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

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, May 15 2009 11:27 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-15 23:18:10 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> said:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>
> Huh? I thought they were black? You camera's got _serious_ color rendition
> problems<g>.

No! Model-T was the Ford of "You can have it in any color, as long as
it is black."

This is a Model A, which was offered in various color options, but not black
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1927-1931)
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 12:34 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-15 23:27:25 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> said:

> On 2009-05-15 23:18:10 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>>
>> Huh? I thought they were black? You camera's got _serious_ color rendition
>> problems<g>.
>
> No! Model-T was the Ford of "You can have it in any color, as long as
> it is black."
>
> This is a Model A, which was offered in various color options, but not black
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1927-1931)

...but if you want black, I found this parked in town last week:

http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0509.JPG
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0511.JPG
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0507.JPG

--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 2:39 am
From: Eric Stevens

On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:27:25 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-05-15 23:18:10 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>>
>> Huh? I thought they were black? You camera's got _serious_ color rendition
>> problems<g>.
>
>No! Model-T was the Ford of "You can have it in any color, as long as
>it is black."

But even that was not correct. Black was the standard colour but you
could order it in other colours.
>
>This is a Model A, which was offered in various color options, but not black
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1927-1931)

Eric Stevens

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 2:46 am
From: Bruce

Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking
>like a survivor, here is a little salute.
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg

Let me guess ... it's the 2010 Ford ECO-Hybrid on test.

;-)

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 5:33 am
From: "Peter"

"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009051520202050073-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking like a
> survivor, here is a little salute.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
>

Here is a garage door opener, originally designed for a bike that will work
fine on that car too.

http://www.wimp.com/garageopener

--
Peter

==============================================================================
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: Sat, May 16 2009 12:47 am
From: Bob Williams

Ray Fischer 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.
>
> Already have one. 2450mm. Add some optics and that can be taken up
> to about 15,000mm f.l.
>
OMG!!
What do you use such a system for? Astronomical photography?
Is that a typo or is there really a 15,000 mm f 1 lens somewhere?
It's got to be a mirror, right? How about a reference and some details.
Bob

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 1:24 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Bob Williams wrote:
> Ray Fischer wrote:
[]
>> Already have one. 2450mm. Add some optics and that can be taken up
>> to about 15,000mm f.l.
>>
> OMG!!
> What do you use such a system for? Astronomical photography?
> Is that a typo or is there really a 15,000 mm f 1 lens somewhere?
> It's got to be a mirror, right? How about a reference and some
> details. Bob

f.l. = F L = focal length

Wretched sans-serif fonts!

David

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 2:24 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>Ray Fischer 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.
>>
>> Already have one. 2450mm. Add some optics and that can be taken up
>> to about 15,000mm f.l.
>>
>OMG!!
>What do you use such a system for? Astronomical photography?

Well, yes. It's a 10" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope. 2450mm f10.

>Is that a typo or is there really a 15,000 mm f 1 lens somewhere?

Not f1. f.l. Focal length. And with eyepeice projection it does
indeed go up to around 15,000mm, although once you get up into that
range it's more common to refer to it as 300x magnification.

>It's got to be a mirror, right? How about a reference and some details.

It's a Meade 10" telescope.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

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

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 3:06 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital Stormin Mormon <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message
> news:guh5vu$koo$1@qmul...

>> 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.

> And, the response? I've seen stats that in areas with easy
> access to guns, crime is lower. Criminals are much bolder
> and more active when the honest citizens have been disarmed
> by the government.

It depends on what kind of society you're talking about. In Tokyo for
example the local people routinely leave unguarded stuff out in the
street to an extent astonishing to most Western visitors. Shops will
leave attractive stealable goods outside in pavement displays, women
shopping on bicycles will leave the bike with a basket full of
shopping propped up outside the shop when they go inside, people
waiting for taxis will leave their suitcases out on the pavements
while they wait inside for the taxi to rind the door bell, people
leave their front doors open when they walk round the block to do some
local shopping.

Violent crime isn't just controlled by fear of lethal weaponry. It's
also controlled by such things as poverty, how parents bring up their
children, education, drug abuse and mental illness, and the morality
that operates in the criminal classes.

If it gets to the stage where only fear of being shot will stop
widespread theft and assault of shop owners and the general public it
sounds like something has gone badly wrong with the society.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 3:48 am
From: "Mike"

On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>It is not the guns but the Bozos that want them.

Up to a point. In UK we have stopped categories of gun being available
as a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a single case, it might have been
better to make sure credentials were better or better enforced rather
than change the categories available to bone fide shooters.

My main objection is to the falsified logic rather than to guns per
se. Two lobbies, quite disparate, start from the answer they want and
reverse engineer their logic to get the question they want. Both have
to rely on a false definition of "dangerous".
They are road safety and pro gun.
One wants drivers to be the focus of blame for accidents (they also
try to redefine "accident" as "avoidable incident" rather than
"unintentional incident") so they discount the inherent danger in an
unguarded cliff or icy bend and insist "all danger lies with drivers",
instead of the logical "(nearly) all *blame* lies with drivers"
They use the gun lobby equivalent of "no gun jumped out a box and shot
somebody" of "no bend ever jumped out in front of a car".
They choose to try and blur "danger" into "harm", when in fact
"danger" is the "potential for harm". The risk in this is that it
ignores both the safety gain available by crash barriers, anti skid
surfaces, locked away guns etc. If you try to tell them a howitzer is
more dangerous than a popgun you get the usual rehearsed nonsense that
makes them sound like Homer Simpson. I don't know if they actually
know its rubbish or not. But I once spend days pinning down a road
safety advocate, who eventually pleaded "but don't you want safer
roads?" so I assume these lies are known to be lies deep down.

Both court unforeseeable problems when these wooly lies get taken over
by groups with objectives they do not approve of. The road safety
people should just say instead "99% of accidents are the
responsibility(blame) of drivers"
--
Mike

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 3:52 am
From: "Mike"

On 16 May 2009 10:06:16 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>If it gets to the stage where only fear of being shot will stop
>widespread theft and assault of shop owners and the general public it
>sounds like something has gone badly wrong with the society.

Exactly, controlling crime by guns is a wild west aberration of
American thinking. New York used to have vastly more crime than
London, they improved that without making more guns available, many
societies have less crime than gun ridden US.
--
Mike

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 3:56 am
From: "Mike"

On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:10:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And, I think you're quite totally mistaken. Now, lets see
>who provides some facts.

you have been given both US and international dictionary definitions
of "socialism", if you read them it will be obvious they do not apply
to US or UK. That you cannot see this is only to be expected by
someone whose head is full of propaganda and fairy tales. Give
yourself a break, start thinking.
--
Mike

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 4:26 am
From: "Mike"

On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>It is not the guns but the Bozos that want them.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 4:27 am
From: "Mike"

On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:10:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And, I think you're quite totally mistaken. Now, lets see
>who provides some facts.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 4:28 am
From: "Mike"

On 16 May 2009 10:06:16 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>If it gets to the stage where only fear of being shot will stop
>widespread theft and assault of shop owners and the general public it
>sounds like something has gone badly wrong with the society.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 3:07 am
From: "pawihte"

Paul Bartram wrote:
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>> The photographer was charged with public harassment and
>> causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.
>
> They should also arrest the owners of the tabloid media for
> artificially *creating* the alarm and distress that the father
> claimed he felt. Take exactly the same shots in a run-down area of
> Bangkok and the kids and their parents would be lining up to be in
> the frame - but then they don't read alarmist junk in tabloids, too
> busy staying alive.

Sometimes it makes me gag to hear about the extent to which citizens of the
so-called more advanced western countries have been spoilt.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: May I know where to find these programs?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/db6cd71e48b688fe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 3:27 am
From: Bob Larter

Bob Larter wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> CJ wrote:
>>> Voivod wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
>>>> <jplanck@withheld.net> scribbled:
>> [...]
>>>>> No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking
>>>>> about and never had any clue", just like all the other useless
>>>>> brain-dead trolls like you who have never had any clue.
>>>> You're funny. Come back often!
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, he/she/it does, always with a different ID but the same
>>> BS story "photoline is the greatest thing since sex".
>>
>> Please consider tossing him into alt.usenet.kooks, where he'd be very
>> on-topic. ;^)
>
> Disregard that, I suck cocks.

Oh cute, my impersonator is back again. I thought you'd wimped out?

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 3:42 am
From: "Atheist Chaplain"

"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009051521305950878-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
> On 2009-05-15 21:13:38 -0700, "Atheist Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov> said:
>
>> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:0f33bfff-ccdf-4aeb-95d9-2028b9c7e9ec@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> On
>>
>> May 13, 7:50 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESP...@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I shouldn't have done him such a disservice and just posted this
>>> link
>>
>> http://www.jimmyde.com/main.html
>>
>> I can't look at the pic on that page without thinking about Douglas
>> MacDonald, Australia's most sought-after Famous Wedding Photographer.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>> fornicate you Brett, you mentioned it and suddenly it
>> appears............. :-P
>
> Ugly! Ugly!
>
> That is what target fixation can get you.
> The Tennessee Demon has been waiting on on something such as this for
> years!
>
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
>

I think timing had more to do with it, I read Brett's reply and then did a
refresh and suddenly he who shall not be named appeared :-)

--
[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: camera for quickly-made shots ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/380de2e92c70461f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 4:54 am
From: "mianileng"

Apteryx wrote:
> Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> Antonio Huerta <ahuerta@inbox.com> wrote:
>>> I would like to get a special kind of pocket camera; it's for
>>> taking
>>> pictures in dynamic conditions. For example, I walk in the
>>> street,
>>> and see some drama unfolding in front of my eyes. I would
>>> like to
>>> be able to whip the camera out of my pocket, turn it on with
>>> one
>>> hand, and press the trigger with one hand as well. All this
>>> action
>>> should occur within, say, 1 second.
>>
>> Most compact cameras with 35mm film(!) will fit that bill.
>>
>> With digital camers you are pretty much out of luck because
>> ...
>>
>>> The camera should be ready to shoot after turning the power
>>> on
>>> within, say, 0.5 second. I have had a pocket camera from
>>> Kodak,
>>> Nikon and Panasonic, but all of them take about 1.5 second
>>> for
>>> coming into the ready state.
>>
>> ... exactly that. Not to mention the focussing delay.
>
> So P&S cameras not much use for pointing and shooting...
>

They are. But the OP's looking for a quick-draw camera :)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 4:55 am
From: Neil Ellwood

On Fri, 15 May 2009 09:15:39 -0700, Antonio Huerta wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I would like to get a special kind of pocket camera; it's for taking
> pictures in dynamic conditions. For example, I walk in the street, and
> see some drama unfolding in front of my eyes. I would like to be able to
> whip the camera out of my pocket, turn it on with one hand, and press
> the trigger with one hand as well. All this action should occur within,
> say, 1 second.
>
> The camera should be ready to shoot after turning the power on within,
> say, 0.5 second. I have had a pocket camera from Kodak, Nikon and
> Panasonic, but all of them take about 1.5 second for coming into the
> ready state. Probably, the camera should have no mechanically-driven
> optical lens, because this contributes to lengthening the ready time. It
> also occurs to me that the button for turning the camera on should be a
> side-sliding switch like in Panasonic, and not a button which one has to
> depress and hold for a second, like that in Nikon.
>
> Anyone could suggest a camera ? Thanks.

Box brownie.

Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

==============================================================================
TOPIC: IrfanView Thumbnails- PaintShop Pro images?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4d9a0296a75f05e7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 6:30 am
From: Terry Pinnell

I'm trying to use IrfanView Thumbnails to browse a folder of files
made with PaintShop Pro 8, but they're all black. I'm sure there's
some setting or plug-in to fix this but darned if I can find it ;-(

Can someone remind me please?

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 6:45 am
From: REMbranded@netscape.com (REM)

>Terry Pinnell <terrypin@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

>I'm trying to use IrfanView Thumbnails to browse a folder of files
>made with PaintShop Pro 8, but they're all black. I'm sure there's
>some setting or plug-in to fix this but darned if I can find it ;-(

>Can someone remind me please?

Are the PSP files in a standard format, such as .jpg, .bmp., etc?

Or, are they in the proprietary PSP format? I don't know what that
extension ism but I wouldn't be surprised if other programs cannot
open or convert.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 6:50 am
From: "mianileng"

Terry Pinnell wrote:
> I'm trying to use IrfanView Thumbnails to browse a folder of
> files
> made with PaintShop Pro 8, but they're all black. I'm sure
> there's
> some setting or plug-in to fix this but darned if I can find it
> ;-(
>
> Can someone remind me please?

I don't have any PSP image to test with, but my installation of
Irfanview 4.23 with plugins lists the Paint Shop Pro extension
.PSP among compatible formats.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 7:09 am
From: REMbranded@netscape.com (REM)

> "mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>Terry Pinnell wrote:
>> I'm trying to use IrfanView Thumbnails to browse a folder of
>> files
>> made with PaintShop Pro 8, but they're all black. I'm sure
>> there's
>> some setting or plug-in to fix this but darned if I can find it
>> ;-(

>> Can someone remind me please?

>I don't have any PSP image to test with, but my installation of
>Irfanview 4.23 with plugins lists the Paint Shop Pro extension
>.PSP among compatible formats.

http://www.irfanview.com/plugins.htm

Man. I really only used it to resize images. They have plugins galore.

There is a link to get all plugins in one installation file. I'll have
to grab that the next time I have high speed.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, May 16 2009 7:09 am
From: j. calster

On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:45:22 GMT, REMbranded@netscape.com (REM) wrote:

>
>>Terry Pinnell <terrypin@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm trying to use IrfanView Thumbnails to browse a folder of files
>>made with PaintShop Pro 8, but they're all black. I'm sure there's
>>some setting or plug-in to fix this but darned if I can find it ;-(
>
>>Can someone remind me please?
>
>Are the PSP files in a standard format, such as .jpg, .bmp., etc?
>
>Or, are they in the proprietary PSP format? I don't know what that
>extension ism but I wouldn't be surprised if other programs cannot
>open or convert.
>

IrfanView and Photoline can both read Paint Shop Pro image formats.

In IrfanView the coding to view/read .PSP and .PSPIMAGE files is contained
in the "Formats.dll" plugin, usually downloaded in the complete plugins
pack.

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

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