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:

* Could you actually see photos made from RAW files? - 9 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c04187075ef6f9c5?hl=en
* The Ultimate Photo-Bag - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d379eb3ce3f36aff?hl=en
* Scenic areas in England - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* What's the fuss over 3:2 aspect ratio? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ecd50976e6eb9d55?hl=en
* How to hold and carry a camera with a heavy lens - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/35d5d71e3cce87b4?hl=en
* Hey Noons, Has it Really Been 6 Months? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8df2a8096dc7b7ba?hl=en
* Is there a website showing the cross section of a modern autofocus lens and
how the autofocus mechanism in a lens works? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06c77197131a440d?hl=en
* Another question - How to convert medium format lens to equivalency of a 50
mm normal lens (35mm camera) in APS-C digital cameras - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0a1d6ca7f3da4840?hl=en

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

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 6:09 am
From: nospam

In article
<7369029d-1f67-41be-b15c-7e2fe6988ccc@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Poldie <Poldie@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, I know. TIFF info identifying where to find the actual
> photograph data, which is JPEG lossless format - the latter being the
> interesting, relevant part for people wondering whether or not the
> data is compressed, lossless etc.

again, no. there is an embedded jpeg that's completely separate from
the raw data and it's an ordinary lossy jpeg. there may even be more
than just one embedded jpeg, i.e., a full size and a thumbnail.

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 6:21 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article
<8eff0e4e-0aad-4415-b46f-cab79f99d0a4@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
aniramca@gmail.com wrote:

> I am sorry if this topic may have been discussed too many times.
> However, I still have difficulties dealing with the concept of RAW
> files. Someone suggested that RAW files are like negatives, while-as
> JPEG files are like prints.
> My question is whether we can physically see a RAW file... I mean
> without placing it in the mercy of a software to open it as a JPEG
> file (and in the mean time, the software is doing the processing and
> converting it into JPEG using their own algorithm to produce what they
> consider to be the best JPEG. I agree that perhaps people should
> create both RAW and JPEG files when they take pictures.
>
> The next question is whether commercial photo processing softwares
> (Photoshop, Paintshop, Aperture, etc) treating RAW files produced from
> different brand cameras differently, as I noticed that the extension
> file name for RAW files differ from cameras to cameras. Can the
> special software made by the camera's manufacturer (which sometimes
> comes with the camera that you purchase) do a better job than the
> commercially photo processing softwares?
>
> I recall that someone mentioned that the camera's processing engine is
> not as versatile as a computer's photo processing software, as well as
> the time to produce the JPEG file in the camera is relatively short.
> Therefore, built-in camera processing engine cannot make a better job
> than a real photo processing software. As processing speed is getting
> faster and faster, could a camera sometime in the future produces JPEG
> photos which are as good as or better than the commercial photo
> softwares?

If your computer supports the format your photos are in, then the photos
can be seen. On my Mac, most cameras' raw files are seen without
software the same as more common formats such as jpg and gif, NBD.

The best way to learn about what RAW files do for you is to switch your
camera to raw mode and start shooting photos, then transfer the image
files to your computer and work with them.

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 8:30 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>> The answer is, at least for Canon, yes. There is public
>>> domain software available that will convert the data, which is
>>> intensity data at each pixel, into a pixel-for-pixel file, that is,
>>> 8 or 12 or 14 bits per pixel. This is not full color, it
>>> is filtered by the Bayer filter >>>

Here is such a file, converted to TIFF by dcraw and then to 24 bit .bmp
by Photoshop. You can look at it. Blow it up to 200% or larger
and you will see the Bayer matrix.

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/IMG_2706.bmp

note: Unix, so it is case-sensitive

>>> You can then take that file and make a 24 bit file from it, by
>>> moving red pixel values to the red byte, blue ones to the
>>> blue byte, and green ones to the green byte, leaving the other
>>> two bytes of each 24 bit number zero. This can then
>>> be displayed on you computer. To get the color right you need to
>>> scale the
>>> R, G, and B numbers correctly. It will display as
>>> a color image, albeit rather dark since each pixel will
>>> be mostly black.

and here is this:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/rgb_2706.bmp

It does not display well because it is so dark.

>>>
>>> I've done it, it works.

And finally, I used the Photoshop blur function on that to
do a VERY CRUDE conversion to what Davidson would call an "image"
and here it is:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/blur_2706.bmp

Note that this was lightened up and color-temperature corrected in Photoshop.
It does not look as "peppy" and colored as the default Photoshop
or Canon Digital Photo Professional conversion does, but it looks
remarkably like what you get if Digital Photo Professional
is set to "faithful", including those grayish green leaves.

Doug McDonald

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 8:50 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>
> My point was that your comment about Public Domain
> software was wrong,

That is true ... the words should be changed to "free".

and your description of how to
> generate an image might well produce something that is
> recognizable, but it is not a useful way to generate
> images from camera data.
>

Oh, agreed. I was tyring to explain things!

See my other post where I actually did it and present the results.
Yes, they are of course not "presentable" but are good examples
of how it works.

Doug McDonald

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 9:15 am
From: Rob Morley

On 31 May 2009 12:39:04 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2009-05-31, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Public Domain" means "The total absence of copyright
> > protection."
>
> In which case, there can be no "public domain" software, since
> copyright exists on all works, whether explicitly claimed or not.
>
The truth falls somewhere between the two - FLD should have said "total
absence of copyright" rather than "total absence of copyright
protection", while you should remember that it is possible for the
holder of copyright to surrender it, thus putting his work in the
public domain.

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 9:24 am
From: Rob Morley

On Sun, 31 May 2009 09:21:19 -0400
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:

> If your computer supports the format your photos are in, then the
> photos can be seen. On my Mac, most cameras' raw files are seen
> without software the same as more common formats such as jpg and gif,
> NBD.
>
That's because the software for displaying various graphics formats is
built into the MAC file manager, not because there isn't any software
doing the work.

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 9:25 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-31 06:21:19 -0700, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> said:

> In article
> <8eff0e4e-0aad-4415-b46f-cab79f99d0a4@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> aniramca@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I am sorry if this topic may have been discussed too many times.
>> However, I still have difficulties dealing with the concept of RAW
>> files. Someone suggested that RAW files are like negatives, while-as
>> JPEG files are like prints.
>> My question is whether we can physically see a RAW file... I mean
>> without placing it in the mercy of a software to open it as a JPEG
>> file (and in the mean time, the software is doing the processing and
>> converting it into JPEG using their own algorithm to produce what they
>> consider to be the best JPEG. I agree that perhaps people should
>> create both RAW and JPEG files when they take pictures.
>>
>> The next question is whether commercial photo processing softwares
>> (Photoshop, Paintshop, Aperture, etc) treating RAW files produced from
>> different brand cameras differently, as I noticed that the extension
>> file name for RAW files differ from cameras to cameras. Can the
>> special software made by the camera's manufacturer (which sometimes
>> comes with the camera that you purchase) do a better job than the
>> commercially photo processing softwares?
>>
>> I recall that someone mentioned that the camera's processing engine is
>> not as versatile as a computer's photo processing software, as well as
>> the time to produce the JPEG file in the camera is relatively short.
>> Therefore, built-in camera processing engine cannot make a better job
>> than a real photo processing software. As processing speed is getting
>> faster and faster, could a camera sometime in the future produces JPEG
>> photos which are as good as or better than the commercial photo
>> softwares?
>
> If your computer supports the format your photos are in, then the photos
> can be seen. On my Mac, most cameras' raw files are seen without
> software the same as more common formats such as jpg and gif, NBD.

Not entirely true.
OSX doesn't miraculously allow the image to appeare on your display.

The "thumbnail" you see in the finder is the inbedded jpg.

Preview is actually "software." and the RAW decoder is part of the OS
and the iPhoto/Preview/Aperture package, all of which are updated to
include the ability to decode RW file for support of new cameras, just
as ACR is updated.

>
> The best way to learn about what RAW files do for you is to switch your
> camera to raw mode and start shooting photos, then transfer the image
> files to your computer and work with them.

Exactly.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 9:41 am
From: John McWilliams

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 09:21:19 -0400
> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> If your computer supports the format your photos are in, then the
>> photos can be seen. On my Mac, most cameras' raw files are seen
>> without software the same as more common formats such as jpg and gif,
>> NBD.
>>
> That's because the software for displaying various graphics formats is
> built into the MAC file manager, not because there isn't any software
> doing the work.

True, but everything you see on any computer is a result of software, be
it built into the O/S, or later installed.
And, it's "Mac"; MAC stands for other stuff, and is an acronym.

--
John McWilliams

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 9:43 am
From: nospam

In article <2009053109253250073-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:

> > If your computer supports the format your photos are in, then the photos
> > can be seen. On my Mac, most cameras' raw files are seen without
> > software the same as more common formats such as jpg and gif, NBD.
>
> Not entirely true.
> OSX doesn't miraculously allow the image to appeare on your display.

it's basically true.

> The "thumbnail" you see in the finder is the inbedded jpg.

finder is just one app and what it does is not necessarily what other
apps do. if you're referring to quicklook, what gets displayed depends
on the plugin.

> Preview is actually "software." and the RAW decoder is part of the OS
> and the iPhoto/Preview/Aperture package, all of which are updated to
> include the ability to decode RW file for support of new cameras, just
> as ACR is updated.

the raw decoding is part of the os and is available to *any* code that
supports displaying images. if an app supports reading images at all,
it can get all formats for free, including raw. when the os is updated
for new cameras, then the apps automatically support them.

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

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 6:27 am
From: Paul Furman

Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:19:11 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> : John A. wrote:
> : >
> : > Nothing against this photographer. It's just a very awkward subject
> :
> : http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/page/3/
> : A silly web site but, oh well :-)
>
> "Page Not Found". Is that what's awkward about it?

Looks like they redesigned the scripting & the old links are broken.
Here's that maternity portrait: http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/?p=866

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 9:16 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-31 05:25:04 -0700, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> said:

> On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:15:32 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
> : The whole concept of wedding photographs, baby pics and other types
> : of sentimental portraiture is somewhat nauseating to me. ...
>
> Obviously you have no grandchildren.
>
> Bob

Why would that be obvious?

I hold by my opinion even with grandchildren, nephews, nieces &
cousins, sentimental portraiture is artificial and nauseating. However
unposed spontaneous shots are a far more valuable record of the
character of the soon to be insufferable pre-pubescent.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 9:53 am
From: Alan Browne

On 31-05-09 12:16, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-31 05:25:04 -0700, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> said:
>
>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:15:32 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>> : The whole concept of wedding photographs, baby pics and other types
>> : of sentimental portraiture is somewhat nauseating to me. ...
>>
>> Obviously you have no grandchildren.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Why would that be obvious?
>
> I hold by my opinion even with grandchildren, nephews, nieces & cousins,
> sentimental portraiture is artificial and nauseating. However unposed
> spontaneous shots are a far more valuable record of the character of the
> soon to be insufferable pre-pubescent.

This is partly why the "pj" wedding approach has caught on over the last
10 or 20 years. While the de rigeur formals are taken, the photographer
also shoots informally to capture more spontaneous moments.

As for myself, I see nothing artificial and nauseating about formal
photos (as long as they don't take cliche's _too_ far). They are part
of the whole of photography and culture.

Not all pre-pubescent kids are insufferable. Some wait until they're 25
or 55 to reach that state.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 10:05 am
From: Alan Browne

On 31-05-09 08:41, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:09:12 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> : Peter wrote:
> :> "Alan Browne"<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> :> news:wemdnUYIivEdmJLXnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> :>
> :>
> :>> And really, shouldn't you grab your pregnant wife's ass in a portrait?
> :>> After all they are half nude.
> :>
> :> Look closely at their faces. She may be his sister, not his wife.
> :> Oops! OTOH they may be in Applachia.
> :
> : I really don't think terms like sister/brother/cousin/uncle/aunt are
> : used the same in Appalachia as we use them... I saw a side splitting
> : video of a guy from Arkansas, singing, trying to explain his family tree.
> :
> :>> The Anglican priest in shorts with the kid choking mommy is actually
> :>> great as long as you have some sense of humour.
> :>>
> :>
> :> Whenever will you Aussies learn there is only one "u" in humor.<G>
> :
> : We Canadians are a confused lot and we use or drop the "u" at will.
> : Tell ya what though, when you yanks learn to write something as simple
> : as the date properly I'll change my "colours".
>
> That from someone who thinks Arkansas is in Appalachia.

Close enough. I was really referring to the notion that people in the
Appalachian region and surrounding states such as Arkansas have somewhat
confused family trees.

Thanks for the geography tip though. I always think of Arkansas as
further east than that.

But as to comparative geographic knowledge I will blow away 9 out of 10
Americans. And so would a 10 year old in Poland or S. Korea.

Still, the American practice of writing the date in month-day-year order
would only hilariously stupid if it weren't for the fact that it leaks
out of the US to confuse everyone else.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 10:57 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-31 09:53:12 -0700, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:

> On 31-05-09 12:16, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-31 05:25:04 -0700, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:15:32 -0700, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>> : The whole concept of wedding photographs, baby pics and other types
>>> : of sentimental portraiture is somewhat nauseating to me. ...
>>>
>>> Obviously you have no grandchildren.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> Why would that be obvious?
>>
>> I hold by my opinion even with grandchildren, nephews, nieces & cousins,
>> sentimental portraiture is artificial and nauseating. However unposed
>> spontaneous shots are a far more valuable record of the character of the
>> soon to be insufferable pre-pubescent.
>
> This is partly why the "pj" wedding approach has caught on over the
> last 10 or 20 years. While the de rigeur formals are taken, the
> photographer also shoots informally to capture more spontaneous moments.
>
> As for myself, I see nothing artificial and nauseating about formal
> photos (as long as they don't take cliche's _too_ far). They are part
> of the whole of photography and culture.
>
> Not all pre-pubescent kids are insufferable. Some wait until they're
> 25 or 55 to reach that state.

So you know my step-daughter from hell?
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:00 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-31 10:05:37 -0700, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:

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

Strangely enough the US military convention is dd/mm/yy.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 7:16 am
From: Dan Stephenson

> On May 4, 12:12�pm, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Hi everyone;
>>
>> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
>> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
>> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
>> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
>> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
>> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
>> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
>> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
>> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.

The city of Ely is near has a really nice cathedral and grounds,
including roof access on the tour

http://web.mac.com/stepheda/Bedfordshire_2008/Ely_Cathedral.html

Don't know what kind of public transport there is

--
Dan Stephenson
Photos, movies, panos from the Europe, USA, plus N.Z.:
http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda

(remove nospam from email address to reply via email)

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 7:38 am
From: Surreyman

On 4 May, 17:08, Giovanni Drogo <dr...@rn.bastiani.ta.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, boris spider wrote:
> > The viewing galley at the top of the tower of Westminster Cathedral
>
> ^^^^^^
>
> can one cook there ? :-)
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> nos...@mi.iasf.cnr.it is a newsreading account used by more persons to
> avoid unwanted spam. Any mail returning to this address will be rejected.
> Users can disclose their e-mail address in the article if they wish so.

Test reply, please ignore

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 10:13 am
From: d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*))

Dan Stephenson <stephedanospam@mac.com> wrote:

> > On May 4, 12:12 pm, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Hi everyone;
> >>
> >> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> >> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
> >> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
> >> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> >> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
> >> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> >> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> >> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
> >> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.
>
> The city of Ely is near has a really nice cathedral and grounds,
> including roof access on the tour
>
> http://web.mac.com/stepheda/Bedfordshire_2008/Ely_Cathedral.html
>
> Don't know what kind of public transport there is

Easy to get to Ely by train from all the cities the OP mentioned
(indeed, direct services to Ely from all three, even Liverpool), and you
obviously wouldn't usually need PT to cover Ely itself- it's compact.

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
www.davidhorne.net (email address on website)
"The fact is that when I compose I never think of and never
have thought of meeting the listener." -George Perle (RIP 2009)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's the fuss over 3:2 aspect ratio?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ecd50976e6eb9d55?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 8:08 am
From: Alan Browne

On 30-05-09 19:29, frank wrote:
> On May 29, 1:55 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> On 29-05-09 02:30, DRS wrote:
>>
>>> "Crippled DSLRs"<cds...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7u4u15h17avctll8ijg0i9kv7h9pktdq6h@4ax.com
>>>> I make every pixel count, as any seasoned photographer should.
>>> For some reason this strikes me as enormously funny.
>> What kind of seasoning do you reckon? Steak spices? Col. Sanders
>> secret herbs and spices? Certainly cooked to be sure.
>>
>> Of course he doesn't realize that the camera makes every pixel "count"
>> (photons that is).
>>
>> I'd strike "enormously funny" and use "pathetic". YMMV.
>>
>> --
>> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
>> -- r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
>> -- [SI] gallery& rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
>> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
>> -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
>
> pixel dust. pretty expensive but you can just get ordinary dust if you
> want....

As usual the high quality product is much better than the freely
available product. Kinda like Mac OS X v. Linux and PS v. Gimp.

Frank, think you can get a news reader that properly removes the
signature of the prior posters message? eg: PROPER newsreaders remove
everything after a "--".

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 8:20 am
From: Alan Browne

On 30-05-09 10:13, Peter wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:lJ6dnQIwVe-4tr3XnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 29-05-09 07:44, Peter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well stated. I keep the grid on my screen only as a guide. The "rule of
>>> thirds" may be and should be violated whenever the subject says so.
>>
>> Actually he stated it so poorly as to make one consider calling the
>> insane asylum to pick him up.
>>
>
> You certainly are entitled to your opinion. We obviously don't agree.
>
>
>> The rule of thirds can be restated as the "rule of avoid centering
>> unless that is a strong composition in itself." or
>
> Simply remove the word "rule" in favor of avoid static compositions.
>
>>
>> The "tool of thirds" (Freeman Patterson) to help one consider
>> composition when shooting.
>
> The artist should take and evaluate Freeman, as everything else, and
> apply it to his own work.
>
>>
>> The real purpose of a grid (to me) is not so much for composing the
>> subject within the frame as to set up verticals and horizontals in the
>> image. Coupled to a geared head, it's a very nice tool for that.
>>
>
>
> Last time I looked ensuring those portions that are intended to be
> vertical and horizontal are what they are intended to be, is a subset of
> composition.

Using any grid to restrain someone in composition (placement of subject
items in the frame according to preset lines) is something to be adhered
to as little as possible. Formulaic composition is a trap.

Another very useful purpose of gridlines is when shooting tilt/shift
lenses to get the tilts and shifts set up properly.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to hold and carry a camera with a heavy lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/35d5d71e3cce87b4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 8:46 am
From: Rob Morley

On Fri, 29 May 2009 07:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
aniramca@gmail.com wrote:

> I am wondering what is the best way to carry around a camera in a hand
> strap with heavy and large lenses (glass lenses 200-300mm up)
>

I just hold the lens, but I tend to use a neck strap and a holster if
I have a long lens fitted, so I'm not doing that much carrying anyway.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hey Noons, Has it Really Been 6 Months?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8df2a8096dc7b7ba?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 8:50 am
From: Nomen Nescio

Alan Browne wrote:
> On 30-05-09 23:16, Annika1980 wrote:
>> Has it really been 6 months since Noons was dissing on the new Canon
>> 5D Mark II?
>> "It's a crap sensor," he said.
>> "I wouldn't have one if it was free," he said.
>> "Look at this boat pic ..... it's terrible," he said.
>>
>> Well Loons, here's one I took today just for you.
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/113159283/original
>>
>> [Note: This is a BIG photo. Actual size for your viewing pleasure.]
>>
>> A boat speeding down the river captured handheld from a couple of
>> hundred yards by one of those crappy Canon consumer lenses.
>> If those folks were wearing watches you'd know what time it is.
>>
>> I think I'll keep the Fab 5D2.
>
> Thanks Bret.
>
> 2 things about that photo:
>
> 1. Noise in the BG (dark green areas) is similar to the Sony a900 at ISO
> 200.
>
> 2. Everyone in the boat looks totally relaxed, except the kid driving
> it. Looks like she's being attentive and careful. Warms my heart to see
> kids being responsible when driving the boat around.
>

3. Disturbing. The dude at the back seems proud to be a fatty fucker.
Could it be Doug MacDonald Jnr?
Apparently the US GI that knocked up Jessica (Douglas MacDonald's mother) had tattood on his bad "Any hole's a goal"

Go Dougy's dad.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is there a website showing the cross section of a modern autofocus lens
and how the autofocus mechanism in a lens works?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06c77197131a440d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 9:49 am
From: aniramca@gmail.com

On May 30, 9:22 am, m...@mine.net wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 14:18:58 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital
>
> anira...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Just curious to know how the lens barrel is moving up or down when you
> >press the camera's button. It must drain a lot of energy from the
> >battery to do this. I recall the old autofocus lens was a monster
> >size. Is there a diagram somewhere in the web which shows how this is
> >accomplished? Is there some kind of a spiral screw along the outer
> >skin of the lens barrel? I also assume that the bigger the lens, the
> >more energy needed to move the lens during autofocusing.
> >Thanks for the info.
>
> Some discussion of the Nikon SWM lens design may be found here.http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/scene/03/index.htm

I finally found a website (all the way from Malaysia) which shows a 3D
slice of a Nikkor autofocus lens
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/index.htm

I wonder if there are other websites that show this in more great
details.
According to the 3D section, it looks to me that the motor gear is
located directly under the ring grip where you twist the lens when you
want to change the zoom distance manually. It is neat! I am curious
about this, as I seem to notice that my cheap Nikkor autofocus
70-300mm lens feels rather flimsy on the plastic outer barrel and
wonder where the motor mechanism is located and how it works. Although
it is relatively cheap, I could not afford to send my lens to a
machine saw and cut it into half in lengthwise to find out where the
mechanism is :)
I would love to see more about this autofocus lens info, if someone
has more info or amke reference to websites.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 10:09 am
From: Rob Morley

On Sun, 31 May 2009 10:13:23 +0100
"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote:

> What needs explaining here is what at 'standard lens is - and
> that is simple.
>
> It is the lens which has a focal length equivalent to the longest
> measurement of the format in use, i.e. the diagonal. It this
> follows that a 'standard' lens for 35mm will, by Pythagorus, be
> about 42mm, and for 645 will be 75mm.
44.4mm 70.6mm

Just in case anyone thought Pythagoras was playing up. :-)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 10:59 am
From: "Woody"

"Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:20090531180949.58a0297b@bluemoon...
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 10:13:23 +0100
> "Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> What needs explaining here is what at 'standard lens is - and
>> that is simple.
>>
>> It is the lens which has a focal length equivalent to the
>> longest
>> measurement of the format in use, i.e. the diagonal. It this
>> follows that a 'standard' lens for 35mm will, by Pythagorus,
>> be
>> about 42mm, and for 645 will be 75mm.
> 44.4mm 70.6mm
>
> Just in case anyone thought Pythagoras was playing up. :-)
>
>

Sorry - fogot the spel-chequer!

--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

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

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

Sunday, May 31, 2009

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

0 comments:

Live Traffic