Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 5 ==
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

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:28 am
From: Bob Larter

Savageduck wrote:
> 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.

At least that makes sense.

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

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:36 am
From: Bob Larter

Paul Furman wrote:
> 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

To be honest, I don't really mind that one. Sure, there are lots of
things that could be better about it, but it's definitely a big
improvement on all those weird-looking pregnancy shots where the woman
is fully clothed, except for her belly sticking out.

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

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:04 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 31-05-09 13:57, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-31 09:53:12 -0700, Alan Browne

>> 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?

... a number of her cousins...

--
-- 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.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:08 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 31-05-09 14:00, Savageduck wrote:
> 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.

YYYY-MM-DD actually (ISO 8601). It's not strange at all. The US
military uses a lot of international standards such as that date format
and a thing called the Le Système International d'Unités.

In large part for NATO conformity (operations) and for R&D, specs, and
so on.

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

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:03 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-31 09:43:17 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:

> 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.

...and the OS isn't software??
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:44 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

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.

That is absolutely not true. Nothing written prior to 1923
is copyrighted. Nothing produced by the US government is
copyrighted. Nothing written prior to 1978 that was not explicitly
copyrighted is now.

And nothing that you explicitly remove your copyright from is
copyrighted.

Those are all in in the Public Domain.

>> In fact, you cannot know of any Public Domain software
>> that is copyrighted or requires a license to use.
>>
>> Of course the laws regarding how a work becomes Public
>> Domain vary from country to country. In the US today it
>> is relatively difficult for a private individual to
>> produce Public Domain software! Years ago it merely
>> meant not explicitly copyrighting something, but we
>> changed our laws to make copyright automatic,
>
>IOW you decided to comply with the Berne Convention, along with the
>civilised parts of the World.

Sheesh, the US was compliant prior to that.

Can't you get anything right?

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

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:45 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>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.

I quoted a dictionary, why would I add something it didn't say,
and that is not needed?

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

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:54 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>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.

You should have read the URL that I cited. It says the file format
is TIFF, and that it contains 4 each IFD's. The 4th IFD contains
"JPEG data (lossless compression)" for the raw data.

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

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:56 am
From: Chris H

In message <871vq5o4a0.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>What do you define as "Public Domain"?
>>
>>Most public domain software has a copy right or license of one sort or
>>another. In fact I don't know of any that does not.
>
>"Public Domain" means "The total absence of copyright
>protection."

Then that is different to the rest of the world.

>In fact, you cannot know of any Public Domain software
>that is copyrighted or requires a license to use.

In FACT. I do. I have a whole CD of it. PD software was quite common 15
years ago. PD SW along with Shareware was often on the disks and CD's
with computer magazines.

>Of course the laws regarding how a work becomes Public
>Domain vary from country to country. In the US today it
>is relatively difficult for a private individual to
>produce Public Domain software!

Not true in the legal sense. Only true by your personal definition.

> Years ago it merely
>meant not explicitly copyrighting something,

Nope... All the PD SW I have is labelled as PD and has copyright and
licenses.

>but we
>changed our laws to make copyright automatic,

I think you changed your laws to fit in with the rest of the world. (Who
had and still have PD SW. )

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

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:58 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>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.

I see that we are in agreement. It isn't Public Domain and
your method works like shit.

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

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:06 pm
From: nospam

In article <87hbz1m7cb.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.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.
>
> You should have read the URL that I cited. It says the file format
> is TIFF, and that it contains 4 each IFD's. The 4th IFD contains
> "JPEG data (lossless compression)" for the raw data.

i did look at it but apparently not close enough. that's very odd.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:08 pm
From: nospam

In article <2009053111034211272-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> ...and the OS isn't software??

sure, but the point is that any app can read raw files without
installing anything special. if an app can display jpegs it can
display nikon and canon raw with no additional code.

==============================================================================
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 11:04 am
From: "Woody"

"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote in message
news:xAzUl.192988$IC1.27573@newsfe06.ams2...
> "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. :-)
>>
>>
>

Let's split the difference shall we? (36^2+24^2)^0.5 = 43.2.
(60^2+45^2)^0.5=75 as I said. (This using Windows Calculator.)

Try your Pythagoras again maybe?

--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:12 pm
From: Rob Morley

On Sun, 31 May 2009 19:04:40 +0100
"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote:
>
> Let's split the difference shall we? (36^2+24^2)^0.5 = 43.2.

It seems I succumbed to one of the fundamental laws of Usenet.

> (60^2+45^2)^0.5=75 as I said. (This using Windows Calculator.)

The neg size of 645 is more like 56×41.5mm, because 120 film is based
on 2 1/4", not 60mm.
>
> Try your Pythagoras again maybe?
>
Next time I'll double check before posting. Or just try to abstain
from nitpicking. :-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Printing Photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8ef806fa565f0da1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:20 am
From: Bob Larter

Paul Furman wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> trouble wrote:
>>> It would help to profile your monitor but if you are using an LCD
>>> panel you will probably find prints are too dark because monitor
>>> profiling devices cannot account for the insane brightness levels of
>>> LCD panels. There are simple ways to compensate for this but it is
>>> another level of complexity.
>
> I'm open to suggestions (sans calibrating device).
>
>
>>> I suspect you are not setting up the printer driver correctly in both
>>> CS2 and the Epson driver.
>>> Select "have photoshop manage printing", select relative colorimetric
>>> as the intent and choose the epson glossy profile. In the Epson
>>> driver also select the epson glossy profile and turn off ICM.
>>> This should give you a reasonably accurate print even without monitor
>>> profiling.
>
> Does this know I have an LCD monitor though?

No. The assumption is that you've made a best effort to setup your
monitor correctly. If it's really not possible for you to calibrate it
properly, at least install the factory ICM file that came with the
monitor (or D/L is from the manufacturers website), & set your monitor
to the factory defaults.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photos of Scripta
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/876346bf4c08d3ef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:24 am
From: Bob Larter

tony cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:41:13 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Miguel wrote:
>>> Hello, recently I did these photos:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043780/
>> Potentially interesting, but the motion blurring does nothing for it.
>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043786/
>> Not as soft, but still a bit too soft, & the background's obtrusive.
>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043790/
>> Much better for sharpness, but I still hate the fake marble background.
>>
>>> Your comments about photography always are interesting.
>> Well, my comments haven't been very nice, but hopefully you'll find them
>> useful anyway.
>>
>> Put your turtle in a pond or something & try again. ;^)
>
> You want to critique my shots of a Florida Softshell turtle?
>
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/softshell1.jpg
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/softshell2.jpg

Yow! The creature looks creepy as hell, but your photos are pretty good.
Hopefully the OP will take a look at them & learn something.

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

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:50 am
From: Bob Larter

tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 13:38:44 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> The parent doesn't know whether your interest is in capturing lights,
>>>>> shadows, composition, and a beguiling expression or if your interest
>>>>> is in recording faces that will be Photoshopped onto nude bodies and
>>>>> slobbered over on the net.
>> This argument is a load of crap. The idea that someone would go to the
>> trouble to take a photo of your kid & Photoshop it onto a nude image so
>> people can wank to it is sheerest paranoia. Any perv who's that
>> desperate for such photos could simply download as many pictures as they
>> want from any of a million G-rated websites. And before anyone asks,
>> yes, I am a parent myself.
>
> Doesn't make any difference if the argument is a load of crap or not.
> It's what the parent *thinks* that counts. If the parent thinks
> something inappropriate has been done, the parent will react.

Of course they will, but that doesn't make them right, nor does it mean
that the cops should take the parent's hysterics seriously.

> Your argument is a load of crap, too. If the photographer in question
> posts his G-rated photo on a G-rated website as an example of his
> street photography, and with the best of intentions, he's making it
> available to the pervs you mention.

So?

> As a parent, don't you feel you should have some say-so about whether
> or not your kid's picture is on some unknown-to-you photographer's
> website? You think anyone should be able to snap your kid's picture
> and post it on that person's gallery without your approval?

I might not like it, but that doesn't mean I can (or should) do anything
about it. Being paranoid about the possibility of someone snapping a
photo of my kid is just that, paranoid. If someone actually wants to
take a bunch of pictures of kids to put on the web, all they have to do
is slap a big tele on their camera & snap away to their hearts content,
& there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. If I'm going to worry
about perv's targeting my child, I'll worry about things that might
actually harm him, such as paedophile teachers, etc.

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

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 11:55 am
From: Bob Larter

Chris H wrote:
> In message <200520090118412735%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes
>> In article <kZCdnfUW-t_SJY7XnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
>> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> nonsense. taking a photo in a public place is legal and does not
>>>> violate anyone's civil rights. it's also absurd to call it molestation
>>>> or assault.
>>> It depends on what you take a picture of, and how. Shoving your camera
>>> under some girl's skirt, and snapping off a burst would probably result
>>> in arrest, just about anywhere.
>> obviously. nobody is advocating upskirt photos.
>>
>> anything in plain public view where there's no expectation of privacy
>> and where photography is not prohibited is fair game. period. if you
>> don't want to be photographed, stay home.
>>
>>> Withe the current hysteria about child
>>> molesters, it is pretty dangerous for a single man to even visit a
>>> public park where children are playing, and just sit and watch them
>>> play. Add a camera to that, and you can count on a visit from the local
>>> law enforcement.
>> and that is the whole problem. sitting in a park is *legal*.
>
> However as most "public" parks are owned there is a possibility that
> there is a no photography rule.

Not here in Australia.

> However the world is getting far too paranoid.
>
> I would only worry if it was a Catholic Priest in the playground. See
> the report focusing out of Ireland. Yet another "horrific" report of
> systematic child abuse by the RC church. The worlds children have far
> more to fear from the RC church than photographers.

Absolutely true. How many priests have molested or otherwise abused
children? Now compare that to the "danger" of some perv drooling over a
picture of one of your kids. Sure, the latter is disgusting, but it's
very unlikely, & how does it actually harm the kid?

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

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:00 pm
From: Bob Larter

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-20 02:39:58 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
>
>> In message <200520090212135419%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes
>>> In article <qPf8lSG5P8EKFAn9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
>>> <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> However as most "public" parks are owned there is a possibility that
>>>> there is a no photography rule.
>>>
>>> if so, it needs to be posted.
>>
>> As with railway tickets in VERY small print "terms and conditions apply
>> see park/station master"
>>
>>>> However the world is getting far too paranoid.
>>>
>>> yep.
>>
>> People need to relax about it. There is far to much PC and people
>> demanding petty and stupid rights like you can't photograph my child in
>> the street and worry a more about the freedoms we are loosing... like
>> you can't take pictures on the street.
>
> Damn!
> I can remember the days of the professional street photographers, who
> would work a crowded street of pedestrians taking candid shots, and then
> approaching the subject to hand him/her a numbered ticket to redeem the
> finished photograph for the stated fee.
> I also rcall that some of those photographers had studio shop windows,
> where many unclaimed photographs were on public display.

Exactly. And I for one really like doing that style of photography. I
photograph at nightclubs, & regularly photograph one or two hundred
people in one night. Every now & then you'll get someone who freaks out
at having a camera pointed in their direction, & if it was up to them,
candid photography would be outlawed. Never mind that 99.89% of people
are fine with being photographed, & love seeing the shots.
I don't think the whole of society should be constrained by the paranoia
of the few.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d37cad4ce10bb478?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:20 pm
From: Bob Larter

Greg Dalton wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 17:54:56 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>>> "Bertram Paul" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
>>> news:5sidne6fOftCHo3XnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@novis.pt...
>>>> Seems Sony stays lazy and more or less re-launches the A200, 300 and
>>>> 350 with a "starter" menu.
>>>> As if the older ones were so difficult?
>>>>
>>>> http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/consumer/digital_imaging/digital_cameras/dslr/release/40522.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tomorrow more news, but if this is all, I fear for the job of the
>>>> idiot who came up with this crap.
>>>>
>>>> I know a good name for the SLR's: Sony Simple SLR
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ---
>>>> Bertram Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> To be honest, I don't find their Sony products very well engineered or
>>> very well thought out.
>> My beef with Sony is that, IME, their stuff is too fragile, & they're
>> too fond of proprietary interfaces.
>
> My beef with idiot newsgroup trol[*SLAP!*]

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:21 pm
From: Bob Larter

Troll Killer wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:09:21 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-30 15:15:44 -0700, Greg Dalton <gdalton@mydomain.org> said:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2009 15:03:20 -0500, Greg Dalton <gdalton@mydomain.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Damn, ............
>>> ............................................
>> "Greg Dalton" still = TROLL
>
>
> Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-to[*SLAP!*]

Eh?

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

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:38 pm
From: Bob Larter

Don Stauffer wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>
>>>
>>> A format I've never used is the 2 1/4 inch square format (or any
>>> square format). Resolves the age-old problem as to whether landscape
>>> or portrait fits best, and arguable makes the best use of the lens.
>>
>> The latter is a good point, but artistically speaking, I really
>> dislike square format images.
>>
>
> Hey, how about a circular format? I believe in times past (film days)
> there were some. It would complicate the layout and readout of the CCD,
> and the image processing, but it could be done. I certainly see enough
> portraits matted with circular or elliptical mats.

Circular/ellipsoid is even worse, IMHO.

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:42 pm
From: Bob Larter

Paul Furman wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> RichA wrote:
>>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
>>
>> Screw you. I happen to be very happy with the 3:2 format, & even when
>> I crop an image (not often), I usually retain the 3:2 ratio. 4:3
>> reminds me too much of a TV screen, which I feel gives a certain
>> mundane look.
>
> I've been doing some prints at 16:9, widescreen video format, I kinda
> like it. Part of the motivation was to get bigger than 13x19 using roll
> stock, so it's closer to 13x24.

If I shot landscapes, I'd probably like that ratio too, but most of my
shooting is people, where that format would be way too tall.

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 31 2009 12:48 pm
From: Bob Larter

Troll Killer wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 06:02:16 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
[...]
>>> See if you can get th[*SLAP!*]
>> I take it that nobody has explained to this kook how we can spot his
>> posts every time? *GOOD!*
>
> I hope nobody's explained to this resident role-play "photographer"
> DSLR-Troll, how up to 15 different servers (proxies) and 6 different usenet
> clients are used to post to this newsgroup on various occasions.

Bullshit. Your posts are trivially easy to spot, regardless of which
sock puppet you're currently using.

> When
> between photo treks and bored it's fun to play with all the full-time
> pretend-photographer resident trolls, like "Bob Larter", nospam, ASSAR,
> Rich, SMS, savagefuck-head, et.al. You know, all the major morons that live
> and breathe their pathetic imaginary-photographer lives in this newsgroup.
> Those who don't have a single clue about real cameras and real photography.

We're still waiting to see some or your (no doubt imaginary) photos, kook.

[further kookery snipped]

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

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

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