rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Scenic areas in England - 16 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* MOMA "The Printed Picture" excellent exhibit - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0ad56d163f481d1b?hl=en
* Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late... - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555753247e2a15f7?hl=en
* The Ultimate Photo-Bag - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d379eb3ce3f36aff?hl=en
* May I know where to find these programs? - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/db6cd71e48b688fe?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Thurs, May 14 2009 11:58 pm
From: Wolfgang Schwanke
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in
news:J7udnR2wcp_XG5HXnZ2dnUVZ_hpi4p2d@giganews.com:
> Bear in mind that governments don't want to appear to be something that
> people perceive as bad, so they just change the definition to suit the
> current political trend.
So don't believe governments, politicians or propagandists and look it
up in a dictionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"economic theories of social organization advocating _collective
ownership and administration of the means of production and
distribution of goods_"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
so?cial?ism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting
of the ownership and control of the means of production and
distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition
of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect
implementation of collectivist principles.
You will find that all relevant sources agree.
> To say that the government must own the production, supply, and
> distribution systems in order to be 'socialist' is MUCH to narrow a
> construction for any American to go along with.
There seem to be a number of Americans in this thread who don't think
so. The only people who apparently disagree are American rednecks,
because they apparently misuse the term as a propaganda label for any
policy they dislike, particularly welfare systems. If the only people
you ever talk to are American rednecks that's not a problem, but if you
occasionally communicate with others, you better use the common
definition of the word to avoid misunderstandings.
--
There are still 27466510 unread articles in 24412 groups.
http://www.wschwanke.de/ http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/
usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 12:48 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-14 23:58:12 -0700, Wolfgang Schwanke <see@sig.nature> said:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in
> news:J7udnR2wcp_XG5HXnZ2dnUVZ_hpi4p2d@giganews.com:
>
>> Bear in mind that governments don't want to appear to be something that
>> people perceive as bad, so they just change the definition to suit the
>> current political trend.
>
> So don't believe governments, politicians or propagandists and look it
> up in a dictionary.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
> "economic theories of social organization advocating _collective
> ownership and administration of the means of production and
> distribution of goods_"
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
> so?cial?ism
> 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting
> of the ownership and control of the means of production and
> distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
> 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
> 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition
> of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect
> implementation of collectivist principles.
>
> You will find that all relevant sources agree.
>
>> To say that the government must own the production, supply, and
>> distribution systems in order to be 'socialist' is MUCH to narrow a
>> construction for any American to go along with.
>
> There seem to be a number of Americans in this thread who don't think
> so. The only people who apparently disagree are American rednecks,
> because they apparently misuse the term as a propaganda label for any
> policy they dislike, particularly welfare systems. If the only people
> you ever talk to are American rednecks that's not a problem, but if you
> occasionally communicate with others, you better use the common
> definition of the word to avoid misunderstandings.
Well you do seem to understand the nature of the beast.
As long as certain individuals continue to have their vocabulary
defined by drug addled radio talk show hosts, FOX News and select, over
the edge politicians, they will never accept standard definitions of
any word.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 1:26 am
From: Ron Hunter
Frank ess wrote:
>
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Frank ess wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> a fact, along with gun control (which didn't thankfully get
>>>>>>> into the nonsense about "only people are dangerous, guns are
>>>>>>> not dangerous" which is an attempt by the gun lobby to redefine
>>>>>>> language and logic) that proves there is a lot for Americans to
>>>>>>> find different by leaving their culture, however much the shape
>>>>>>> of mailboxes varies from state to state.
>>>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous, what about hammers,
>>>>>> baseball bats, knives, razor blades, and CARS?
>>>>> When was the last time somebody with a hammer, bat, or knife
>>>>> murdered twenty people?
>>>> Well if that's your criterion the weapon used in the worst mass
>>>> murder in US history was a commercial airliner, so I guess we
>>>> should ban them.
>>>>
>>>>>> and CARS?
>>>>> Cars require licenses. Guns don't.
>>>> Actually they don't. You do not need a license to either own or
>>>> drive a car, as long as you do not do it on public roads.
>>>>
>>>>>> Why not ban them too?
>>>>> Cars require licensing and registration and regular fees. Why
>>>>> not apply those to guns as well?
>>>> One needs a license to drive a car on a public road but not if it
>>>> is only driven on private property. One in most states in the US
>>>> needs a license to carry a firearm in public. So you already have
>>>> what you claim that you want. Are you happy?
>>> Well, then, if I remember correctly, it was a few years back that
>>> every registration renewal carried a notice that beginning (date)
>>> traffic laws would be enforceable on private property to which the
>>> public has access. Shopping center parking lots, for example.
>>> Seems to me unlicensed driving in a shopping center parking lot
>>> would then be an offense. Even if only driving on private property.
>>>
>> I think he means on your personal property. Many of us grew up
>> driving well before the 'legal age' for driving as we had large
>> expanses of land on which to practice. Lots of people 10 and up
>> drive tractors, and trucks, and other farm machinery on their
>> family farms. In some parts of the US such private property can
>> stretch for many miles.
>
> Yes, I know. I did much of my early learning of vehicle dynamics on
> agricultural tools on agricultural land.
> I chose to pick the nit I did just for edificational purposes. I
> ignored the driving a public road on private property thing, and I
> failed to mention that the registrations I mentioned were
> California's, so now it's mentioned.
>
> What really, /really/ ought to be licensed is child-rearing. Get your
> certificate prior to conceiving.
>
VERY true. On the other hand, thing of all the problems caused by the
methods promulgated by Dr. Spock back in the 1960's and later. He
finally admitted his theories hadn't worked out well at all.
Fortunately, some parents just went with what they KNEW worked, the way
their parents had raised them.
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 5:20 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Princess Tiaamii" <michaelnewport@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:02b96f72-622e-4411-a7a9-b93aaf726136@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> If it's only the innocent that have access to guns then fine, but crime
> stats tend to
> show that criminals too use guns and far more often and with more
> devastating effects
> on other humans beings than the innocents do.
the good thing about guns is that they stop terrorism
No they don't, the only people that guns stop are freedom fighters :)
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 5:43 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:WCXjmsKG8CDKFAYc@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <guh5vu$koo$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>
>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>They are aren;t they.
>
> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged with firing
a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
I guess every gun fired is being used properly then.
we British aren't found of friendly fire either ;-)
>
>>>what about hammers, baseball bats, knives, razor blades, and CARS? Why
>>>not
>>>ban them too?
>>
>>We (UK) do under certain conditions.
>>
>>But it's not that difficult to work out which is more dangerous.
>>That's one of the reason we and I assume the USA doesn;t sent it's troups
>>to
>>Iraq and Afghanistan with hammers rather than tanks, aircraft, missles &
>>rockets.
>
> But they do carry knives, batons and pick axes.
They probably carry condoms too, but do they really have much luck
getting Muslim women drunk in bars.
>>> Point me to ONE case where a gun jumped out of a locked drawer, or case,
>>> and shot someone. Just one, please.
>>
>>How about you tell me one case where a gun has jumped out of a locked draw
>>to save a life or protect an innocent person(s ).
>>or even one isnstance where a gun has done anythinjg by itself .
>
> Ditto knives, baseball bats, clubs, chemicals etc
Chemicals can do all sorts of things al by themselves if left unattended.
> It is not the object but the user.
So long as the user and the object never come together then I have no
problem
there can be as many guns as they want.
Tell you what I'll buy you any gun you like provided you let me post it to
Hadley delta mountion on the moon, but you pay Post and packing. ;-)
> What is different is the state of mind and perception of the user.
And minds can get in quite a state, how many states are there in the USA ;-)
> In the US is it is generally normal to think of using a private firearm
> for self defence. It did not usually cross the mind of the average UK
> gun owner.
No but it will we have school kids carry knives but they all carry then for
self defence.
If someone looks at them in the wrong way they know they can argue with them
and cause a fit. But they know they have a knife they can use to defend
themselves
from looks, words, even whole sentences if there attacker manages to get a
whole sentence out that is.
>>> Guns are TOOLS. How they are used is the crux of the matter.
>>yep I agree with that, but then again so is fire and a nuclear warhead.
>
> Fire kills more people than nuclear war heads. :-)
yes and people called Will are far more susceptible to being fired at. ;-)
run for the hills . :)
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 5:45 am
From: News Journalism
Tony Cooper of Orlando, Florida is a notorious net kook who has kicked
around newsgroups for yonks. He's infested about every newsgroup at
one time or another. Nurse Rachett should take away his internet
access. Tony Cooper has repeatedly conceded that Dr. Rex Curry's work
is correct and Tony Cooper has never disputed any part of it (just as
Cooper did not dispute a single thing in the original post) and Tony
Cooper of Orlando, Florida always embarasses himself by his same
kindergarten evasion, just as above, in which Cooper displays his
childish ignorance and his intellectual dishonesty. What next? Will
Cooper claim that all the photos at http://rexcurry.net are fakes?
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 5:49 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:J7udneKwcp85GZHXnZ2dnUVZ_hpi4p2d@giganews.com...
> More people are killed in cars in the US than in the last two wars we have
> been in,
So, the last two world wars only lasted about 10 years.
More people were killed in concentration camps than on 9/11 .
So why all the fuss over 9/11
More people die of AIDS too.
> by a LARGE margin, and more people are killed in cars each YEAR than died
> in any year of VietNam. Your argument doesn't hold any water.
The facts do though, more people die of old age too.
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 5:52 am
From: News Journalism
Using the outstretched salute is NOT a tradition that goes all the way
back to the ancient Romans, but that is a common myth. The stiff-arm
gesture
originated in the USA (from the Pledge) along with the robotic
ritualism of chanting to the national flag in government schools.
Dr. Rex Curry showed that the "ancient Roman salute" is a modern myth
that grew during and after the lives of Edward Bellamy (1850-1898) and
Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). http://rexcurry.net/roman-salute-oxford-english-dictionary.html
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 5:55 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:o-GdnQadrbRrO5HXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> What really, /really/ ought to be licensed is child-rearing. Get your
> certificate prior to conceiving.
>
> --
> Frank ess
Yes, what a great idea in fact it far to much of a good idea to become law.
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 5:59 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:J7udneCwcp_LHpHXnZ2dnUVZ_hpi4p2d@giganews.com...
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> Don't far more people die by motor car than knives and guns added
>> together?
>>
> Yep, and not a few of those are by intent! Almost anything can be turned
> into a weapon, if the wielder has the intent.
Yes, and that why you should be very warey of anyone carrying a
rubber chicken.
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 6:15 am
From: Chris H
In message <gujo4h$flt$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:WCXjmsKG8CDKFAYc@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <guh5vu$koo$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>
>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>>They are aren;t they.
>>
>> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>
>Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged with firing
>a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
>
>I guess every gun fired is being used properly then.
>
>we British aren't found of friendly fire either ;-)
I know I am British and been on the receiving end of it.
>>>to
>>>Iraq and Afghanistan with hammers rather than tanks, aircraft, missles &
>>>rockets.
>>
>> But they do carry knives, batons and pick axes.
>
>They probably carry condoms too,
Yes, they have a multitude of uses
>> It is not the object but the user.
>
>So long as the user and the object never come together then I have no
>problem
It depends on the user.
>> What is different is the state of mind and perception of the user.
>And minds can get in quite a state, how many states are there in the USA ;-)
Geographical or mental? :-)
>> In the US is it is generally normal to think of using a private firearm
>> for self defence. It did not usually cross the mind of the average UK
>> gun owner.
>
>No but it will we have school kids carry knives but they all carry then for
>self defence.
True.
>If someone looks at them in the wrong way they know they can argue with them
>and cause a fit. But they know they have a knife they can use to defend
>themselves
>from looks, words, even whole sentences if there attacker manages to get a
>whole sentence out that is.
I have never been convinced of the self defence argument for civilians
to have guns. Usually the wrong mind set.
>>>> Guns are TOOLS. How they are used is the crux of the matter.
>>>yep I agree with that, but then again so is fire and a nuclear warhead.
>> Fire kills more people than nuclear war heads. :-)
>yes and people called Will are far more susceptible to being fired at. ;-)
True. As is any non-American if there is an armed American within 1000
feet.
>run for the hills . :)
You can't keep up with me...
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 6:34 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:J7udnR2wcp_XG5HXnZ2dnUVZ_hpi4p2d@giganews.com...
>
> Bear in mind
You mean a teddy bear as I think that's what m,ost UKers will have in their
mind,
while Americans might think of grisslly bears. :)
> that governments don't want to appear to be something that people perceive
> as bad, so they just change the definition to suit the current political
> trend.
yes words are very important, it's especially important to be able to change
the meaning
of those words to suit oneself, see our MPs expense accounts.
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 6:30 am
From: "J. Clarke"
whisky-dave wrote:
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:o-GdnQadrbRrO5HXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>
>> What really, /really/ ought to be licensed is child-rearing. Get your
>> certificate prior to conceiving.
>>
>> --
>> Frank ess
>
> Yes, what a great idea in fact it far to much of a good idea to
> become law.
The trouble is that any person who has a child-rearing certificate issued by
the government probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere in the same county as
a child.
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 7:48 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-15 05:43:02 -0700, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:WCXjmsKG8CDKFAYc@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <guh5vu$koo$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>
>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>> They are aren;t they.
>>
>> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>
> Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged with firing
> a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
Because that is criminal and stupid!!
>
> I guess every gun fired is being used properly then.
No.
>
> we British aren't found of friendly fire either ;-)
When you are on the receiving end, you might "find" no fire friendly.
>
>
>
>>
>>>> what about hammers, baseball bats, knives, razor blades, and CARS? Why
>>>> not
>>>> ban them too?
>>>
>>> We (UK) do under certain conditions.
>>>
>>> But it's not that difficult to work out which is more dangerous.
>>> That's one of the reason we and I assume the USA doesn;t sent it's troups
>>> to
>>> Iraq and Afghanistan with hammers rather than tanks, aircraft, missles &
>>> rockets.
>>
>> But they do carry knives, batons and pick axes.
>
> They probably carry condoms too, but do they really have much luck
> getting Muslim women drunk in bars.
>
>>>> Point me to ONE case where a gun jumped out of a locked drawer, or case,
>>>> and shot someone. Just one, please.
>>>
>>> How about you tell me one case where a gun has jumped out of a locked draw
>>> to save a life or protect an innocent person(s ).
>>> or even one isnstance where a gun has done anythinjg by itself .
>>
>> Ditto knives, baseball bats, clubs, chemicals etc
>
> Chemicals can do all sorts of things al by themselves if left unattended.
>
>> It is not the object but the user.
>
> So long as the user and the object never come together then I have no
> problem
> there can be as many guns as they want.
> Tell you what I'll buy you any gun you like provided you let me post it to
> Hadley delta mountion on the moon, but you pay Post and packing. ;-)
Now this is just a silly attempt at humor.
>
>
>> What is different is the state of mind and perception of the user.
>
> And minds can get in quite a state, how many states are there in the USA ;-)
More sillyness.
>
>
>> In the US is it is generally normal to think of using a private firearm
>> for self defence. It did not usually cross the mind of the average UK
>> gun owner.
>
> No but it will we have school kids carry knives but they all carry then for
> self defence.
> If someone looks at them in the wrong way they know they can argue with them
> and cause a fit. But they know they have a knife they can use to defend
> themselves
> from looks, words, even whole sentences if there attacker manages to get a
> whole sentence out that is.
If you check statistics, you will find knife attacks and beating with
blunt objects, all of which result in mutilation and/or death, are
actually more prevalent in the USA are than firearm related death
and/or injury.
As a Law Enforcement Officer I am fully aware of the danger of having
knife wielding individual approach closer than 15-20 feet. Knife
attacks come without warning and are quick and deadly.
In pat down searches knives are considered deadly weapons and
individuals can, in California at least be charged with possession of a
deadly weapon.
In the case of a knife being used as a defensive weapon in a purely
physical altercation, the knife wielder would be guilty of
assault/battery with a deadly weapon.
In one case I investigated, one individual stabbed and mutilated three
victims in a matter of seconds. The injuries ranged from a puntured
lung, a through & through stabbing of a hand, clipping a piece off a
tongue, and traumatic amputation of a nose. That attacker was a
youngster out having fun, and is currently in State prison serving a 12
year sentence. All those victims did to provoke this attack was to try
to have an offensive individual leave their pizza parlor.
>
>
>>>> Guns are TOOLS. How they are used is the crux of the matter.
>>> yep I agree with that, but then again so is fire and a nuclear warhead.
>>
>> Fire kills more people than nuclear war heads. :-)
>
> yes and people called Will are far more susceptible to being fired at. ;-)
>
> run for the hills . :)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 7:52 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-15 05:59:25 -0700, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:J7udneCwcp_LHpHXnZ2dnUVZ_hpi4p2d@giganews.com...
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
>>> Don't far more people die by motor car than knives and guns added
>>> together?
>>>
>> Yep, and not a few of those are by intent! Almost anything can be turned
>> into a weapon, if the wielder has the intent.
>
> Yes, and that why you should be very warey of anyone carrying a
> rubber chicken.
Especially if they are clad in plate armour.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 8:56 am
From: "Mike"
On Fri, 15 May 2009 07:48:43 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>In one case I investigated, one individual stabbed and mutilated three
>victims in a matter of seconds. The injuries ranged from a puntured
>lung, a through & through stabbing of a hand, clipping a piece off a
>tongue, and traumatic amputation of a nose. That attacker was a
>youngster out having fun, and is currently in State prison serving a 12
>year sentence. All those victims did to provoke this attack was to try
>to have an offensive individual leave their pizza parlor.
Yes, carrying knives is bad.
--
Mike
==============================================================================
TOPIC: MOMA "The Printed Picture" excellent exhibit
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0ad56d163f481d1b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 1:11 am
From: Neil Ellwood
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:00:37 +0000, Tiro Verus wrote:
> Printing technologies from Renaissaince to present, one or a few
> examples of each, magnifications.
>
> Have you ever wondered about the difference between a Daguerreotype
> and an ambrotype? Are you curious about how etching creates a
> photographic verisimilitude? Are you in the dark when you hear terms
> like digital C-print and archival inkjet print? Wonder no more. Your
> questions will all be answered in the exhibit.
>
No. No. No. What questions?
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555753247e2a15f7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 1:15 am
From: Bob Williams
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>> We need to educate these people about the dangers of owning P&S
>>> cameras.
>>>
>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/760860/an/0/page/0#760860
>
>> The FZ-28 already has a 486mm (equivalent) lens.
>> Adding a 3X auxiliary lens would bring it up to 1458mm!!!
>> Try purchasing one of those puppies for your F.F. DSLR.
>
> You don't need to fiddle with extenders of questionable optical
> quality when you can buy high quality 2000mm and much bigger lenses.
Surely, you jest!
A 2000 mm lens (actually mirror optics)will cost you about $8,800 USD.
See;
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&shs=2000+mm+Telephoto+lens&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=24&Go.y=11&Go=submit
Also note that the carrying case is called a TRUNK and will set you back
another $669.
Bob Williams.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 2:27 am
From: Chris Malcolm
Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> We need to educate these people about the dangers of owning P&S
>>>> cameras.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/760860/an/0/page/0#760860
>>
>>> The FZ-28 already has a 486mm (equivalent) lens.
>>> Adding a 3X auxiliary lens would bring it up to 1458mm!!!
>>> Try purchasing one of those puppies for your F.F. DSLR.
>>
>> You don't need to fiddle with extenders of questionable optical
>> quality when you can buy high quality 2000mm and much bigger lenses.
> Surely, you jest!
> A 2000 mm lens (actually mirror optics)will cost you about $8,800 USD.
> See;
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&shs=2000+mm+Telephoto+lens&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=24&Go.y=11&Go=submit
> Also note that the carrying case is called a TRUNK and will set you back
> another $669.
> Bob Williams.
We're talking 2000mm (equivalent) here. Not quite the same thing, and
not nearly as expensive.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 2:55 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
Bob Williams wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> We need to educate these people about the dangers of owning P&S
>>>> cameras.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/760860/an/0/page/0#760860
>>>>
>>
>>> The FZ-28 already has a 486mm (equivalent) lens.
>>> Adding a 3X auxiliary lens would bring it up to 1458mm!!!
>>> Try purchasing one of those puppies for your F.F. DSLR.
>>
>> You don't need to fiddle with extenders of questionable optical
>> quality when you can buy high quality 2000mm and much bigger lenses.
>
> Surely, you jest!
> A 2000 mm lens (actually mirror optics)will cost you about $8,800 USD.
> See;
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&shs=2000+mm+Telephoto+lens&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=24&Go.y=11&Go=submit
>
> Also note that the carrying case is called a TRUNK and will set you back
> another $669.
Only if you buy one dedicated as a telephoto camera lens.
OTOH you can buy a fairly decent almost diffraction limited optics Meade
or Celestron SCT for considerably less including a tripod and motor
drive. At this size you hang the camera off the lens/telescope and they
are of limited use terrestrially because of haze and thermals. eg
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=1-600-603-619-7853
The other point to make here is that a whole bunch of after market guys
make adapters to allow any P&S to be put behind the eyepiece of a
telescope to photograph wild birds and the like. Digiscoping will get
you plenty of good leads. BCF and SRB in the UK offer suitable adaptors.
I presume this thread originated from a "Rich" troll.
Regards,
Martin Brown
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Ultimate Photo-Bag
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d379eb3ce3f36aff?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 4:38 am
From: Hachiroku
On Thu, 14 May 2009 15:05:22 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-14 14:52:15 -0700, Hachiroku ハチロク <Trueno@e86.GTS> said:
>
>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 11:54:01 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>>> I get them at the Salvation Army for <$5. If you're patient, you can
>>>> find some good stuff there. I even bought a camera kit with a Ricoh
>>>> KR-5 'student camera' (really good images and a great, forgiving
>>>> camera to use for 'snapshots'), lenses and flash for $15!
>>>
>>> Remember, "sometimes less is more" it is nice to have access to all
>>> your stuff, but if you overload yourself there are problems. On a
>>> hike, or in a museum, or even street photography too much can be a
>>> burdon which hinders your photography.
>>
>> I usually pick two cameras and two lenses for each, or two cameras, one
>> with two lenses ('normal' 50mm and a zoom) and another with a fixed
>> lens like a 135.
>>
>> If I pick the two Minoltas, the lenses are interchangable.
>>
>> A lot of the time I take two film and the Olympus so I don't have to
>> wait for processing (A whole HOUR!!!)
>
> Boy! you really load up!!
>
> I prefer to go lighter.
> Once I leave my vehicle I am down to a D300 with one or two (3 if I want
> to add to my selection confusion) lenses, depending on what I have in
> mind.
> Add to that a few field essentials and I am done.
>
> Lighten your load and you will be a lot more comfortable taking
> photographs.
The different camera/lens combinations have different characteristics.
I only carry this much when it's a specific goal to get some good photos.
For 'everyday' I usually just take the SRT101 or one of the Ricohs with 2
lenses, in a small bag, for the times I just happen to see something in
my travels. Those two are very easy to compose, quick and easy metering
and easy to grab lens rings. When I'm actually going to think about what
I'm shooting I grab another like the EOS A2 or the 8008.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: May I know where to find these programs?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/db6cd71e48b688fe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 4:44 am
From: Hachiroku
On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:57:55 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but can't add
>> any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only "happens" in movies and
>> TV shows.
>
> But only after the key player (pro/antagonist) says the magic words to
> the image technician:
>
> "Zoom in there, that's it, now __enhance that, will you__."
Really. Always wanted a copy of that software.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 5:46 am
From: "DRS"
"Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
And the military. The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
imagry.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 6:26 am
From: John J
DRS wrote:
> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>
> And the military.
Myth!
> The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
> that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
> imagry.
Nonsense. Most forms in our messy world cannot be literally reduced to
fractals, and thereby be the basis of up-scaling.
That's the kind of BS that Genuine Fractals tried to infer with their
product name. At the time popular publications were all excited by chaos
theory, fractals, all that.
It is over.
The only thing one can extrapolate is a perfectly decidable,
deterministic form's perfect base. Generally, our world, especially that
that you imagine the military to work in, is far too messy.
See recent work from, for example, Stephen Wolfram.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 6:59 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
DRS wrote:
> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>
> And the military.
And astronomers. But the magic words are point spread function and
deconvolution. Blind deconvolution if you are totally stuck. You can
only get a modest improvement of linear resolution in the very best
cases with excellent signal to noise data and you pay for it with
artefacts that were not actually present. It works best for point
sources on a mostly black background which belies its heritage. An
example is at:
http://www.astrovid.com/technical_documents/ASTROART%20SOFTWARE.pdf
However, if you need to read a numberplate or recognise a face that
small additional gain in fine detail can be significant. The problem is
usually couched in terms of finding a trial model of the world that when
measured with your imperfect imaging system would give the same blurred
image as you have actually observed (to within the noise).
There a lot of images that would fit this criterion so to choose a
representative one an additional constraint of either entropy or
smoothness is used to encourage good behaviour in the algorithm.
Software based on this approach was used to correct the early myopic
blurred Hubble space telescope images and determine the formulation of
COSTAR.
> The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
> that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
> imagry.
Fractals allow you to insert plausible fake detail at higher resolutions
that don't look out of place because it is self similar to the actual
image data. But it cannot get you magical results whatever the marketing
men may want to have you believe.
Regards,
Martin Brown
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment