Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Top flight DSLRs in novice hands
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a405372c4093d0be?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 11:53 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-23 23:00:10 -0700, DMac <d-mac@d-mac.info.delete> said:

> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-23 17:54:20 -0700, DMac <d-mac@d-mac.info.delete> said:
>>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2009-05-23 11:37:23 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> said:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> you sure you want that? It has turned out to be a nice lens, very useful.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the Sigma 12-24mm originally bought for the D70, my only
>>>> non-Nikkor. It has served me well.
>>>> Here is what it did on the D300;
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0386-2Ew.jpg
>>>
>>> That is a seriously overdone example of why you should never use HDR on
>>> a anything with lots of black and lots of white in it. Did you have a
>>> reason for this or were you just looking for a dramatic effect?
>>>
>>> I trialled a Sigma 12-24 for a week when they were first released and
>>> sent it back. Too many times it failed to focus properly. The Nikon
>>> wide zoom I bought instead has no such problems, even though it cost
>>> considerably more.
>>>
>>> IMO the only Sigma lens worth considering for a Nikon is the F/1.4,
>>> 30mm. Even this does what the 12-24 does with auto focus but to a
>>> lesser extent. It's a lot easier to manual focus a fixed FL lens than
>>> mess around with disengaging auto.
>>>
>>> Funny... I wouldn't have hesitated to buy a Sigma lens for the Canon
>>> DSLRs I sold so cheaply last year to buy into Nikon after 5 years with
>>> Canon but then I discovered the resolving power of most Nikon lenses
>>> exceeded the Sigma lenses by a visible amount when I enlarged the image.
>>>
>>> Got any more HDR shots?
>>>
>>> Doug
>>
>> Doug, Doug, Doug,
>>
>> This was not a request for a Doug critique.
>> If I had asked for your opinion I might have actually phrased things that way.
>> What I actually did with the RAW file was my business. I posted that
>> file just to show Paul what I had done with that lens.
>>
>> I have had that 12-24 for 4 years now with no significant problems.
>> Your opinion is just that, your opinion. This lens does a reasonable
>> job for me, and Paul seems to find it satisfactory.
>>
>> Where you ever got the idea that was HDR beats me. In this case your
>> fine professional eye failed you.
>> Not even a thought of HDR .
>> This was just a screwing around shot with a bit of CS4 manipulation,
>> and this is what I came up with. Nothing special just a wide shot.
>>
>> If I share any HDR shots I create I will actually note they are HDR, so
>> don't make assumptions.
>
> You don't have to request critique. Just posting a link to an image in
> a public forum is sufficient to get it. Next time why not send the link
> to Mr Furman personally? Although I'd have a guess he's already lifted
> your images and begun altering it, ready to claim it's his.

We will cross that bridge if we ever come to it. At this stage of my
life my artistic integity (whatever that means) & ego do not feel
threatened by Paul.
I shoot RAW and I haven't exactly surrendered that file to anybody.
>
> Just like he did to my images when he didn't like the way I showed
> everyone that a $500 camera was the equal of a $3000 outfit. He came
> within hours of losing everything he owns when he took the advise of
> another regular here and left the images on his site, claiming for
> nearly a year they were copyright to him.

I don't want to be too disparaging, but the long term interchange you
engaged in with several contributers to the various photo NGs presented
you in a strange light. I was not a part of any of those discussions as
I was in not involved in any way. I thought the entire interaction
peurile.
>
> Take some advise Savageduck... Be careful what you post and link to
> from groups that Paul Furman subscribes to. If he decides he doesn't
> like what you have to say, he'll just steal your images and alter them
> to reinforce his attempts to discredit you.

Wait until you have been in a criminal Court and had a defence attorney
try to discredit you. I understand the nature of Usenet. There will be
those who disagree and argue that difference to the point of appearing
quite kooky, even if, in a face to face meeting they would be most
personable.

> Women can change... Men never do.

...speak for yourself.

> Doug

--
Regards,
Savageduck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: There's only one reason to buy a camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2a1e02595cda7025?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 12:48 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:gv3p8c$mm1$1@qmul...
>
> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4a13a8ad@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> That's for sure. I'd have loved to get the top end DSLR but couldn't
>>> afford one, so I bought an entry level instead. And, I probably shoot
>>> as many (if not more) pics with one of several P&S cams (in order to
>>> save wear and tear on the DSLR). I do my practice shots with the
>>> cheaper ones. Then, when I have something close to what I'm looking for
>>> with the compact, I do the final pics with the XSi.
>>
>> You don't need to worry about wear & tear on your DSLR. Just thrash the
>> shit out of it, because it'll be obsolete by the time you wear it out
>> anyway. ;^)
>>
>
> Yes that's a good point too, the same can be said of computers.
> Not forgetting that generally better cameras/computers get cheaper all the
> time.
>
>

Sad, but true...

However, I think I put my cams through a bit more shock therapy than most.

For instance, we went to the Calgary zoo last weekend. I'd been looking
forward to it for quite some time. I mean, it's not everyday I get to shoot
tigers, lions, etc.

Unfortunately, I twisted my ankle the day before we left, so was hobbling a
bit on the trip. When we got to the zoo, I was juggling Mich's harness,
backpack and camera with one hand while opening the door with the other.
Ended up dropping the cam and broke a UV filter (which I ddon't normally
use). In addition to breaking the filter, it got pushed / jammed into the
end of the lens, so I never got to take a shot that day, since the only
other lens I brought was an old 75 - 300mm lens that doesn't autofocus very
well.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that it's tricky handling a dog and a
camera at the same time, so I use the P&S a lot.

BTW, haven't got the damaged lens into the shop yet, so I don't know what
the repair cost will be. I'm hoping the lens itself didn't get damaged,
other than the filter threads.

Take Care,
dudley

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 12:48 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:75jg159j31tvmm2te2tea8lke7o7t51lcj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 02:09:23 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca>
> wrote:
> :
> : "Nicko" <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote in message
> :
> news:6a8ca881-5370-4089-8e0b-c255b245e590@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> : On May 18, 5:53 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
> : > You are happy enough with the features and quality to shell out the
> cash.
> :
> : You forgot the part about wanting to make photographs that meet your
> : needs. I have noticed that people tend to forget that one on this
> : forum.
>
> YOP...
>
>
> What part of "You are happy enough with the features and quality to shell
> out the cash" do you not understand?
>
> "Quality" covers "pphotographs that meet your needs" ...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
> I once worked for a company that was committed heart and soul to
> "quality".
> They defined it very precisely as doing the exact absolute minimum the
> customer would accept.
>
> Bob

When it comes to business, that's probably what the customer gets in the
vast majority of cases; one can't expect much more.

Take Care,
dudley

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 12:59 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Nick" <nick.s@fume.co.uk> wrote in message
news:77h4l0F1h4h60U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
> news:vFlQl.28583$PH1.21953@edtnps82...
>> You are happy enough with the features and quality to shell out the cash.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
>> --
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
> You got it in one, nearly.
> People buy a camera to take photos.
> Unfortunately the other stuff is only evident post purchase.
>

That's why we talk to friends, take a look at their pics, ask their
opinions, and after we make our choice, find out we still got it wrong...
:)

Take Care,
dudley

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 2:04 am
From: Ron Hunter

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:gv3p8c$mm1$1@qmul...
>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4a13a8ad@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> That's for sure. I'd have loved to get the top end DSLR but couldn't
>>>> afford one, so I bought an entry level instead. And, I probably shoot
>>>> as many (if not more) pics with one of several P&S cams (in order to
>>>> save wear and tear on the DSLR). I do my practice shots with the
>>>> cheaper ones. Then, when I have something close to what I'm looking for
>>>> with the compact, I do the final pics with the XSi.
>>> You don't need to worry about wear & tear on your DSLR. Just thrash the
>>> shit out of it, because it'll be obsolete by the time you wear it out
>>> anyway. ;^)
>>>
>> Yes that's a good point too, the same can be said of computers.
>> Not forgetting that generally better cameras/computers get cheaper all the
>> time.
>>
>>
>
> Sad, but true...
>
> However, I think I put my cams through a bit more shock therapy than most.
>
> For instance, we went to the Calgary zoo last weekend. I'd been looking
> forward to it for quite some time. I mean, it's not everyday I get to shoot
> tigers, lions, etc.
>
> Unfortunately, I twisted my ankle the day before we left, so was hobbling a
> bit on the trip. When we got to the zoo, I was juggling Mich's harness,
> backpack and camera with one hand while opening the door with the other.
> Ended up dropping the cam and broke a UV filter (which I ddon't normally
> use). In addition to breaking the filter, it got pushed / jammed into the
> end of the lens, so I never got to take a shot that day, since the only
> other lens I brought was an old 75 - 300mm lens that doesn't autofocus very
> well.
>
> Anyway, the moral of the story is that it's tricky handling a dog and a
> camera at the same time, so I use the P&S a lot.
>
> BTW, haven't got the damaged lens into the shop yet, so I don't know what
> the repair cost will be. I'm hoping the lens itself didn't get damaged,
> other than the filter threads.
>
> Take Care,
> dudley
>
>
Hummm. Dogs and zoos don't normally mix. How did the dog do around
said lions and tigers?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thanks DiaperWulf!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6e804ef6b647fa27?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 1:08 am
From: Bob Larter

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> You got lil Whinel to come on out of his shell and post this:
> http://nop.dreamwidth.org/
>
> ...nice.
>
> Apparently his sister's name is Naomi, you can see her pic here:
> http://nop.dreamwidth.org/1938.html
>
> The old d00d is Lionel's dead uncle Rick, who died of cancer...

And your point is...?

> My favorite part about the whole thing is how Whinel thinks he's some
> kind of a ~professional~ photographer.

Show us where I have ever claimed to be a professional photographer?
Let's see a MID or two, eh DiaperBoi?

> *snicker* Sure Whinel, sure.
> Let's see you name even *ONE* single professional level photography
> job that you were apart of. Doesn't have to be anything too major,
> maybe just a magazine ad or something. Here, I'll go first...
> http://www.stargazerrestaurant.com/

Are you seriously claiming to have done the photos in that web page?

> I did their billboard ads:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_adg/In_Progress_4.png
> Okay, you next! ^__^

The smaller graphic is so overly-compressed that it's crawling with
artifacts. You're as bad at editing graphics as you are at flaming.

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

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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 1:44 am
From: Ron Hunter

Doug Jewell wrote:
> 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.
> Assuming that the 8 x 1GB cards are of equal quality as the
> 1 x 8GB card, the risk of having a single bit failure across
> the total 8GBs of storage is equal. The risk of having a
> complete card failure is 8 times greater for the 8x1GB
> cards, but offsetting that is that the potential loss with
> the 8GB card will be up to 8 times as great.
>
> If you are only using 1 x 8GB card or 8 x 1GB card, then the
> risk of losing cards will be higher with the 8 cards,
> because they will be accessed more often. The 8GB would live
> in the camera and wouldn't likely be removed. Of course
> though, if you do lose a card the potential loss is 8x
> greater if it is the 8GB card.
>
> At the end of the day, I can't see any real risk benefit in
> using one over the other, so long as they are high quality
> cards to begin with. I'd rather use 8 x High Quality 1GB
> cards than 1 x cheap 8GB card, and vice-versa I'd rather use
> 1 x high quality 8GB card than 8 x cheap 1GB cards.
>
> Considering the way memory pricing has gone though, I'd
> hazard a guess that the fakers are more likely to
> concentrate on the high capacity cards than the low capacity
> cards, so there is probably a greater chance of unknowingly
> buying a dodgy 8GB card.
>
Well, with 8GB cards going for under $20, cost doesn't seem to be a factor.
I still would be very wary of putting 8GB of images on ANY single media.
Yes, they are reliable, but anything can break, and it is possible to
lose one, or even the camera, so your whole vacation is without
pictures.... I would consider that worse than losing the camera.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 1:56 am
From: Ron Hunter

Doug Jewell wrote:
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>> I've seen this complaint before, but for the life of me I don't understand
>> how that can happen. The CF card should be precisely guided by the slot onto
>> the pins, and I don't see how you could make it do otherwise even if you
>> deliberately tried to. Unless those card readers just weren't designed or
>> made properly.
> Likewise it's got me stumped how people do it. I don't have
> a CF camera anymore, but never had trouble when I did, and
> for quite a while I was using CF cards as temporary storage
> (like thumb drives), because the main computers I used had
> CF readers, and I had a bunch of CF cards. Never had a problem.
>
> But when I was in the camera retail trade, it was a
> never-ending source of dramas. Seemed to be pretty much
> every week we'd have someone bring in their camera in with a
> bent pin. Despite the fact we sold more Canon & Sony CF
> cameras than Nikon CF cameras (because at the time the
> entire Canon & Sony range were CF, whereas it was only D200
> and higher in the Nikon), we had more Nikons with this than
> anything else. Next came Canon, and Sony came a distant 3rd,
> and surprisingly their repair costs were the lowest. Can't
> say I ever saw an Olympus with the problem, but we didn't
> sell very many of them.
>
> Repair costs ranged from about $300 to $600AUS, so it wasn't
> a cheap fix. The manufacturers always refused to do it under
> warranty, and of course it was us the humble retailer that
> copped the flack from the customer over it. Try telling a
> customer who bought a D3 off you last week, that their
> $7.5k(AUS) camera now needs to be sent away for 3 weeks, and
> it will cost them approx $500 to get it fixed. Did I mention
> I hate Nikon?
>
> I never heard of any problems with card readers - perhaps
> because they were cheap people just threw them away instead
> of trying to return them.
>
> Like you, I have no idea how someone manages to get bent
> pins, but somehow lots of people do.
>> I still have several cameras that use CF cards (just recently bought a brand
>> new D200 in fact), and I've never had any problem with any of them.
>>
>>
>
>
Lots of people subscribe to the old adage:
Don't force it, get a bigger hammer. If the card doesn't go in easily,
they use more force.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 2:46 am
From: Doug Jewell

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Doug Jewell wrote:
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen this complaint before, but for the life of me I don't
>>> understand how that can happen. The CF card should be precisely
>>> guided by the slot onto the pins, and I don't see how you could make
>>> it do otherwise even if you deliberately tried to. Unless those card
>>> readers just weren't designed or made properly.
>> Likewise it's got me stumped how people do it. I don't have a CF
>> camera anymore, but never had trouble when I did, and for quite a
>> while I was using CF cards as temporary storage (like thumb drives),
>> because the main computers I used had CF readers, and I had a bunch of
>> CF cards. Never had a problem.
>>
>> But when I was in the camera retail trade, it was a never-ending
>> source of dramas. Seemed to be pretty much every week we'd have
>> someone bring in their camera in with a bent pin. Despite the fact we
>> sold more Canon & Sony CF cameras than Nikon CF cameras (because at
>> the time the entire Canon & Sony range were CF, whereas it was only
>> D200 and higher in the Nikon), we had more Nikons with this than
>> anything else. Next came Canon, and Sony came a distant 3rd, and
>> surprisingly their repair costs were the lowest. Can't say I ever saw
>> an Olympus with the problem, but we didn't sell very many of them.
>>
>> Repair costs ranged from about $300 to $600AUS, so it wasn't a cheap
>> fix. The manufacturers always refused to do it under warranty, and of
>> course it was us the humble retailer that copped the flack from the
>> customer over it. Try telling a customer who bought a D3 off you last
>> week, that their $7.5k(AUS) camera now needs to be sent away for 3
>> weeks, and it will cost them approx $500 to get it fixed. Did I
>> mention I hate Nikon?
>>
>> I never heard of any problems with card readers - perhaps because they
>> were cheap people just threw them away instead of trying to return them.
>>
>> Like you, I have no idea how someone manages to get bent pins, but
>> somehow lots of people do.
>>> I still have several cameras that use CF cards (just recently bought
>>> a brand new D200 in fact), and I've never had any problem with any of
>>> them.
>>>
>>
>>
> Lots of people subscribe to the old adage:
> Don't force it, get a bigger hammer. If the card doesn't go in easily,
> they use more force.
True. Reminds me of one of the bigger idiots who crossed my
path whilst in the camera retail trade. Idiot came in and
asked for an SD card for his camera. I noticed that in his
hand was a Kodak DC3400, the same model as my first digital
camera (very good camera BTW). I asked if he was buying for
that camera and yes he was, so I told him he'd need a CF
card, not an SD card. He didn't believe me, so I asked for
the camera, flipped open the door and showed him the size of
the slot, while at the same time holding a CF and an SD card
in my hand - To anyone with half a brain it would be obvious
that the CF card was the same size as the hole, and the SD
card was much much smaller. Anyway, he ended up buying the
CF card, but was muttering under his breath that he still
didn't believe me. I offered to put it in for him but that
wouldn't be necessary and off he went.
About 5 minutes later I'm on a phone call and Mr Idiot walks
in yelling and swearing that I sold him the wrong card, he
sees I'm on the phone, and pushed down the hangup button!!
He shoved the camera under my face and said that it was the
wrong card because the door doesn't even close now. One look
told me he had shoved it in the wrong way. But he had shoved
it in so hard that I couldn't remove it. Got a pair of
pliers and managed to pull it out after applying a LOT of
force. Under Mr Idiots nose, I turned the card around,
inserted it properly, closed the door and showed it to him
working, then gave him a telling off over hanging up the phone.

--
The Australian Labor Party couldn't run a pay dunny. They'd
have a queue half a mile long, and no-one on the seat.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 6:33 am
From: Grimly Curmudgeon

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Stan Trenton
<strentont@idontwantemail.com> saying something like:

> 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.

In your dreams, you sad git.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 8:50 am
From: Robert Coe

On Sat, 23 May 2009 19:56:53 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
:
:
: John McWilliams wrote:
: >> On Sat, 23 May 2009 19:36:02 -0700, Savageduck
: >
: >>>> You may jest, but the prolific or adventurous photographer and
: >>>> photo-journalist runs into this situation more times than you
: >>>> care to imag......
: >>> ...and the phantom troll returns, as a Walter Mitty version of a
: >>> photographer. You truly live in a fantasy World. Maybe one of
: >>> these days you might
: >>> actually buy yourself that P&S and take a few snap shots.
: >
: > But Walter Mitty was relatively charming.....
:
: I want to see Chapter Two.

Is that where he photographs the repairs to the Hubble Telescope?

Bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another source condemns 3:2 format
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/058d826c39e92f11?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 2:05 am
From: Ron Hunter

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 02:50:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
> : The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
> : Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
> : 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
> : too wide. ...
>
> Is that why digital television is replacing 4:3 with 16:9?
>
> Bob
No, it is because that is closer to the movie aspect ratio. NOT a good
fit for the human face, so you have to get used to foreheads, and chins
being 'cut off' in closeups. I HATE 16:9 format for television!

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 4:06 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <6YTRl.32869$OO7.8595@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> Shawn Hirn wrote:
> []
> > When I go out for long walks or bike rides in the park in my
> > neighborhood, I take my P&S camera with me. I love my Canon dSLR and
> > the lenses I have with it, but I have no desire to drag 50 pounds of
> > camera gear with me when I go out biking, with my god kids to their
> > swim club, or I am just walking home from work.
>
> You must have a lot of kit! I just checked, and my entire gadget bag with
> DSLR and 16-300mm VR lenses weighs less then 6 lbs.

Yup. I have several lenses, plus of course, the camera body, an external
flash. Various and sundry items to keep the lenses clean, extra
batteries, etc. My favorite lens ways three pounds, just for the lens,
but the optics quality is outstanding and it covers the I use the focus
length range I use the most.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 8:27 am
From: SMS

Shawn Hirn wrote:

> When I go out for long walks or bike rides in the park in my
> neighborhood, I take my P&S camera with me. I love my Canon dSLR and the
> lenses I have with it, but I have no desire to drag 50 pounds of camera
> gear with me when I go out biking, with my god kids to their swim club,
> or I am just walking home from work.

Wow, if you need to carry 50 pounds of camera gear to bring a D-SLR
you've got some issues.

Actually I found that action shots of kids swimming in the pool are best
done with a D-SLR because of the lack of shutter lag. Also, at my kid's
swim classes, the parents weren't allowed on the pool deck, so taking
photos from the bleacher seats was required, so a long zoom lens with
plenty of light gathering capability was needed.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Replacement battery brands?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/433178b61f856fd3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 7:21 am
From: "Jean"

I need to replace the battery for my camera (Pana FZ28). I don't want to pay the exorbitant price for a "Panasonic" branded battery - besides, I found the OEM battery to be insufficient in terms of actual mAh. There seem to be a lot of off brands available. Anyone have any recommendations for brands?

Jean

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 7:59 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Jean wrote:
> I need to replace the battery for my camera (Pana FZ28). I don't want
> to pay the exorbitant price for a "Panasonic" branded battery -
> besides, I found the OEM battery to be insufficient in terms of
> actual mAh. There seem to be a lot of off brands available. Anyone
> have any recommendations for brands?
>
> Jean

I went for Hahnel for a number of 3rd-party batteries. I've been happy
with what I got from 7-day shop as well:

http://www.7dayshop.com

David

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 8:47 am
From: me@mine.net

On Sun, 24 May 2009 10:21:36 -0400, in rec.photo.digital "Jean"
<Jean@spam.not> wrote:

>I need to replace the battery for my camera (Pana FZ28). I don't>
> want to pay the exorbitant price for a "Panasonic" branded battery
> - besides, I found the OEM battery to be insufficient in terms of
>actual mAh. There seem to be a lot of off brands available.
>Anyone have any recommendations for brands?

I've had a good experience with the Lenmar brand aftermarket battery for
the Nikon D200/300 EN-EL3e which I purchased from
http://www.thomas-distributing.com .

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 7:55 am
From: ray

On Sat, 23 May 2009 09:36:48 -0700, 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.
>
> Thanxs in advance.
>
> Marcus.
>
> Using Sony A300, dslr

FWIW - I always archive the original raw file. I figure I can get what I
need from it. Beyond that, I 'save' files in whatever format I need for
how I'm using them - most often jpeg.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 8:17 am
From: Don Stauffer

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.
>
> Thanxs in advance.
>
> Marcus.
>
> Using Sony A300, dslr

As long as you have any idea of editing them, save them in the native
format of your image editor, i.e, PSD for photoshop, etc. If you are
absolutely sure you will do no more editing, you can save them in jpeg
with a low compression setting and it can save you a bit of hard drive
space, or tiff if you have a big drive.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ford, The Survivor
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 8:23 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/23/09 4:40 PM, in article
KYOdnYDYhdjk8IXXnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@giganews.com, "Neil Harrington"
<secret@illumnati.net> wrote:

>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C63D86AF.2AFF3%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/23/09 8:29 AM, in article
>> dLadnU7G1s7CZ4rXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Neil Harrington"
>> <secret@illumnati.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2009052221241677923-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>>>> On 2009-05-22 21:13:56 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:40:41 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>> <secret@illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm an independent. Actually I was a registered Democrat for 58
>>>>>> years --
>>>>>> until last year when I changed to unaffiliated. But I don't think I
>>>>>> ever
>>>>>> voted Democrat in a national election. I was a Democrat originally for
>>>>>> local
>>>>>> small-town reasons, nothing to do with political philosophy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm similar, but the reverse. I've been a registered Republican since
>>>>> 1959, but I haven't voted for a Republican for national office in many
>>>>> years. I do vote for some, but not many, Republicans for local
>>>>> office. I remain registered as a Republican so I can vote in the
>>>>> Primary for the opponent of any Republican candidate who is backed by
>>>>> the Christian Coalition or any similar organization.
>>>>
>>>> I am embarrased to say the last Republican I voted for was Nixon.
>>>>
>>>> Stupid, but I bought the Vietnamization program. Oh well.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway I have been wary of Republicans, the Christian right, and
>>>> politicos
>>>> in general ever since.
>>>
>>> I certainly don't identify with "the Christian right," but they don't
>>> bother
>>> me that much either. It's creeping socialism and ever-increasing
>>> government
>>> intrusion and meddling that bother me, so I never vote Democrat in a
>>> national election. "That government is best which governs least." (Thomas
>>> Paine)
>>>
>>> In many ways, we've gotten too far away from our roots.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Once upon a time, on a farm in Virginia, there was a little red hen
>> who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few
>> grains of wheat. She called all of her neighbors together and said, 'If
>> we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me
>> plant it?'
>>
>> 'Not I,' said the cow.
>> 'Not I,' said the duck.
>> 'Not I,' said the pig.
>> 'Not I,' said the goose.
>>
>> 'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little! red hen and so she
>> did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
>>
>> 'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen.
>>
>> 'Not I,' said the duck.
>>
>> 'Out of my classification,' said the pig.
>> 'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow.
>> 'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose.
>>
>> 'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.
>>
>> At last it came time to bake the bread.
>>
>> 'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen.
>>
>> 'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow.
>>
>> 'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck.
>>
>> 'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig.
>>
>> 'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose.
>>
>> 'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.
>> She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to
>> see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little
>> red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.'
>>
>> 'Excess profits!' cried the cow. ( Nancy Pelosi)
>>
>> 'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
>>
>> 'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
>>
>> The pig just grunted in disdain. (Jimmy Carter)
>>
>> And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and
>> around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
>>
>> Then a government agent came. He said to the little red hen, 'You must
>> not be so greedy.'
>>
>> 'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen.
>>
>> 'Exactly,' said the agent. 'That is what makes our free enterprise
>> system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he
>> wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive
>> workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who lazy and
>> idle.
>>
>> And they all lived happily ever after, including! the little red hen,
>> who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.'
>>
>> But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again
>> baked bread, because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free.
>> And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.
>> Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one
>> cared... so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying
>> for.
>>
>> Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
>>
>> Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for the memories
>> from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under
>> oath, that they couldn't remember anything.
>>
>>
>> IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?!?
>
> <guffaw!>
>
> Yes indeed!
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A great time to be a delinquent debtor as well...
>
> Yep, that too. Much better a bad debtor than a GM or Chrysler bondholder,
> thanks to Obama & Co.
>
> Thanks for a great barnyard story, which I will promptly pass on to friends
> and relatives.
>
>
And you are quite welcome.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 8:25 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/23/09 5:15 PM, in article
ecKdnYePIc8Q6IXXnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Alan Browne"
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 23-05-09 17:40, Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "George Kerby"<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
>>>
>>> Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for the memories
>>> from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under
>>> oath, that they couldn't remember anything.
>>>
>>>
>>> IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?!?
>>
>> <guffaw!>
>>
>> Yes indeed!
>
> Great Kool-aid, eh?

Wrong metaphor.

"He's dead, Jim."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's just wrong
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06e32c9cd78fc6f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 8:28 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/23/09 11:39 AM, in article 4f8g151eh288b2kdbjk5afrdenlob3g5n3@4ax.com,
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 May 2009 18:10:25 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
> :
> : "George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> : news:C6381D93.2AA3D%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > On 5/18/09 8:45 AM, in article EDdQl.283$X6.35@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com,
> : > "Bowser" <over@the.rainbow> wrote:
> : >
> : >> George Kerby wrote:
> : >>>
> : >>>
> : >>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
> : >>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
> : >>> wrote:
> : >>>
> : >>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
> : >>>> front of
> : >>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
> : >>>>
> : >>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for
> : >>> you?
> : >>>
> : >>
> : >> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
> : >> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
> : >> of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
> : >> some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
> : >> and see what happened. And look what happened!
> : > I was playing "P.C." with the North vs. South thing, but DO look what
> : > happened!
> : >
> : > "Ladies and germs, we have a WIN-NAH!"
> :
> : OK, look, we all know that the northerners hate the southerners, but I bet
> : you don't know why. Barbeque. You simply can't get good barbeque up north,
> : and I don't think that's a coincidence at all. It's a GD barbeque
> : conspiracy, that's what it is! Once you've had the pulled pork at Charlie
> : and Jakes or Meemaws in Melbourne, FL, anything up north is simply sub-par.
> : People up here throw some chicken on the grill, slap on some sugar-sauce,
> : and call it barbeque. It ain't...
>
> Well, most southerners would spell it "barbecue" (or in large signs, possibly
> "Bar-B-Q"), but your point is well taken.
>
> FWIW, I've managed to read most of this thread (an act of largely unjustifed
> diligence) and have been surprised that no one seems to have directly
> mentioned the statue's most obvious allusion: The older girl is white, and the
> younger one is black, and there are those (I'm one of them) who grew up in the
> south and can remember when the two girls would not have been allowed to use
> the same drinking fountain in South Carolina. (I actually grew up in
> Mississippi, but the situation was the same.) The statue evidently celebrates
> the fact that we've put those times behind us.
>
> Bob
Actually, both of them are "bronze"...

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 9:00 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>FWIW, I've managed to read most of this thread (an act of largely unjustifed
>diligence) and have been surprised that no one seems to have directly
>mentioned the statue's most obvious allusion: The older girl is white, and the
>younger one is black, and there are those (I'm one of them) who grew up in the

That has been brought up several times. The symbolism
in that statue is fabulous. Note, for example, the
design of the water fountain... which is from the
1930's.

>south and can remember when the two girls would not have been allowed to use
>the same drinking fountain in South Carolina. (I actually grew up in
>Mississippi, but the situation was the same.) The statue evidently celebrates
>the fact that we've put those times behind us.

I don't think that is quite what it's about though.
It's from a time a little before that, when rather than
it all being behind us, we were at a point where
*helping* put it behind us was important.

And of course just how far we've advanced towards that
goal is a matter of opinion...

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall
by 12%
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/13c7f45bc1c23aa1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 8:46 am
From: Chris Malcolm

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <3bog15tgvasrl3mi1cmr4etea368v2vkt9@4ax.com>, KarlArkansas
> <ka@address.com> wrote:

>> In reply to someone who has obviously never used any camera with IS in
>> either lens or body, nor studied the image effects of both ... be aware
>> that optical IS imparts excess CA when the optical elements are shifted
>> widely to compensate for a lot of motion.

> nonsense. chromatic aberration is not caused by optical stabilization.

Chromatic aberration is caused by bending a light ray at a glass-air
or glass/different-glass interface. The reason good lenses have little
chromatic aberration is that they go to considerable lengths of
optical engineering ingenuity to introduce cancelling chromatic
aberration. Generally speaking the better this is done the more
expensive the lens.

Optical image stabilisation works by bending the light a little bit
more in order to compensate for camera movement. So it's bound to
introduce some extra chromatic aberration. Of course in an an expenive
lens of high quality the designers will go to pains to compensate for
that too so as to keep it within the performance goals of the lens.

I'd be surprised, however, if on some Friday afternoon expensive
lenses, or some of the cheaper lenses, they didn't quite manage, and
careful testing would show the variation of chromatic aberration as
the IS shifts around.

--
Chris Malcolm

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 24 2009 8:49 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/23/09 1:07 PM, in article
ff07dff6-3c19-44d0-ab1f-9b7d3269e090@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com,
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:

> On May 23, 2:02 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> On 23-05-09 13:24, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/dfy7vj
>>
>>> It's clean. :)
>>
>>> And funny.
>>
>> Pretty old, that.
>
> There's nothing new about commenting that something is old.
>
> If someone hadn't seen it before, like me, it's new.
>
> More to the point, even if someone had seen it before, does it make it
> any less remarkable?
>
> R
Alan is a fuddy-dud.