noticed that I had a camera, I had to discreetly toss aside a standard
> sized or micro SD card into the brush. Or discretely slide it into my boot
> after replacing the one in the camera with an empty. Examples from my own
> experiences include: photographing and video-recording armed poachers on
> wild-life game reserves, documenting the lives and times of drug-runners
> (I'm pro-responsible-drug-use btw, and empathize with the hard-core
> drug-runner's subsistence-living lifestyle, it's easy for me to be welcomed
> into their circles), discreetly photographing unlawful activity of
> employees around nuclear power-plants, and video recording the illegal
> behavior of armed "law officials", etc. You or others in this news-group
> might live in your basements on your keyboards but real photographers are
> out in the real world documenting harsh reality.

We're still waiting to see some of your amazing P&S images.

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

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 3:24 pm
From: LOL

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:39:21 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Stan Trenton wrote:
>> There have been quite a few memorable moments where, after the subjects
>> noticed that I had a camera, I had to discreetly toss aside a standard
>> sized or micro SD card into the brush. Or discretely slide it into my boot
>> after replacing the one in the camera with an empty. Examples from my own
>> experiences include: photographing and video-recording armed poachers on
>> wild-life game reserves, documenting the lives and times of drug-runners
>> (I'm pro-responsible-drug-use btw, and empathize with the hard-core
>> drug-runner's subsistence-living lifestyle, it's easy for me to be welcomed
>> into their circles), discreetly photographing unlawful activity of
>> employees around nuclear power-plants, and video recording the illegal
>> behavior of armed "law officials", etc. You or others in this news-group
>> might live in your basements on your keyboards but real photographers are
>> out in the real world documenting harsh reality.
>
>We're still waiting to see some of your amazing P&S images.

ON YOUR KNEES TROLL-BOY! Your favorite position! Beg some more!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Just what I want to do is enrich the lives of useless internet-living
trolls that reside in their mommies' basements. And they want this for free
too? My photography never comes near the internet, lest it please useless
idiots like you. Be grateful for the once-a-year, greatly downsized,
jpg-compression-ruined, scrap-shot that I might temporarily post as an
example to prove some fool totally wrong about their advised techniques or
useless equipment.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are just too too funny! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't even afford to look at 60x60 thumbnails from my vast collection,
much less view anything printable from it. I judge the buyer before they
are allowed to purchase anything from me. Few, very few, have the
personality and values that will afford them the privilege, and then have
enough funds to do so. Things like you aren't even a consideration for a
preview glimpse of a few tiny thumbnails.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You should be desperately grateful that I'm even acknowledging your
existence this much. Next time you might have to be sated by a single "."
and be extremely thankful for it. LOL!!!!

Too too funny! It wants to see my photography for free! A hopeless and
useless internet-troll wanting to see my photography for free?

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another question - How to convert medium format lens to equivalency of
a 50mm normal lens (35mm camera) in APS-C digital cameras
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0a1d6ca7f3da4840?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 1:40 pm
From: Matt Ion

Doug Jewell wrote:
> So 33mm (APS-C), 50mm (35mm)
> and 90mm (645) can be said to be "equivalent" because on their
> respective formats they all give basically the same image.

This is an excellent and succinct explanation of "crop factor".

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 3:02 pm
From: Doug Jewell

aniramca@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks Doug, but I am still a little bit fuzzy as shown below
>
> On May 31, 3:57 am, Doug Jewell <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:
>> anira...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On May 30, 9:32 pm, anira...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I need help on this one (also), as I seem to have a block in my brain
>>>> to do the math and follow the logic. Perhaps someone can explain this
>>>> in a more practical and easy to understand way?.
>>>> I just recently used my old Mamiya M645 lenses on my digital camera
>>>> (APS-C) using a lens adapter. I recall the following:
>>>> 1. 50mm normal lens in a full frame (35mm camera) will be equivalent
>>>> to approx. 31-33mm APS-C lens (crop factor of 1.5 or 1.6).
>>>> 2. I heard a long time ago that for a 6x4.5cm medium format camera,
>>>> the normal lens will be around 90mm. Normal means as a standard 50mm
>>>> lens in the 35mm camera.
>>>> So, if I have 35mm, 90mm and 210mm M645 lenses, what are the focal
>>>> lengths represented by these lens in the digital APS-C cameras
>>>> (equivalency of the stardard 35mm camera)? When I tried them with my
>>>> digital camera, the 35mm was a little too short for being called a
>>>> wide angle, the 90mm lens was great, useful and powerful, but the
>>>> 210mm did not appear to have the effect of a long telephoto lens. It
>>>> could just be in my mind, as I perhaps expected the 35mm and 210mm to
>>>> be a wide angle and a telephoto lens, respectively.
>>>> Thanks for the reply
>>> I am trying to answer my own question here. Could someone confirm if
>>> this is correct?
>>> 90mm M645 = 50mm normal 35mm = 33mm APS-C Crop factor 90/33= 2.7
>>> Therefore 35mm M645 will be equivalent to 13mm, and 210mm M645 will be
>>> equivalent to 78mm
>> Not quite. A 90mm lens is a 90mm lens regardless of what
>> camera you put it on. The only thing that changes is how
>> much of the image that the lens casts that you are looking at.
>>
>> So if you stick the 90mm lens on a 645 camera, because the
>> film is quite large, you are looking at a large area of the
>> image. When you put the 90mm lens on a 35mm film camera you
>> see a smaller amount of the image, and on an APS-C camera
>> you are looking at a smaller portion again. Because a
>> smaller amount of the image fills the sensor/film frame, you
>> have a smaller field of view.
>>
>> The concept of "35mm equivalent" etc comes because to get
>> the same field of view you need a lens with a different
>> focal length. So when you put your 90mm lens on your 645
>> camera you get a certain field of view. If you put the 90mm
>> on a 35mm film camera you will have a smaller field of view.
>> If you want the same field of view that you had with the
>> 645, you will need to mount a 50mm lens. If you want the
>> same field of view on an APS-C camera, you would mount a
>> 33mm lens. So 33mm (APS-C), 50mm (35mm) and 90mm (645) can
>> be said to be "equivalent" because on their respective
>> formats they all give basically the same image.> The 35mm lens did not look like it has a wide angle view than, say, my
>>> Nikkor 18-55mm lens at the 18mm zoom, though?
>> That's right - when you put the 35mm lens on the Nikon it is
>> still a 35mm lens.
> I agree
>
> If you dial your 18-55 lens to the 35mm
>> position, it will give exactly the same image that your
>> 35mm(645) lens gives when mounted to the Nikon.
>>
> You dial 18-55 lens to the 35mm position meaning 18-55 APS-C lens?
> Then this would be around 50mm normal 35mm camera, and it is not the
> same as 35mm(M645)
> I am getting fuzzy here again.
Ok, One camera, your Nikon APS-C. Mount the 35mm 645 lens
with adaptor to it. It will give a certain field of view.
Now take it off and put your 18-55 zoom lens on the Nikon.
Dial it up to the 35mm position. The field of view will be
exactly the same. Both lenses are 35mm, so both will give
the same view, when fitted to the same camera.
If you put the 35mm lens on the 645 camera, it will give a
much wider angle view than it does on the APS-C camera,
because the 645 camera is looking at more of the image that
the lens produces.
>
>> Your 13mm figure is correct though, you are just applying it
>> the wrong way. When you put the 35mm lens on the 645 camera,
>> it will give a very wide angle view - the same as you would
>> get if you put a 13mm lens on your Nikon.
> I agree
>
> You will only get
>> that wide angle of view with in on the 645 though - on the
>> Nikon it will be the same as any other 35mm lens on the Nikon.
> I thought the 35mm(M645) would be equivalent to 13mm(APS-C)?
Yes - the 35mm lens WHEN FITTED TO THE M645 CAMERA will be
roughly equivalent to a 13mm lens FITTED TO THE APS-C CAMERA.
When the 35mm lens is fitted to the APS-C camera it is
exactly the same as any other 35mm lens fitted to the APS-C
camera. The 35mm stays fixed, so on the SAME CAMERA the view
is fixed. It doesn't matter whether the lens was designed
for 645, 135, APS-C, 8x10, it is still a 35mm lens. You
could have 4 35mm lenses designed for each of the above
formats, but when fitted to the APS-C camera every one of
them will give the same image.

>
>> --
>> Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!
>

--
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 1:45 pm
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:50:19 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> As a parent, don't you feel you should have some say-so about whether
>> or not your kid's picture is on some unknown-to-you photographer's
>> website? You think anyone should be able to snap your kid's picture
>> and post it on that person's gallery without your approval?
>
>I might not like it, but that doesn't mean I can (or should) do anything
>about it.

What you are saying is that a photographer should have more rights
than a parent. Or, really, more latitude to exercise his rights. In
my opinion, a concerned parent should no more roll over and meekly
agree - as you have - that he can't/shouldn't do anything about it
than a photographer should roll over and meekly agree that he
can't/shouldn't take photographs in a particular place.

If the parent objects or is concerned, he/she *should* do something
about it.

>Being paranoid about the possibility of someone snapping a
>photo of my kid is just that, paranoid.

"Paranoid" is an extreme and a statement of hyperbole. "Being
concerned enough to object" is a fairer statement.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 1:52 pm
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:55:43 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Absolutely true. How many priests have molested or otherwise abused
>children? Now compare that to the "danger" of some perv drooling over a
>picture of one of your kids. Sure, the latter is disgusting, but it's
>very unlikely, & how does it actually harm the kid?

Unbelievable! These pervs who are arrested for having thousands of
images of kiddie porn on their computers...you'd be on their side
because no harm was actually done?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 2:44 pm
From: nospam

In article <2lq525lqgeb1osiukbq9082erc1i3qos48@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >> As a parent, don't you feel you should have some say-so about whether
> >> or not your kid's picture is on some unknown-to-you photographer's
> >> website? You think anyone should be able to snap your kid's picture
> >> and post it on that person's gallery without your approval?
> >
> >I might not like it, but that doesn't mean I can (or should) do anything
> >about it.
>
> What you are saying is that a photographer should have more rights
> than a parent.

more like equal rights.

> Or, really, more latitude to exercise his rights.

exactly. so why are the parent's rights more important than the
photographer's?

> In my opinion, a concerned parent should no more roll over and meekly
> agree - as you have - that he can't/shouldn't do anything about it
> than a photographer should roll over and meekly agree that he
> can't/shouldn't take photographs in a particular place.

unless the photographer is breaking the law, there is *nothing* the
parent or anyone else can legally do to stop the photographer. period.

he has a right to be in public doing a legal activity, just as the
parents and their kids do. if they don't like it, they can go
elsewhere, perhaps to a place where there is a photography ban. or
just stay home.

> If the parent objects or is concerned, he/she *should* do something
> about it.

they can ask the photographer to stop, and assuming the photographer is
not breaking the law, he can rightfully continue doing what he's doing.
any further harassment and the parent is breaking the law.

> >Being paranoid about the possibility of someone snapping a
> >photo of my kid is just that, paranoid.
>
> "Paranoid" is an extreme and a statement of hyperbole. "Being
> concerned enough to object" is a fairer statement.

concerned is fine. violating the rights of another person is not.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which format is best to save in
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a844c0a0e183ad24?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 1:46 pm
From: Bob Larter

boothmarcus@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi
>
> After taking pictures in RAW, then converting them so Photoshop CS2
> can read them using Adobe DNG converter, & after adjusting them in
> CS2, what is the best format to save them in ie JPEG, TIFF, PSD etc.

PSD. Copy & resize to JPEG for printing or web use.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: When Highlanders get Bored with their Sheep
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bd918ce97f8a8d4b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 1:50 pm
From: Bob Larter

Stormin Mormon wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/dfy7vj
>
> It's clean. :)
>
> And funny.
>
> http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1137883380?bctid=170756
> 85001

Okay, that was hilarious.

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

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 2:13 pm
From: John McWilliams

Bob Larter wrote:
> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/dfy7vj
>>
>> It's clean. :)
>>
>> And funny.
>>
>> http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1137883380?bctid=170756
>> 85001
>
> Okay, that was hilarious.

Excellent!

link for those for whom above was broken:

<http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1137883380?bctid=17075685001>

--
john mcwilliams

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 2:22 pm
From: "Deep Reset"

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a22ed99$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/dfy7vj
>>
>> It's clean. :)
>>
>> And funny.
>>
>> http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1137883380?bctid=170756
>> 85001
>
> Okay, that was hilarious.

What was hilarious - the sheep running around, or the fact that Stormin'
Moron thought that Welsh people were Highlanders?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bathroom art photography of the human body models,so sexy!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/968ba87ce48cb15c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 1:56 pm
From: Bob Larter

viky wrote:
> Bathroom art photography of the human body models,so sexy!
> http://bodyartphoto.cn/Indoor-Body-Art-Photography/Bathroom-art-photography-of-the-human-body-models.html
> From: http://bodyartphoto.cn

It's a soft porn site, but at least with some cute girls on it.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon- CL-L2 Ballistic Nylon Lens Case Service Advisory
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0dbd4b5f208f274d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 2:21 pm
From: Bob Larter

The Parade of DSLR Morons Never Ends wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 23:27:51 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> It is a boring shot with no interest.
>
> You stupid fucking moron! LOL!!!!! It was posted to show you that using a
> tripod is a huge detriment to wildlife photography and is never necessary.
> A tripod is never an asset to being a decent wildlife photographer, nor is
> owning and using a DSLR. Unless you're a rank amateur who knows no better
> and you lack any camera skills whatsoever. I guess that be you! Hell, you
> can't even get the exposure set properly let alone know how to hold a
> camera correctly. Someone should take that thing away from you before you
> hurt yourself or someone else. Judging by your photos you certainly don't
> deserve to have ANY camera in your lame hands. Even worse, you are the last
> person on earth who should be handing out any advice about the subject.
> That much is perfectly clear.

Still waiting to see some of your amazing P&S wildlife shots...

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Problem with a Canon 50D
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a9a0f0506dd8c10b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 2:40 pm
From: Gary Edstrom

On Sat, 30 May 2009 13:43:50 -0700, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Gary Edstrom wrote:
>> My 4 month old Canon 50D has just developed a problem with the thumb
>> wheel located just behind the shutter release. No function that
>> requires its use functions anymore. Among other things, I can no longer
>> adjust the ASA value.
>>
>> Has anyone else seen a similar problem?
>>
>> I plan on calling Canon for warranty repair next Monday, but wanted to
>> see if anyone else has had a similar problem.
>>
>> In 4 years of use, my older 20D never had any problems.
>
>This may be a stupid question, but are you enabling the thumb wheel? I
>don't know about the 50D specifically, but my 40D's power switch has two
>positions - the first turns the camera on but leaves the thumbwheel
>disabled; the second enabled the thumbwheel.
>
>Not trying to be consescending or anything, it's just amazing the little
>things that get overlooked sometimes... I'm even guilty of it myself
>(try shooting a couple dozen frames and then realizing you don't have a
>card in the camera... duh!)

Yes, I know about the 2-position switch...I had used a 20D for 4 years
prior to getting the 50D. That is not the problem. I normally keep it
in the full-on position. No menu setting or anything else that requires
the use of the small thumb-wheel functions at all. Fortunately, the
settings are stuck in the mode that I use most of the time. So I was
able to continue using it on the trip I just got back from.

I am calling Canon Monday.

Gary

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 2:41 pm
From: Gary Edstrom

On Sat, 30 May 2009 07:12:02 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Bob AZ wrote:
>>> Has anyone else seen a similar problem?
>>>
>>> I plan on calling Canon for warranty repair next Monday, but wanted to
>>> see if anyone else has had a similar problem.
>>>
>>> In 4 years of use, my older 20D never had any problems.
>
>> I have owned a 20D and 40D and everytime there has been a problem it
>> is me.
>>
>> Canon has an 800 number to call that stays open until 10PM Eastern
>> Time. Each time I have called they talked me through things and
>> pointed out where in the manual the problem is discussed.
>
>Your first step would be to take the battery out for ten minutes. Then,
>if that doesn't reset/fix it, and a quick go through of menu settings
>has been done, dial 1-800......

I'll try the battery, but I can't go through the menu settings without
the use of the small thumbwheel. I can't get there from here!

Gary

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c04187075ef6f9c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 2:52 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>In message <871vq5o4a0.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>What do you define as "Public Domain"?
>>>
>>>Most public domain software has a copy right or license of one sort or
>>>another. In fact I don't know of any that does not.
>>
>>"Public Domain" means "The total absence of copyright
>>protection."
>
>Then that is different to the rest of the world.

No, that is quoted from a dictionary, and it happens to
be the same meaning that it has in the UK. And yes I did
a bit of research to verify that.

You need to research this topic rather than spouting
off with nonsense.

>>In fact, you cannot know of any Public Domain software
>>that is copyrighted or requires a license to use.
>
>In FACT. I do. I have a whole CD of it. PD software was quite common 15
>years ago. PD SW along with Shareware was often on the disks and CD's
>with computer magazines.

Look, get this one part of it straight: If it is PD it
does not have copyright protection and can be used
without any form of license at all.

Shareware is copyrighted, and is not in the Public
Domain.

>>Of course the laws regarding how a work becomes Public
>>Domain vary from country to country. In the US today it
>>is relatively difficult for a private individual to
>>produce Public Domain software!
>
>Not true in the legal sense. Only true by your personal definition.

That is not my personal definition. That is the legal
term of art definition.

>> Years ago it merely
>>meant not explicitly copyrighting something,
>
>Nope... All the PD SW I have is labelled as PD and has copyright and
>licenses.

"Article VII. This Convention shall not apply to
works or rights in works which, at the effective date
of this Convention in a Contracting State where
protection is claimed, are permanently in the public
domain in the said Contracting State."

If you read that carefully it clearly shows that the
Berne Convention does not provide copyright protection
to works that are in the Public Domain... by definition.
(The cite is Article 4 of the "Universal Copyright
Convention As Revised At Paris On 24 July 1971". I.e.,
the Berne Convention.)

>>but we
>>changed our laws to make copyright automatic,
>
>I think you changed your laws to fit in with the rest of the world. (Who
>had and still have PD SW. )

The Berne Convention was not implemented in the UK until
1988, even though they signed it in 1887. The last
revision the the Convention was in Paris in 1971 (and
ammended in 1979). The US was not compliant until March
1989, less than one year after the UK.

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

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 2:54 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <2009053111034211272-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom>,
>Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> > the raw decoding is part of the os and is available to *any* code that
>> > supports displaying images. if an app supports reading images at all,
>> > it can get all formats for free, including raw. when the os is updated
>> > for new cameras, then the apps automatically support them.
>>
>> ...and the OS isn't software??
>
>sure, but the point is that any app can read raw files without
>installing anything special. if an app can display jpegs it can
>display nikon and canon raw with no additional code.

That is not true.

The app might well be able to display the embedded JPEG,
but it cannot display an image from the raw data itself
without additional code to convert it. That conversion
can (and probably would) create a distinctly different
image than the embedded JPEG.

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

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 3:07 pm
From: nospam

In article <87vdnhkkf1.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:

> >sure, but the point is that any app can read raw files without
> >installing anything special. if an app can display jpegs it can
> >display nikon and canon raw with no additional code.
>
> That is not true.

it very definitely is true.

> The app might well be able to display the embedded JPEG,
> but it cannot display an image from the raw data itself
> without additional code to convert it.

the additional code is built into the operating system. absent some
user specified parameters, it will use predefined defaults. the app
can also specify whether it wants the jpeg or the raw, and can also
provide controls to tweak the image.

> That conversion
> can (and probably would) create a distinctly different
> image than the embedded JPEG.

yea and? neither one is a 100% exact rendition of the original scene.
maybe the jpeg is better, maybe it isn't. if it's that important,
write the app to display both and let the user decide.

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

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