Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How can I improve my shoots?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/20f68722a0441cc5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 3:47 am
From: Chris Malcolm

Atheist Chaplain <abused@cia.gov> wrote:
> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:76l48jF1dmgmuU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Atheist Chaplain <abused@cia.gov> wrote:
>>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:76idu6F1cu6f8U2@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Atheist Chaplain <abused@cia.gov> wrote:
>>>>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:76g415F1bl9fpU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> Atheist Chaplain <abused@cia.gov> wrote:

>>>>>>> hmmm "flickr" rhymes with "arse licker"
>>>>>>> the site where everybody will leave a nice comment for you, and
>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same in return.
>>>>>>> some people regard very ordinary photo's as "Remarkable" and
>>>>>>> "Gorgeous"
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> "Fantastic"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flickr as a site doesn't do that. It's the photo pools of certain
>>>>>> specific interest groups which do that. Not surprisingly some have
>>>>>> been set up to maximise the number of gorgeous comments you get to
>>>>>> every photo. Not surprisingly other groups with other purposes avoid
>>>>>> doing that. Not surprisingly some people subscribe to as many
>>>>>> congratulatory groups as they can find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that's your experience of Flickr one wonders what you're
>>>>>> doing hanging out in the kind of groups you're sneering at :-)
>>>>
>>>>> you assume too much grasshopper, I used to look at photos on flickr,
>>>>> generally randomly and sometimes by category so I could get some
>>>>> motivation
>>>>> and see just how good some people are. I soon noticed that some very
>>>>> ordinary photos were getting rave reviews, and it was becoming more
>>>>> common.
>>>>
>>>> In which case your sneering criticism was as sensible as criticising a
>>>> library because while randomly browsing the shelves you'd noticed that
>>>> most of the books were rubbish.
>>
>>> no my criticism is IMHO justified, after all you have absolutely no idea
>>> just how much of Flickr I perused, your just assuming (again)
>>> My opinion is just as justified as anyone else's, if you disagree then
>>> that
>>> is your prerogative. but then it was you that also mentioned that it does
>>> indeed happen "Flickr as a site doesn't do that. It's the photo pools of
>>> certain specific interest groups which do that. Not surprisingly some
>>> have
>>> been set up to maximise the number of gorgeous comments you get to every
>>> photo."
>>
>> Let me try to explain this very simply to you.

[snip explanation since obviously too difficult]

>> So just as it would be incorrect to categorise everyone using my
>> newsagent as a pornography fan, it would be incorrect to categorise
>> everyone who uses Flickr as an Arse Licker.
>>
>> Speaking personally not only have I improved my photographic skills a
>> lot with what I've learnt from Flickr, but I have made a number of
>> good local friends via Flickr whom I often meet in person. It's true
>> that the Arse Lickers are an annoyance, but like newsgroup trolls,
>> it's not too hard to avoid them. I found it well worth the effort of
>> doing so.

> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
> photographic skills, but my point still remains (however you try justify
> yours) flickr had a cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day,
> that's why I left and went to Smugmug, if I post a mediocre photo, I want to
> know why it is mediocre, not have some self serving praise junkie try and
> blow smoke up my arse. At east when someone takes the time to comment in
> Smugmug I get told if its a good photo and why, I also get told if it sucks,
> and why.
> The end for me was when I posted a particularly lifeless photo as an
> experiment and was told by the praise junkies how wonderful it was, hell
> someone even mentioned that it had "Wonderful colour saturation" It didn't
> by the way.

> So defend flickr, I have no problem with that. But my experience was not
> that, and please, if your trying to compare my personal experience to yours
> with your snide little nudie magazine analogy, at least have the balls to
> try harder to look down your nose.

It's no effort I assure you. The point I was trying to explain to you
has completely gone over your head. I'm not denying the veracity of
your personal experience. I'm trying to explain to you why your
specific personal experience doesn't justify your sneering
generalisation based on rhyming "Flickr" with "Arse Licker".

> I have not encountered any of the groups where there was any such rule as
> you have to praise every (insert X number) for every shot you uploaded so I
> bow to your obvious experience there,

You clearly don't even know enough about how Flickr works to realise
that there's no need to "encounter" any such groups to experience the
fall out from them in commentary. No wonder you couldn't avoid the
arse lickers!

But a screen name like yours does suggest someone devoted to stirring
the sewage, quite apart from your general posting history.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 5:05 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Atheist Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov> wrote in message
news:4a0586e1@news.x-privat.org...
> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:76l48jF1dmgmuU1@mid.individual.net...

> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
> photographic skills,

How does flickr improve your skills I though it was just a place to show
photos.

>but my point still remains (however you try justify yours) flickr had a
>cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day, that's why I left
>and went to Smugmug,

I didn;t want some of my more private photos diplayed on flickr so
I set up my own website.
I use flickr to display photos in a similar way some use exibition halls.

> if I post a mediocre photo,
Why would you want to,

> know why it is mediocre,
So again why post it ?

> not have some self serving praise junkie try and blow smoke up my arse.
If they see something good in it then why does that worry you.
I don;t see much of any talent in Picassos paintings and I wouldn't piss on
them
if they were on fire, but some seem to think they are great and actually
worth more
than the picture of the tennis player scratching her arse.

>At east when someone takes the time to comment in
> Smugmug I get told if its a good photo and why, I also get told if it
> sucks, and why.
Well that's because you are after self satisfaction, your primary reason for
posting
is to find out what people think of your photos.
My primary reason for showing photos is so that other people might get some
pleasure in viewing them.

> The end for me was when I posted a particularly lifeless photo as an
> experiment and was told by the praise junkies how wonderful it was,

So, I'm sure the Spice girls or any number of boy bands are told what
wonder singers they are or how talented they are, do I care,
I know what I think and what a 14 year-old thinks wont' change my mind.

> hell someone even mentioned that it had "Wonderful colour saturation" It
> didn't by the way.
Why worry.

>
> So defend flickr, I have no problem with that.
it's not flickr that need defending it's just a photo sharing site.

> But my experience was not that, and please, if your trying to compare my
> personal experience to yours with your snide little nudie magazine
> analogy, at least have the balls to try harder to look down your nose.

I'd personally would have compared the Times to a tabliod.
if I want to see good photographs of sporting events I wouldn't buy the
Times

> I have not encountered any of the groups where there was any such rule as
> you have to praise every (insert X number) for every shot you uploaded so
> I bow to your obvious experience there,

There's no groups where you have to praise anyone, what there are is groups
were
you have to comment on one and post one and other variations.
It's a comment and post not a paraise and post.
Maybe you have a reading comprehension issue or is it a visual comprehension
issue ;-)

>I have also encountered the "helpful" groups as you describe, and again
>they helped lift my skills to just below average (IMHO)

That's not so bad is it ?
Rungs of a ladder are best taken in small steps.

> But then I found some of them to often be polluted by imperious gits who
> try and ignore the top shelf, but in reality, often sneak a peek when they
> think no one is looking.

So you're saying you can't ignore them ?

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:16 am
From: tony cooper

On 11 May 2009 10:47:22 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>It's no effort I assure you. The point I was trying to explain to you
>has completely gone over your head. I'm not denying the veracity of
>your personal experience. I'm trying to explain to you why your
>specific personal experience doesn't justify your sneering
>generalisation based on rhyming "Flickr" with "Arse Licker".
>

The problem with Flickr is finding a group where photographs are
reviewed and meaningful critiques are offered. There are so many
groups that are listed as "critique" groups where this is not the
case.

Searching for "critique" in Flickr, I see 127 groups. Some are
specialized subject matter groups (rock climbing, diptychs and
triptychs, etc) and some list fewer than ten members. Some claim to
offer critiques, but the "critiques" offered are like the one I just
got "Hey way cool". You are in a specialized geographic group where
there is a common thread between the posters and, thus, more intimacy.

I did get one meaningful critique, but that was from a very
accomplished photographer who has me linked as a contact because we
know each other from another newsgroup. He didn't find me in the
forum where the image was.

I'm still looking for a Flickr group where meaningful critiques are
the norm. I haven't found it, and I don't deny that one exists, but
it's not easy to find one.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:27 am
From: "Atheist Chaplain"

"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:gu94dv$qm$1@qmul...
>
> "Atheist Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov> wrote in message
> news:4a0586e1@news.x-privat.org...
>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:76l48jF1dmgmuU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
>> photographic skills,
>
> How does flickr improve your skills I though it was just a place to show
> photos.
>

because as some have said, there are people who will help by pointing out
ways to improve your shots, self assessment generally doesn't work all that
often.

>>but my point still remains (however you try justify yours) flickr had a
>>cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day, that's why I left
>>and went to Smugmug,
>
> I didn;t want some of my more private photos diplayed on flickr so
> I set up my own website.
> I use flickr to display photos in a similar way some use exibition halls.
>

Funnily enough Smugmug allows you to set up private folders, and again
anyone can set up a photo web site but how is that going to help improve
your skills, or are you already "Ansel Adams" in your own mind :-)

>> if I post a mediocre photo,
> Why would you want to,
>

because sometimes you don't know its mediocre unless you show it to others,
honest criticism is one of the fastest ways to learn what other people like
and where you might have gone wrong.

>> know why it is mediocre,
> So again why post it ?
>

see above

>> not have some self serving praise junkie try and blow smoke up my arse.
> If they see something good in it then why does that worry you.

It doesn't, but there are some who will put a positive comment expecting you
to return the favour, even though you suspect its not exactly the greatest
shot.

> I don;t see much of any talent in Picassos paintings and I wouldn't piss
> on them
> if they were on fire, but some seem to think they are great and actually
> worth more

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but honest peer praise is worth more

> than the picture of the tennis player scratching her arse.
>
>
> >At east when someone takes the time to comment in
>> Smugmug I get told if its a good photo and why, I also get told if it
>> sucks, and why.
> Well that's because you are after self satisfaction, your primary reason
> for posting
> is to find out what people think of your photos.

Exactly, I like to know what people honestly think and if there is some way
to make it a better shot.

> My primary reason for showing photos is so that other people might get
> some
> pleasure in viewing them.

Exactly, but what's the point if you think your posting the next ceiling of
the Sistine Chapel yet everyone else thinks it belongs in the cistern.

>
>> The end for me was when I posted a particularly lifeless photo as an
>> experiment and was told by the praise junkies how wonderful it was,
>
> So, I'm sure the Spice girls or any number of boy bands are told what
> wonder singers they are or how talented they are, do I care,

you obviously care enough to comment :-)

> I know what I think and what a 14 year-old thinks wont' change my mind.
>
>> hell someone even mentioned that it had "Wonderful colour saturation" It
>> didn't by the way.
> Why worry.
>
>>
>> So defend flickr, I have no problem with that.
> it's not flickr that need defending it's just a photo sharing site.
>
>> But my experience was not that, and please, if your trying to compare my
>> personal experience to yours with your snide little nudie magazine
>> analogy, at least have the balls to try harder to look down your nose.
>
> I'd personally would have compared the Times to a tabliod.
> if I want to see good photographs of sporting events I wouldn't buy the
> Times
>
>> I have not encountered any of the groups where there was any such rule as
>> you have to praise every (insert X number) for every shot you uploaded so
>> I bow to your obvious experience there,
>
> There's no groups where you have to praise anyone, what there are is
> groups were
> you have to comment on one and post one and other variations.
> It's a comment and post not a paraise and post.
> Maybe you have a reading comprehension issue or is it a visual
> comprehension issue ;-)

I didnt bring that up in the first place, it was Chris Malcolm that
mentioned those types of groups, see my comprehension is fine thanks, though
my eyesight is not improving with age so there might just be something in
that.

>
>>I have also encountered the "helpful" groups as you describe, and again
>>they helped lift my skills to just below average (IMHO)
>
> That's not so bad is it ?
> Rungs of a ladder are best taken in small steps.
>

true.

>
>> But then I found some of them to often be polluted by imperious gits who
>> try and ignore the top shelf, but in reality, often sneak a peek when
>> they think no one is looking.
>
> So you're saying you can't ignore them ?

well they keep commenting don't they :-)

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

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:37 am
From: "Atheist Chaplain"

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:76qe1qF1d89f6U1@mid.individual.net...
> Atheist Chaplain <abused@cia.gov> wrote:
>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:76l48jF1dmgmuU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Atheist Chaplain <abused@cia.gov> wrote:
>>>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:76idu6F1cu6f8U2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Atheist Chaplain <abused@cia.gov> wrote:
>>>>>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:76g415F1bl9fpU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> Atheist Chaplain <abused@cia.gov> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> hmmm "flickr" rhymes with "arse licker"
>>>>>>>> the site where everybody will leave a nice comment for you, and
>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> same in return.
>>>>>>>> some people regard very ordinary photo's as "Remarkable" and
>>>>>>>> "Gorgeous"
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> "Fantastic"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Flickr as a site doesn't do that. It's the photo pools of certain
>>>>>>> specific interest groups which do that. Not surprisingly some have
>>>>>>> been set up to maximise the number of gorgeous comments you get to
>>>>>>> every photo. Not surprisingly other groups with other purposes avoid
>>>>>>> doing that. Not surprisingly some people subscribe to as many
>>>>>>> congratulatory groups as they can find.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that's your experience of Flickr one wonders what you're
>>>>>>> doing hanging out in the kind of groups you're sneering at :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> you assume too much grasshopper, I used to look at photos on flickr,
>>>>>> generally randomly and sometimes by category so I could get some
>>>>>> motivation
>>>>>> and see just how good some people are. I soon noticed that some very
>>>>>> ordinary photos were getting rave reviews, and it was becoming more
>>>>>> common.
>>>>>
>>>>> In which case your sneering criticism was as sensible as criticising a
>>>>> library because while randomly browsing the shelves you'd noticed that
>>>>> most of the books were rubbish.
>>>
>>>> no my criticism is IMHO justified, after all you have absolutely no
>>>> idea
>>>> just how much of Flickr I perused, your just assuming (again)
>>>> My opinion is just as justified as anyone else's, if you disagree then
>>>> that
>>>> is your prerogative. but then it was you that also mentioned that it
>>>> does
>>>> indeed happen "Flickr as a site doesn't do that. It's the photo pools
>>>> of
>>>> certain specific interest groups which do that. Not surprisingly some
>>>> have
>>>> been set up to maximise the number of gorgeous comments you get to
>>>> every
>>>> photo."
>>>
>>> Let me try to explain this very simply to you.
>
> [snip explanation since obviously too difficult]
>
>>> So just as it would be incorrect to categorise everyone using my
>>> newsagent as a pornography fan, it would be incorrect to categorise
>>> everyone who uses Flickr as an Arse Licker.
>>>
>>> Speaking personally not only have I improved my photographic skills a
>>> lot with what I've learnt from Flickr, but I have made a number of
>>> good local friends via Flickr whom I often meet in person. It's true
>>> that the Arse Lickers are an annoyance, but like newsgroup trolls,
>>> it's not too hard to avoid them. I found it well worth the effort of
>>> doing so.
>
>> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
>> photographic skills, but my point still remains (however you try justify
>> yours) flickr had a cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every
>> day,
>> that's why I left and went to Smugmug, if I post a mediocre photo, I want
>> to
>> know why it is mediocre, not have some self serving praise junkie try and
>> blow smoke up my arse. At east when someone takes the time to comment in
>> Smugmug I get told if its a good photo and why, I also get told if it
>> sucks,
>> and why.
>> The end for me was when I posted a particularly lifeless photo as an
>> experiment and was told by the praise junkies how wonderful it was, hell
>> someone even mentioned that it had "Wonderful colour saturation" It
>> didn't
>> by the way.
>
>> So defend flickr, I have no problem with that. But my experience was not
>> that, and please, if your trying to compare my personal experience to
>> yours
>> with your snide little nudie magazine analogy, at least have the balls to
>> try harder to look down your nose.
>
> It's no effort I assure you. The point I was trying to explain to you
> has completely gone over your head. I'm not denying the veracity of
> your personal experience. I'm trying to explain to you why your
> specific personal experience doesn't justify your sneering
> generalisation based on rhyming "Flickr" with "Arse Licker".

sneering, how apropos

>
>> I have not encountered any of the groups where there was any such rule as
>> you have to praise every (insert X number) for every shot you uploaded so
>> I
>> bow to your obvious experience there,
>
> You clearly don't even know enough about how Flickr works to realise
> that there's no need to "encounter" any such groups to experience the
> fall out from them in commentary. No wonder you couldn't avoid the
> arse lickers!

As you say, but then you obviously know enough to bring up the apparent fact
that such groups do exist, maybe my comments are not as far from the mark as
you would like to believe.
might I ad that I was not a member of ANY groups on flickr, yet I still got
"drive by" commenting.

>
> But a screen name like yours does suggest someone devoted to stirring
> the sewage, quite apart from your general posting history.
>

Ahh the old fallback, nice to see it dragged out again, but then I expect no
less from someone whose imagination seems a might stifled, might I suggest
you loosen the old school tie a fraction.
> --
> Chris Malcolm

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 4:05 am
From: Chris H

In message <ihnf05lo7tm1en1tvvgtg7m9qk597o0id8@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Sat, 9 May 2009 19:21:33 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>I know what you mean... We have people in the UK who go abroad to
>>"Spain". Get a tour operators coach from the airport to the hotel and
>>never leave the hotel/beach/pool for 14 days and each strictly English
>>food. They never get to see "spain"
>
>there used to be someone here, well travelled, who believed spain has
>dinner before nine and chips are universal.

Actually egg and chips is common in parts of Galicia. It surprised me
too but as we were the only to English speakers and all the tourist
stuff was in written in French and Spanish so it was not something to
"British Tourists" besides we were speaking French, German and Spanish

> Its so very easy to impose
>your own view even when you do get away from the tourist areas, best
>way is get to know people, that takes time and language skills.

I agree.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 4:00 am
From: Chris H

In message <8imf055aqtachnimchls6a60o869vivb1k@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:50:34 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>However due to Television regional accents are fading somewhat which is
>>a shame.
>
>I wish somebody would tell the lowland scots.

Do they have Television there yet? :-)

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 4:12 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Chris H wrote:
> In message <8imf055aqtachnimchls6a60o869vivb1k@4ax.com>, Mike
> <rubbish@live.com> writes
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:50:34 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> However due to Television regional accents are fading somewhat
>>> which is a shame.
>>
>> I wish somebody would tell the lowland scots.
>
> Do they have Television there yet? :-)

It's where the "best" English is spoken.
Wasn't it a Scot who invented television?

<G>

David

== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 1:53 am
From: "William Black"

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1izji62.qv45zn4kp5odN%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
> William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1izivp5.1blcuu53r4kewN%d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk...
>> > William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > []
>> >> Ever tried using your mobile phone on a train where the track is not
>> >> equipped with trackside aerials?
>> >
>> > Frequently.
>>
>> Frustrating isn't it...
>
> Not usually, for me. It depends entirely on the train (and in the UK,
> the operator.) Not all trains are quasi Faraday cages. This is very
> noticeable when travelling the same route on a TPE class 185 (fine)
> compared to a Virgin (now CrossCountry I suppose) class 220 or Class 390
> (poor.) It took VIrgin years to admit what their passengers knew- mobile
> reception on their new trains was particularly bad- they've addressed
> this on many trains- but by onboard additions (repeaters I think.)

Most mainline tracks have had special cellular radio equipment for almost a
decade now.

The Virgin 'cross country' trains wouldn't even let you access them!

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog

== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 5:01 am
From: "Mike"

On 11 May 2009 10:32:36 GMT, Nick Cramer <n_cramerSPAM@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>> The point is that where cultural variety is concerned the US is too
>> young and its people too mobile to have much of its own. That's why
>> they've had to import it from foreign countries.
>
>Mine came here from Europe between 1594 and 1900 AD.

mine came from Shetland in 4000BC :-)
--
Mike

== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 5:42 am
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 11 May 2009 09:22:02 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 May 2009 14:07:28 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't see any American pretending he can experience the same things
>>at home.
>
>not in this thread?

No. The Americans who are talking about the diversity they can
observe by traveling in the US are just referring to being able to go
from where they live to somewhere else in the US that offers a
completely different visual and cultural experience. They are not
saying that it duplicates the experience of going to Europe.

A trip to New York City or Washington DC is a completely different
cultural and visual destination for me. I wouldn't go there to
replicate the experience of going to European cities, but I would go
there to experience a complete change from where I live in Florida.
The New Yorker or Washingtonian would come to Florida to experience a
completely different cultural and visual experience from where he
lives.

Cultural difference is not limited to being around people who speak a
different language, native costumes, traditional dances, or cuisine.
These are cultural factors, but culture encompasses what is around us
in daily life. There's a major cultural difference between Manhattan
and Orlando. For the person who simply seeks change and different
experiences - and that's what most of us want on our holidays - travel
within the United States can offer that.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:05 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-11 00:21:18 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:

> In message <2009051100114984492-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom>, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> writes
>> On 2009-05-11 00:03:47 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
>>
>>> In message <uane059nfql6v52lghc7ob2ob7kshet4vr@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>>>> Well yes... I saw a program about the casinos in Las Vegas and the
>>>>> Americans were looking at the recreations of Venice and the Eiffel tower
>>>>> etc and saying it's all here we don't need to go to Europe... but I hope
>>>>> they are the exception
>>>> Disneyland Europe, or whatever it is they call it, was built so
>>>> Europeans wouldn't need to bother coming to the US.
>>> Interestingly it has not been that much of a success, apparently.
>>> A
>>> lot of people do go but for some reason many like to go to Florida to
>>> see "the real thing" . No figures just some half remembered news items
>>> over the last few years.
>>> It has had a couple of re-branding and re-launches but I don't think
>>> it
>>> has the success that the US version had. Mind you siting it in France
>>> was possibly not the best idea.
>>
>> France would only work if they installed a permanent Jerry Lewis ride. :-)
>
> Explain please you have lost me with that one.

The French have for decades, had this bizarre idea that Jerry Lewis was
a comedic genius (I have an opinion counter to this thought) and
established an illogical French cult fan base.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:12 am
From: "Mike"

On Mon, 11 May 2009 06:05:50 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:

>> Explain please you have lost me with that one.
>
>The French have for decades, had this bizarre idea that Jerry Lewis was
>a comedic genius (I have an opinion counter to this thought) and
>established an illogical French cult fan base.

as with Normam Wisdom and Albania.
--
Mike

== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:20 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-11 05:42:54 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:

> On Mon, 11 May 2009 09:22:02 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 14:07:28 -0400, tony cooper
>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see any American pretending he can experience the same things
>>> at home.
>>
>> not in this thread?
>
> No. The Americans who are talking about the diversity they can
> observe by traveling in the US are just referring to being able to go
> from where they live to somewhere else in the US that offers a
> completely different visual and cultural experience. They are not
> saying that it duplicates the experience of going to Europe.
>
> A trip to New York City or Washington DC is a completely different
> cultural and visual destination for me. I wouldn't go there to
> replicate the experience of going to European cities, but I would go
> there to experience a complete change from where I live in Florida.
> The New Yorker or Washingtonian would come to Florida to experience a
> completely different cultural and visual experience from where he
> lives.
>
> Cultural difference is not limited to being around people who speak a
> different language, native costumes, traditional dances, or cuisine.
> These are cultural factors, but culture encompasses what is around us
> in daily life. There's a major cultural difference between Manhattan
> and Orlando. For the person who simply seeks change and different
> experiences - and that's what most of us want on our holidays - travel
> within the United States can offer that.
>
>
>

There it is. I couldn't agree more.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:41 am
From: "Mike"

On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:42:54 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Cultural difference is not limited to being around people who speak a
>different language, native costumes, traditional dances, or cuisine.
>These are cultural factors, but culture encompasses what is around us
>in daily life. There's a major cultural difference between Manhattan
>and Orlando. For the person who simply seeks change and different
>experiences - and that's what most of us want on our holidays - travel
>within the United States can offer that.

I think while there are many differences between those two places
there will also be many common factors that an American traveler will
not realize are such. For instance, London is probably more similar
to New York than Florida in some senses but the American traveler will
probably only be confronted by the relative prevalence of atheism,
lack of patriotism (less so recently), zero interest in "the
constitution", zero advocacy for the right to bear arms, the different
understanding and acceptance of what "socialism" is, wearing your
pants under your trousers and certainly not patting a woman on her
fanny in public, even if you know her intimately :-)
In short only leaving the US will show you those areas where the US
citizen does not realize that there is an alternate view, because
there isn't the debate going on in the states or the debate has
concluded with a different answer.
If you just want tourism, maybe home can provide, if you want to
broaden your mind, its far more likely outside your own country.
--
Mike

== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:43 am
From: Chris H

In message <2009051106055043042-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom>, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> writes
>On 2009-05-11 00:21:18 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
>
>> In message <2009051100114984492-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> writes
>>> On 2009-05-11 00:03:47 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
>>>
>>>> In message <uane059nfql6v52lghc7ob2ob7kshet4vr@4ax.com>, tony
>>>>cooper
>>>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>>>>> Well yes... I saw a program about the casinos in Las Vegas and the
>>>>>> Americans were looking at the recreations of Venice and the Eiffel tower
>>>>>> etc and saying it's all here we don't need to go to Europe... but I hope
>>>>>> they are the exception
>>>>> Disneyland Europe, or whatever it is they call it, was built so
>>>>> Europeans wouldn't need to bother coming to the US.
>>>> Interestingly it has not been that much of a success, apparently.
>>>> A
>>>> lot of people do go but for some reason many like to go to Florida to
>>>> see "the real thing" . No figures just some half remembered news items
>>>> over the last few years.
>>>> It has had a couple of re-branding and re-launches but I don't think
>>>> it
>>>> has the success that the US version had. Mind you siting it in France
>>>> was possibly not the best idea.
>>> France would only work if they installed a permanent Jerry Lewis
>>>ride. :-)
>> Explain please you have lost me with that one.
>
>The French have for decades, had this bizarre idea that Jerry Lewis was
>a comedic genius (I have an opinion counter to this thought) and
>established an illogical French cult fan base.

Thanks
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:56 am
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:03:47 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In message <uane059nfql6v52lghc7ob2ob7kshet4vr@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>>
>>>Well yes... I saw a program about the casinos in Las Vegas and the
>>>Americans were looking at the recreations of Venice and the Eiffel tower
>>>etc and saying it's all here we don't need to go to Europe... but I hope
>>>they are the exception
>>
>>Disneyland Europe, or whatever it is they call it, was built so
>>Europeans wouldn't need to bother coming to the US.
>
>Interestingly it has not been that much of a success, apparently. A
>lot of people do go but for some reason many like to go to Florida to
>see "the real thing" . No figures just some half remembered news items
>over the last few years.
>
>It has had a couple of re-branding and re-launches but I don't think it
>has the success that the US version had. Mind you siting it in France
>was possibly not the best idea.

Let me preface this by saying that I have not been to Disney Europe,
and that I have not personally experienced any more or less rudeness
from the French than from the people of any other nationality.

I have been to the Disney parks in Florida and California. Walking
into a Disney-run place is like being enveloped in sweetness. Every
employee is bright, chipper, friendly, helpful, and cheerful. I
suspect that any employee who is not all of these things is taken to
the subterranean tunnels and beaten on the soles of their feet and
immediately deported.

Given the perception that the French are rude to all but their
immediate relatives, I can't imagine a Disney attraction in France
being a destination of choice.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 4:22 am
From: Chris Malcolm

Hughes <eugenhughes@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a photo I shot with the 1000mm telephoto with webcam.

> http://www.pbase.com/image/111769165/original

> Target (scanned) is located 3.8 meters from telephoto/webcam (note:
> photo taken is middle portion of brochure with the girl's neck joining
> the boy with yellow shirt)

> http://www.pbase.com/image/111769109/original

> here is scanned image with zoomed portion of image

> http://www.pbase.com/image/111769128/original

[snip]

> Inquiries:

> 1. In the picture there is rectangular pattern taken with telephoto/
> webcam, what is it? Printing artifact of the brochure?

It's a standard colour printing method easily googled, easily
investigated with a good magnifying glass.

> 2. How come I can see vertical lines moving upward in the webcam
> preview in the monitor? Noise or because image is dim??

You can best answer that question by your own experiments.

> 3. Using MACRO photography, what specs so you can see the same
> rectangular printing pattern in the picture of color brochure taken?

Obviously you need a combination of distance and angular resolving
power which can resolve them. Since you've posted pages of
calculations already in this thread on the topics of focal length,
angular resolution, etc., I can't understand why you can't easily
answer this question for yourself. It's simple optical trigonometry
based on all that stuff about circles of confusion and airy disks
you've posted so much about. And now you have the kit you don't need
to make assumptions, you can make your own measurements of the actual
resolving power you've got and easily calculate how much closer you
need to get it to the object to see what you want.

Did you not understand all those calculations you posted?

> 4. Using a DSLR, what would be the improvement in resolution and
> colors provided dslr and webcam has same pixel pitch?

Could be lots or none. Depends on the details of the DSLR and webcam
sensors and how used. Far too vague a question.

> 5. To be noise resistance, does the pixel (or sensel) have to be
> at least 4.7 micron? How about 2 micron pixel pitch like in digicam.

Noise isn't something that's either present or absent, it's a
measurable quantity expressed in various numerical ways. You've
already recommended to us some sites which explain the various kinds
of sensor noise very well.

You now have the lens and camera. Try answering some of your questions
by setting up your own experiments. When the photographs you post have
more bearing on the questions you ask and vice versa you're likely to
get more informative responses.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:00 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009 16:58:45 +0100, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>> JPEG image reconstruction is deterministic- every application
>>> will produce the same output for an image. Quality and the presence of
>>> artifacts has nothing to do with the display software, but is determined
>>> only by the compression- that is, by the creation software. There are

>> Sorry Chris. I am afraid you are wrong here. There are differences
>> between how various applications decode JPEGs. And there are known bugs
>> in some codecs.
>
> I didn't mean to suggest that some programs don't get it wrong. Only
> that if you implement the algorithm correctly, the decoding process is
> deterministic. If you're using good software, JPEG issues should be
> purely associated with how they are encoded, not how they are decoded.

Actually Chris you have it backwards there. The forward transform is
very well specified and defined and although many images map to one
coefficient set. The inverse to decode the coefficients back into image
space has various compromises made for speed in all current practical
applications. This isn't unreasonable as a JPEG image will very likely
only be encoded once in its lifetime, but decoded many times to view.

All the really tricky problems are in the JPEG decoding step. It is not
uncommon for the classical pseudo inverse from quantised coefficients to
yield a raw image which could *never* have been measured in practice -
ie one containing negative values and values >255. The most common quick
fix is to top and tail the basic pseudo inverse but that is not the
optimal solution. There are also serious problems in most JPEG decoders
where the chroma subsampling is allowed to degrade the luminance signal.
ISTR Photoshop higher quality levels 6-12 avoid chroma subsampling for
this reason.

I believe Panasonics latest 4:4:4 MPEG digital chroma decoder may be
among the first commercial decoders to be doing the chroma decode step
right. At least one popular program gets the encoding step for default
JPEG chroma subsampling hopelessly wrong. It is a testimony to the
robustness of JPEG that very few people have spotted the problem or
complained about it. It really only shows up obviously on test pieces -
line art designs intended to excercise and stress test JPEG codecs.

Regards,
Martin Brown

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Junk Yard Dog
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/51d68ec432114f66?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 5:14 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:yeBNl.26358$Db2.9669@edtnps83...
>
> "Caesar Romano" <Spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
> news:1fed051jemkqu4n7armm4vvqg28k5km76v@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 06:35:20 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote Re Junk Yard Dog:
>>
>>>Comments welcome.
>>
>> I notice that most of your shots are exposure biased +0.67EV. For most
>> of the front-lit shots, that looks too bright for my taste. I would
>> drop it to +0.33EV or even 0.0EV.
>
> Thanks, Caesar, I bumped up the EC because some folks were saying my shots
> lacked detail in the shadows. But, 2/3 sounds like it is a bit too much.
> I'll drop it down a third for a while and see how much difference it
> makes.

I agree, in fact I'd tend to under exposure a little in your shots as shadow
detail
in a dog shot I don;t see as important his fur and body are more important.
Most seem a little over exposed to me if anything.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 5:56 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:gu94uj$11a$1@qmul...
>
> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
> news:yeBNl.26358$Db2.9669@edtnps83...
>>
>> "Caesar Romano" <Spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> news:1fed051jemkqu4n7armm4vvqg28k5km76v@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 06:35:20 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote Re Junk Yard Dog:
>>>
>>>>Comments welcome.
>>>
>>> I notice that most of your shots are exposure biased +0.67EV. For most
>>> of the front-lit shots, that looks too bright for my taste. I would
>>> drop it to +0.33EV or even 0.0EV.
>>
>> Thanks, Caesar, I bumped up the EC because some folks were saying my
>> shots lacked detail in the shadows. But, 2/3 sounds like it is a bit too
>> much. I'll drop it down a third for a while and see how much difference
>> it makes.
>
> I agree, in fact I'd tend to under exposure a little in your shots as
> shadow detail
> in a dog shot I don;t see as important his fur and body are more
> important.
> Most seem a little over exposed to me if anything.
>
>
>

Thanks, Dave. Over the next week or so, I'll try a variety of EC settings
from +1/3 to -1/3 to determine just where the majority of shots come out the
best.

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: lens shade stuck
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ca90ddc952b81321?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 5:19 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"aquadiver" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfae0ded-d366-48f7-a99b-221409d8900f@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> The built-in lens shade/hood on my Canon EF 400mm f5.6L is stuck.
> It's supposed to slide out and back, but for some reason it takes
> incredible force to move it at all. If I could get it all the way out,
> I wouldn't be able to get it back to change filters, put the lens cap
> on, etc. If I left it all the way in, it wouldn't be doing its job at
> all. At the moment, it's pretty much stuck in place about an inch out,
> and I can't budge it.
>
> Anyone else had this problem? Any clues on how to fix it? Any ideas
> welcome, even just funny ones.

3 in 1 oil :-)

Is it insured, maybe it'll be a little slippery and may fall and need
repairing/replacing.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: photo organising SW
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bef72d4e7bd83942?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 5:33 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:1wlLKgLGMwBKFAua@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <4mud05dj8pjpj9vs0r4947g7teme1073u2@4ax.com>, Wally
> <Wally@luxx.com> writes
>>On Sun, 10 May 2009 15:19:21 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <4a06b0cc$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>>><bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes
>>>>Chris H wrote:
>>>>> In message <4a055432@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>>>>> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes
>>>>>> Chris H wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <4a04010a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>>>>>>> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes
>>>>>>>> You think I'm in a hole? Mate, I earn my living dealing with these
>>>>>>>> sorts of problems in businesses.
>>>>>>> Likewise
>>>>>> And you've never seen the result of a ground strike? Then you mustn't
>>>>>> be all that experienced. I've seen dozens of them over the years.
>>>>> It depends where in the world you are. Some areas get them a lot.
>>>>>Some
>>>>> areas never see them.
>>>>
>>>>Sure, but don't try to tell me that they never happen.
>>>
>>>VERY very rare where I am.
>>
>>They NEVER happen where I am. Have been running all my gear naked (no
>>voltage conditioning devices) since the 1980's.
>>
>>Wally
>
> So it seems Bobby is "very experienced" in one location.
>
> I assume he also takes steps against 30 foot deep flash floods, Mud
> slides, Tornadoes, 12 foot snow falls, -30 Celsius and +50 Celsius
> ambient temperatures, loss of power fro 5 days at a time, Air raids,
> bombs and rocket attacks. All of which are quite common in civilian
> towns. (Depending where you are)

A tin foil hat and a condom should also be considered, and to be extra safe
I wear
steel toe-capped boots.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photographic rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/95ce520de64e5844?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 5:44 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gu1c5k0ali@news6.newsguy.com...
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Eric Miller" <miller_nospam_eric@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>> Copyright law is reasonably well know, but perhaps if I paid a lawyer
>> enough I could copy one of your photos and sell it for profit and
>> that would be OK because my lawyer could prove I didn't make a profit.
>
> If your lawyer made a sufficiently compelling argument and his made a
> sufficiently weak one (consider his hiring the public defender in "My
> Cousin
> Vinny") then you might prevail in this manner.

So as I'm implying it's more about the lawyer than your own guilt or
innocence.

>>>> But the law should be the law.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rest assured, it is. Whatever was given was given. Whatever was not
>>> given was not given. There, that leaves only the determination what
>>> what was, in fact, given. Let's ask the photographer and the model
>>> to tell us. Surely they will completely agree . . .
>>
>> So why do we need lawyers of greatly differing abilities and why chose
>> one above the other.
>
> Uh, your sarcasm detector needs a new fuse.

It's changed, I think the need comes down to money & profit rather than
getting to the truth.

>>>>> In neither case would the lawyer be paid to lie: only to advocate
>>>>> his client's version of the facts that would underlie any future
>>>>> verdict.
>>>>
>>>> Did he jump or was he pushed shouldn't be decided on the size of the
>>>> laywers pay packet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. So how should it be decided when the only two witnesses tell
>>> two different stories?
>>
>> Isn't that what the 12 jury members are for ?
>
> Ultimately the court decides. If you go in without a lawyer and your
> opponent goes in with a lawyer, then the jury is very likely going to hang
> you--"A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".

So as I say it's the lawyer that is important not the guilt or the innocence
of the accussed.
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: kostenloses gewinnspiel , geld , geld gewonnen , gewinn , schnelles
geld , reich werden , geldgewinn , auto gewinnspiele , psp gewinnen , quiz
geld gewinnen ,
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2705e832246ca263?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 11 2009 6:06 am
From: yippyskippy122@googlemail.com

kostenloses gewinnspiel , geld , geld gewonnen , gewinn , schnelles
geld , reich werden , geldgewinn , auto gewinnspiele , psp gewinnen ,
quiz geld gewinnen ,

*
*
*
+++ GELD ONLINE VERDIENEN +++ GELD IM INTERNET VERDIENEN +++
*
http://WWW.GAMBLING-FOREVER.COM
http://WWW.GAMBLING-FOREVER.COM
http://WWW.GAMBLING-FOREVER.COM
http://WWW.GAMBLING-FOREVER.COM
http://WWW.GAMBLING-FOREVER.COM
http://WWW.GAMBLING-FOREVER.COM
*
*
*

gewinnspiel gewinnen geld verdinen
wm karten gewinnen verdienen gewinnspiele
handy gewinnen euro gewinnen
geld verdienen online umfragen
kann ich geld gewinnen und echtes geld gewinnen
viel geld gewinnspiel
www geld und gewinnen geld spiele
gewinnen spiel fernseher gewinnen
gratis geld gewinnen reise gewinnen
geld verdienen mit internet geld verdienen schnell
www geld und gewinnen de wm karten gewinnen
gewinnspiel gewinnen geld gewinnspiel
geld verdinen geld spiele online
www geld und gewinnen reich werden
geld und gewinnen porsche gewinnen
gratis gewinnspiele schnell viel geld
games geld gewinnen gewinnspiel wm
preisausschreiben million gewinnen
kostenlos geld gewinnen euro gewinnen
internet geld geld gewinnen in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, May 11, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic