Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 10 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's just wrong
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06e32c9cd78fc6f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:35 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/18/09 2:37 PM, in article
f92414d2-b74e-40cd-bb2e-f0232b3c93c2@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com, "Twibil"
<nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 18, 5:59 am, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ain't it a wonderful world that the "Culturally Diverse" have created?
>>
>> Miss California is asked her OPINION about gay marriage by a flamer and
>> before she gives it, she apologized in advance that she did not mean to hurt
>> anyone's "feelings", and she gets lambasted everywhere. Did the womens'
>> groups come to her side? Hell no! They were too "P.C."...
>
> Ah, I see!
>
> You mean the culturally-diverse-created world where this supposedly
> moral Christian beauty-contest entrant had done topless photo shoots
> previous to entering the contest, but somehow forgot to mention that
> fact because it would have automatically excluded her from
> competition? (The same world where she's *still* claimimg that she
> didn't know the wind had blown her vest open and her nipples were
> showing? Yeah right...)
>
You obviously have never been on a shoot that involves glamour.

> Or is it the world where she promptly claimed that she'd only lost the
> contest because of her views on gay marrage, and then ignored the
> terms of her contract with the beauty pageant folks to go out and do
> appearences for Fundie groups?
>
You obviously have never had someone challenge your right of opinion.

> No, I don't think "Cultural Diversity" brought about *that* world.
>
You obviously do not have any 'balance' with that small pointed pinhead.

> That's just your every-day right-wing Fundie hypocrisy functioning the
> same way it always does.
>
You obviously are functioning with the same myopic approach to life as your
ilk always does.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:33 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote in message
news:4a11d5e3$0$4888$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...

> Hey, I'm just the shooter reflected in the window. Don't blame me.

Hold on you shot all over the window !
well as long as you wiped it off with a tissue

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:41 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/18/09 4:22 PM, in article
2o-dnbwBWNcJTIzXnZ2dnUVZ_oVi4p2d@giganews.com, "Ron Hunter"
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> Bowser wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>>> Bowser wrote:
>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>>>> pedophiles in the town.
>>>> Bob Williams
>>> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
>>> in this sculpture....
>>
>> I made no references to homosexuality in my original post. You were the
>> one who injected homosexuality. If you see a problem, look in the mirror.
> I guess you didn't look at the image. There are two people in the
> picture, and both of them are male,

((((((((((??????????)))))))))))

Dude, this is in the South, not Castro District in S.F.!

The figure holding up the smaller to the fountian is clearly a GIRL! The
other, is a little boy in my opinion. Others see it as another girl.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:51 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/19/09 7:06 AM, in article
4a12a1cd$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
wrote:

>
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:NtmdnXQLQM3NRYzXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> Bowser wrote:
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2009-05-18 06:45:07 -0700, Bowser <over@the.rainbow> said:
>>>>
>>>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>>>>>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser"
>>>>>> <up@gone.now> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this
>>>>>>> statue in front of
>>>>>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another
>>>>>> connotation for you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
>>>>> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a
>>>>> number of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed
>>>>> that I offered some meaning in my original post. I did not. I
>>>>> posted merely to provoke and see what happened. And look what
>>>>> happened!
>>>>
>>>> Aaaah! The very definition of a successful and worthy troll :-)
>>>>
>>>> You know, you are not supposed to admit that sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Geez, I wouldn't classify this as a troll. It's not like I said all
>>> Nikon users are elitist snobs or anything, is it? Just having a
>>> little fun with the locals, that's all.
>>
>> Geez, you really need a vacation.
>
> Hell, I took the pic while I was on vacation. Can't afford another one right
> now, unless you'd care to take up a collection from the newsgroup regs. I'm
> betting it'd be a total waste of time.
>
> Besides, I bet I can find something else absurd on my next vacation on
> Martha's Vineyard. Not to worry, I'll post that one, if it happens, as well.
>
I got one right here...

[IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/jfj1h1.jpg[/IMG]

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rock & Republic Mens Jeans - Cheap
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/49af7a7347601921?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:40 am
From: tanvon19@gmail.com

If you want to buy cheap and fashionable Rock & Republic Mens
Jeans,please view our store (http://www.luxury-fashion.org)...
Rock & Republic Mens Jeans all are the fine quality.

You can check them here:
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Rock-Republic-Mens-Jeans.html
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Rock-Republic-Mens-Jeans-03.html

If you need find more kinds of fashionable apparels and shoes,please
view:
http://www.luxury-fashion.org

Welcome check our other pages or feel free contact us.
You can find what do you want here!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon A590 - quality a disappointment - lemon, or typical?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bea3b5f0ddccbd2e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:48 am
From: SMS

bugbear wrote:

> Do I have a duff a590 (which needs returning to the retailer), or is my
> a630 an unfair basis for comparison?
>
> I don't have multiple spare a590s for comparison - but I'm hoping
> denizens here can help me out.
>
> Comments keenly appreciated (except the ones "saying get a DSLR")

See if the retailer has any A570s left. The A590 is rather
disappointing. The increase in pixel density from the A570 seems to have
gone right across the line from good to mediocre, even though the
increase was only from 7.1MP to 8MP. Maybe it has to do with the OIS,
since the A630 is 8 MP and is fine. I ran out and bought a second A570
before they were discontinued.

Since it's the same engine (A570 versus A590), but with a higher density
sensor, there were other compromises as well, i.e. the video frame rate
went from 30 fps on the A570 to 20 fps on the A590, because the CPU
couldn't keep up with the higher density sensor. Low light performance
is better on the A570 as well, though "better" is relative since all
small sensor cameras have pretty crappy low light performance.

Consider the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1. It's not a D-SLR, but it has many
of the advantages of a D-SLR, including the same size sensor used on the
4:3 D-SLRs (small for a D-SLR, but huge for a P&S).

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 8:09 am
From: bugbear

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> Given that my (fairly beloved) Canon a630 had acquired some dirt inside its lens (no, I don't know how). I purchased a a590, and used it to take some holiday shots.
>
>> I was pretty disappointed.
>
> I have two cameras with the same kind of differences between their
> out-of-the-box ex-camera jpegs as that. Some minor adjustment to the
> jpeg mode parameters in the apparently worse camera (vividness,
> sharpness, etc.) makes it apparently the better camera.
>

I have just found (with help
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html)
that the two camera are using the same JPEG compression (quantization)
factors (both are at what Canon call "SuperFine").

It looks like Canon have been using the same number for ages.

This page:

http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-quantization.html

shows the Canon G3's JPEG tables to be the same
as my A640 and A590.

One more potential difference eliminated.

BugBear

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 8:12 am
From: bugbear

SMS wrote:
> Maybe it has to do with the OIS,
> since the A630 is 8 MP and is fine.

Since I was shooting from a (overkill, Benbo mk 1 !!)
tripod, I had disabled IS, so I don't think
that's "the smoking gun"

Actually, I'm rather impressed by the IS, getting a crisp(ish)
photo of some chair joinery in the dark foyer
of a hotel, at 1/4 second hand held.

BugBear

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 8:26 am
From: ASAAR

On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:48:24 -0700, SMS wrote:

> See if the retailer has any A570s left. The A590 is rather
> disappointing. The increase in pixel density from the A570 seems to have
> gone right across the line from good to mediocre, even though the
> increase was only from 7.1MP to 8MP. Maybe it has to do with the OIS,
> since the A630 is 8 MP and is fine. I ran out and bought a second A570
> before they were discontinued.

Ah yes. After trolling the newsgroups for almost half a year,
telling us how terrible the A570 is because your female relative
that borrowed your A570 claimed that battery life was terrible. You
repeatedly stated that fresh alkalines were only good for dozen or
so shots and that you'd check into it when the camera was returned.
I'll bet that your female relative bought cheap counterfeit "heavy
duty" batteries labeled to look like alkalines. You never retracted
any of what must have been a dozen to two dozen of these bogus
statements in the newsgroup, when Canon's manual (and personal
testing) showed that the A570 was good for up to 400 shots from each
pair of AA alkalines and up to 900 shots from a pair of AA NiMH
batteries. About 1/2 that number if the LCD display is used instead
of the optical viewfinder. Is that female relative of yours hiding
in an undisclosed location? :)

Anyone without your well known anti-AA battery agenda would have
known better than to make such rash, improbable statements tarring
all A570s, and would have assumed that either bad batteries or a
defective camera was responsible. You, on the other hand stayed
true to form, spouting absurd nonsense. Canon says up to 400 shots.
You said no more than 20. In fact, your illogical bogus statement
still hasn't been removed from your vanity battery website :

> I didn't realize just how bad alkaline batteries were until I lent
> an AA powered camera (Canon A570IS) to a relative that tried
> to use alkaline AA batteries while on a cruise. She reported getting
> about ten pictures per set of batteries. When I inquired if this was
> normal on rec.photo.digital I got a slew of responses and every one
> of them reported similar results with alkaline batteries.

http://batterydata.com/

And of course the claim that "every one of them reported similar
results" is either an outright fabrication or you can't separate
delusion from reality. If the camera went through batteries that
quickly, nobody in their right mind would have bought a second, but
many have done so, and now, according to your reply, so did you.

More interesting SMS info that a quick google search turned up :

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.photo.digital/2008-11/msg01459.html

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

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:49 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:fuMhdCE1edEKFATF@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <gus0s9$5lc$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>
>>"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>news:77da7oF1gub90U2@mid.individual.net...
>>> In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2009051507484311272-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>>>>> On 2009-05-15 05:43:02 -0700, "whisky-dave"
>>>>> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
>>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:WCXjmsKG8CDKFAYc@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>>> In message <guh5vu$koo$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>>>>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>>>>>>> They are aren;t they.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged with
>>>>>> firing
>>>>>> a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because that is criminal and stupid!!
>>>
>>>> What's stupid, I know it was a criminal act, but what is stupid about
>>>> firing
>>>> a
>>>> gun in to the air, he had NO target.
>>>
>>> The terminal velocity of a lead bullet falling out of the sky is
>>> sufficient to cause injury. In a civilised society people who knew so
>>> little about guns as not to know that wouldn't be allowed to have
>>> them.
>>
>>Yet this person was able to acquire a gun.
>>This is my very point about guns any idiot can get hold of them
>>and that is my primary worry,
>
> I agree. Any idiot can get a gun in the UK. They are very easy to get
> almost anything from a sub-machine gun to a pistol

they aren't that easy, you do have to know the right people.
I've lived my area of london for 20+ years and haven't seen a gun shop.
In fact I've never seen a gun shop in England I giess you can buy them
somewhere though. I did hear of a pub a few miles away where you could
get one for about £200 'under the counter'.

>
>>and why I wouldn't want the USA laws on guns
>>to be applied to the UK.
>
> I agree. However the current Gun laws we have in the UK do not make you
> any safer

They do.
Just look at the stats.

>> I'm just worried that gun purchases might change
>>from
>>gun collectors and hobbyist to those that want them for 'self defence'
>>which is what my ex-flatmates brother wanted it for.
>
> He can still get any gun for self defence. Nothing has changed. The ONLY
> people who do not have guns are the hobby shooters.

So gun clubs don't have guns, that looks pretty bad for our
2012 olympic team then, how the frak will they practice.

Ah computer simulation

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 7:00 am
From: William Black

whisky-dave wrote:

I did hear of a pub a few miles away where you could
> get one for about �200 'under the counter'.

Everyone's heard of a pub a few miles away where you can pick up a
Kalashnikov for a couple of hundred quid.

When you get there it's always 'Sorry mate, just sold the last one, I've
got some lovely kitchen knives and a baseball bat though...'

> So gun clubs don't have guns, that looks pretty bad for our
> 2012 olympic team then, how the frak will they practice.

The UK pistol team has to practice abroad.

--
William Black

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 7:33 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009051811414546501-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
> On 2009-05-18 11:07:42 -0700, William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk>
> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And what's the distance for a gun wielding individual ?
>>>
>>> Different responses for different weapons. That is what training is
>> all
>>> about.
>>
>> They train you to watch the body language of someone with a rifle?
>
> The type of weapon is irrelevant, the behaviour is.
> If they are not concealed you observe the behaviour and take the
> appropriate action.

I donl;t think I can out dodge a bullet.

I know I can;t take films/movies as real life but it does seem possible to
dodge out of the way of someone thrusting a knife towards you,
but it rarly seems possibkle with a gun even at the same distance as
distance increases
it does get easier to move faster than a bullet I guess.

>> You're gonna die...
>
> Not necessarily.
>>
>> For the most part the threat is confirmed with any detected
>>> movement of a fire arm from a passively held position to a ready
>> position
>>> regardless of proximity
>>
>> For a very small group of firearms, yes.
>
> For most police, we are talking close confrontation ranging from 3 to 20
> feet.

Well I think I could dodgy a knife thrown from 20 ft but a bullet ????
I wouldn't be so sure.

>That would permit a defensive action against an assailant armed with most
>fire arms, even fully automatic weapons. Provided training is maintained at
>a high level, certainly in some departments and with some individual police
>officers this is not the case.
>>
>> For most of them, no...
>
> With good and frequent training yes.

The problem is in the UK most people dion;t have such training.

>>> To use a firearm there are very noticeable body language signatures,
>>> which warn of the threat.
>>
>> Yeah, the target enters the cross hairs...
>
> You have quite an imagination which seems to be ignorant of the reality
> police (& the military) have to deal with.

Both the police and military seem to prefer guns to knives as their
required item for 'self' defence or the defence of others.

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 7:52 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-19 05:23:09 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:

> In message <20090519025955.218$i5@newsreader.com>, Nick Cramer
> <n_cramerSPAM@pacbell.net> writes
>> Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>>>>> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>>>>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> whisky-dave <whisky- dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>>>>>>> They are aren;t they.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged with
>>>>>> firing a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because that is criminal and stupid!!
>>>
>>>> What's stupid, I know it was a criminal act, but what is stupid about
>>>> firing a gun in to the air, he had NO target.
>>>
>>> The terminal velocity of a lead bullet falling out of the sky is
>>> sufficient to cause injury. In a civilised society people who knew so
>>> little about guns as not to know that wouldn't be allowed to have
>>> them.
>>
>> And the more nearly vertical that bullet is fired into the air, the more
>> nearly that terminal velocity will approach the muzzle velocity.
>
> This is not correct in any shape or form
>
> Upon leaving the muzzle friction and gravity play a part. The bullet
> will start to slow as soon as it leaves the barrel.
>
> The nearer the vertical the more direct the effect of gravity and the
> faster the bullet slows. When fired horizontal the effect of gravity is
> ay 90 degrees and pulls the bullet down but not back.
>
> If fired vertically eventually at some point the bullet will cease
> upwards movement.
>
> It will then descend downwards starting from zero accelerating at
> 32m/s/s to its terminal velocity determined by it's mass and friction
>
> It will achieve nothing like muzzle velocity.
>
> I can post all the maths from by ballistics books if you like? (Seer
> and Sierra bullet loading manuals)

That is the reason bullets fired less than vertically are dangerous.
They maintain a full ballistic trajectory and still have sufficient
velocity and energy to inflict serious injury.
The concept of the precisely vertically fired bullet is more of a
textbook physics problem, where energy & velocity are expended until
gravity induced acceleration takes over. Here the terminal velocity
will be determined by mass, profile, atmospheric density, winds aloft &
rotation of the Earth. They will never reach muzzle velocity in a
controlled test.
The TV show MythBusters had a recent show dedicated to this. They
discovered the bullets tended to tumble and impact on their sides
creating a "key hole" effect and had insufficient energy & velocity to
inflict serious injury.

The bottom line on this is, very few guns fired in the air will fire a
bullet perfectly vertically, be unaffected by winds aloft, be
unaffected by rotation of the Earth, not have a ballistic trajectory
imparted and not have the potential to kill.

In the cases where injuries or deaths have occurred, they have occurred
some distance from where the weapon was fired, demonstrating that when
they did the damage, the bullets were in a ballistic trajectory,
whether from the angle fired, or what happened on the ride up.

Thinking that pointing a gun towards the sky and pulling the trigger is
a safe act, is ignorant, stupid and downright dangerous.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 7:32 am
From: "J. Clarke"

whisky-dave wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:fuMhdCE1edEKFATF@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <gus0s9$5lc$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>
>>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:77da7oF1gub90U2@mid.individual.net...
>>>> In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2009051507484311272-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>>>>>> On 2009-05-15 05:43:02 -0700, "whisky-dave"
>>>>>> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:WCXjmsKG8CDKFAYc@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>>>> In message <guh5vu$koo$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>>>>>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>>>>>>>> They are aren;t they.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged
>>>>>>> with firing
>>>>>>> a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because that is criminal and stupid!!
>>>>
>>>>> What's stupid, I know it was a criminal act, but what is stupid
>>>>> about firing
>>>>> a
>>>>> gun in to the air, he had NO target.
>>>>
>>>> The terminal velocity of a lead bullet falling out of the sky is
>>>> sufficient to cause injury. In a civilised society people who knew
>>>> so little about guns as not to know that wouldn't be allowed to
>>>> have them.
>>>
>>> Yet this person was able to acquire a gun.
>>> This is my very point about guns any idiot can get hold of them
>>> and that is my primary worry,
>>
>> I agree. Any idiot can get a gun in the UK. They are very easy to
>> get almost anything from a sub-machine gun to a pistol
>
> they aren't that easy, you do have to know the right people.
> I've lived my area of london for 20+ years and haven't seen a gun
> shop. In fact I've never seen a gun shop in England I giess you can
> buy them somewhere though. I did hear of a pub a few miles away where
> you could get one for about £200 'under the counter'.
>
>
>>
>>> and why I wouldn't want the USA laws on guns
>>> to be applied to the UK.
>>
>> I agree. However the current Gun laws we have in the UK do not make
>> you any safer
>
> They do.
> Just look at the stats.

So you're saying that you are safer in England after the gun laws than
before? Or are you basing that on comparison between the UK and the US,
where the homicide rate with weapons that are not firearms is higher than
the UK total homicide rate, and assuming that the only difference is gun
laws?

>>> I'm just worried that gun purchases might change
>>> from
>>> gun collectors and hobbyist to those that want them for 'self
>>> defence' which is what my ex-flatmates brother wanted it for.
>>
>> He can still get any gun for self defence. Nothing has changed. The
>> ONLY people who do not have guns are the hobby shooters.
>
> So gun clubs don't have guns, that looks pretty bad for our
> 2012 olympic team then, how the frak will they practice.
>
> Ah computer simulation

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 8:09 am
From: Chris H

In message <guudhh$ugd$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>
>> I agree. Any idiot can get a gun in the UK. They are very easy to get
>> almost anything from a sub-machine gun to a pistol
>
>they aren't that easy,

They are

>you do have to know the right people.
True.

>I've lived my area of london for 20+ years and haven't seen a gun shop.
>In fact I've never seen a gun shop in England

This proves that you do not see much. I have seen hundreds. Actually
many fishing, horse and "country" shops were also gun shops.

>I giess you can buy them
>somewhere though. I did hear of a pub a few miles away where you could
>get one for about £200 'under the counter'.

This is where most come from now.

>>>and why I wouldn't want the USA laws on guns
>>>to be applied to the UK.
>>
>> I agree. However the current Gun laws we have in the UK do not make you
>> any safer
>They do.

They don't

>Just look at the stats.

The Office of statistics has already had a go at the government over
it's massaging and misuse of statistics. Also this government has lied
more than any other in history.

>>> I'm just worried that gun purchases might change
>>>from
>>>gun collectors and hobbyist to those that want them for 'self defence'
>>>which is what my ex-flatmates brother wanted it for.
>>
>> He can still get any gun for self defence. Nothing has changed. The ONLY
>> people who do not have guns are the hobby shooters.
>
>So gun clubs don't have guns,

What gun clubs? Most have gone.

> that looks pretty bad for our
>2012 olympic team then, how the frak will they practice.

They usually practice in France and have had one hell of a time getting
permits to bring the guns into the UK for the Olympics... For them it is
much more difficult than any other nation!!! Not sure why but it is
something to do with them being UK nationals domiciled in the UK but
claiming they are "just visiting" the UK (from the UK)

> Ah computer simulation

It's not the same.

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

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 8:11 am
From: Chris H

In message <guuhi501bf3@news1.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> writes
>whisky-dave wrote:
>>> I agree. However the current Gun laws we have in the UK do not make
>>> you any safer
>>
>> They do.
>> Just look at the stats.
>
>So you're saying that you are safer in England after the gun laws than
>before?

The situation is worse now. There are more guns than before the ban...
virtually none of them legal. More people are illegally carrying guns
than in the past.

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

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 8:14 am
From: Chris H

In message <2009051907525546882-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom>, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> writes
>On 2009-05-19 05:23:09 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
>
>> In message <20090519025955.218$i5@newsreader.com>, Nick Cramer
>> <n_cramerSPAM@pacbell.net> writes
>>> Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>>>>>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> whisky-dave <whisky- dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>>>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>>>>>>>> They are aren;t they.
>>>>>>>> If used properly they should only hit the intended
>>>>>>>>target.....
>>>>>>> Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged
>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>> firing a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
>>>>>> Because that is criminal and stupid!!
>>>>
>>>>> What's stupid, I know it was a criminal act, but what is stupid
>>>>>about
>>>>> firing a gun in to the air, he had NO target.
>>>> The terminal velocity of a lead bullet falling out of the sky is
>>>> sufficient to cause injury. In a civilised society people who knew so
>>>> little about guns as not to know that wouldn't be allowed to have
>>>> them.
>>> And the more nearly vertical that bullet is fired into the air, the
>>>more
>>> nearly that terminal velocity will approach the muzzle velocity.
>> This is not correct in any shape or form
>> Upon leaving the muzzle friction and gravity play a part. The
>>bullet
>> will start to slow as soon as it leaves the barrel.
>> The nearer the vertical the more direct the effect of gravity and
>>the
>> faster the bullet slows. When fired horizontal the effect of gravity is
>> ay 90 degrees and pulls the bullet down but not back.
>> If fired vertically eventually at some point the bullet will cease
>> upwards movement.
>> It will then descend downwards starting from zero accelerating at
>> 32m/s/s to its terminal velocity determined by it's mass and friction
>> It will achieve nothing like muzzle velocity.
>> I can post all the maths from by ballistics books if you like?
>>(Seer
>> and Sierra bullet loading manuals)
>
>That is the reason bullets fired less than vertically are dangerous.
>They maintain a full ballistic trajectory and still have sufficient
>velocity and energy to inflict serious injury.

Just as well or it would be pointless using them :-)

>The concept of the precisely vertically fired bullet is more of a
>textbook physics problem,

True

>The TV show MythBusters had a recent show dedicated to this. They
>discovered the bullets tended to tumble and impact on their sides
>creating a "key hole" effect and had insufficient energy & velocity to
>inflict serious injury.

Well it killed the myth!

>The bottom line on this is, very few guns fired in the air will fire a
>bullet perfectly vertically, be unaffected by winds aloft, be
>unaffected by rotation of the Earth, not have a ballistic trajectory
>imparted and not have the potential to kill.

That's the real world Physics....

>In the cases where injuries or deaths have occurred, they have occurred
>some distance from where the weapon was fired, demonstrating that when
>they did the damage, the bullets were in a ballistic trajectory,
>whether from the angle fired, or what happened on the ride up.
>
>Thinking that pointing a gun towards the sky and pulling the trigger is
>a safe act, is ignorant, stupid and downright dangerous.

That is true.. Though it is generally more safe than one fired closer to
the horizontal.

Though in all cases there will be an exception to prove the rule.

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

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 8:19 am
From: Chris H

In message <guug37$vae$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>news:2009051811414546501-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>> On 2009-05-18 11:07:42 -0700, William Black <william.black@hotmail.co.uk>
>> said:
>>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And what's the distance for a gun wielding individual ?
>>>>
>>>> Different responses for different weapons. That is what training is
>>> all
>>>> about.
>>>
>>> They train you to watch the body language of someone with a rifle?
>>
>> The type of weapon is irrelevant, the behaviour is.
>> If they are not concealed you observe the behaviour and take the
>> appropriate action.
>
>I donl;t think I can out dodge a bullet.

It is possible though it is more the case of the firer not being
accurate at shooting at moving targets.

>I know I can;t take films/movies as real life but it does seem possible to
>dodge out of the way of someone thrusting a knife towards you,

It depends..... there is a lot more to it than basic physics.

>but it rarly seems possibkle with a gun even at the same distance as
>distance increases
>it does get easier to move faster than a bullet I guess.

Hand guns are notoriously difficult to be accurate with where both the
shooter and the target are moving

>Well I think I could dodgy a knife thrown from 20 ft but a bullet ????
>I wouldn't be so sure.

It depends on the shooter/firer.

>> With good and frequent training yes.
>The problem is in the UK most people dion;t have such training.

This is very true.

>>>> To use a firearm there are very noticeable body language signatures,
>>>> which warn of the threat.
>>>
>>> Yeah, the target enters the cross hairs...
>>
>> You have quite an imagination which seems to be ignorant of the reality
>> police (& the military) have to deal with.
>
>Both the police and military seem to prefer guns to knives as their
>required item for 'self' defence or the defence of others.

The guns used by the police and military don't have cross hairs. Also it
takes a hell of a lot of practice to be accurate under stress conditions
to hit a moving target with a pistol.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sixteen Reasons not to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cca1e1bb3b88f141?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 7:00 am
From: "Mr. Strat"

In article <6h2415l6ep9jaie2clh2n6eudf2cbqs4au@4ax.com>, Woger
<woger@woger.net.ru> wrote:

> Far to many Problems with DSLR's Dirt being one, SLR is great for film use
> but how does one clean the sensor/mirror with a DSLR, Plus the problem with
> Direct View, you have to flick the mirror out of the way, Plus lenses are very
> poor high apertures, gee even my old Pentax has a 1.8 lens.and the Total
> costs are very high..

Stick with your kiddie toy.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:50 am
From: philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)

In article <541d7bfd-f880-4e0f-ac6a-2091d6b3742d@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> 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?

4:3 is so logical that most LCD screens are now 16:9.

4:3 is simply too high for many wide angle landscapes. In my opinion for most
city-scape portraits (just a few buildings, a monument, etc.) 3:2 is also
better than 4:3.

--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 7:51 am
From: ray

On Tue, 19 May 2009 02:50:08 -0700, 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?

Well, you certainly could "hack away 1/4 of them most of the time", but if
you'll run the numbers, you'll find that it's only necessary to "hack
away" about 12% to get the aspect ratios you suggest.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 8:16 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:541d7bfd-f880-4e0f-ac6a-2091d6b3742d@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> 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?

Any idea what the average human vision is as a ratio.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D-5000
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/541401c3b2747095?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 7:35 am
From: "Neil Harrington"

"Dimitris M" <somone@yahooo.com> wrote in message
news:1242629051.489605@athprx04...
> Yes, I have try it. It is very nice camera. The picture quality is as D90
> but the Live view is better and faster. The only minus is that the display
> has not the resolution and size of D90's.
>
> BTW, 995 was my favorite camera ever for comfortable shooting. I hope that
> Nikon one day will make a new semipro like that. S10 was bad camera, very
> basic.

I agree with you about the S10. I bought one and returned it -- the only
Nikon I have ever sent back. I loved the swivel-lens design and the lens
performed very well for a camera in that price class, but I found the
autofocus extremely unreliable. In anything less than bright sunlight it
would misfocus wildly, far more often than it would focus correctly.

I'm looking forward to the D5000 myself. Love those small-body Nikons -- I
have a D40 and a D60 and they're both great.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: There's only one reason to buy a camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2a1e02595cda7025?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 7:46 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:VlpQl.28616$PH1.16009@edtnps82...
>
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:77ekukF1h13p5U5@mid.individual.net...
>> On Mon, 18 May 2009 22:53:15 +0000, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>>> You are happy enough with the features and quality to shell out the
>>> cash.
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>>
>> Really. I suspect as many are bought on credit.
>
> Well, Ray, I was thinking about that point after I posted my thought.
> Probably, it would be a bit more accurate as follows:
>
> You are happy enough with the features and quality to pay the price...
>

I don;t think happy is the right word, acceptable parameters may fit.
I'd have preferred to buy a better camera I had the money
but didn't want to spend it on a camera of better quality,
it was a balancing act, I'd have liked a better camera, I'd have liked
more features but I'm sure all of us have downgraded our desires
in order to be practical about things.
I even brought a waterproof camera Beach snapshot type) which I thought
would
be really crap but I was presently surprised for the money which included
D&P.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: give it a rest kiddies
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/783a15a6284cbbda?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 7:54 am
From: ray

On Tue, 19 May 2009 08:13:01 -0400, Bowser wrote:

> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:77e3ulF1h13p5U3@mid.individual.net...
>> How about at least TRYING to act like intelligent adults for a while?
>> Quite obviously neither a P&S or a DSLR is going to be what everyone
>> needs - if that were so, then one or the other would die. You simply
>> can't accept the fact that different folks have different needs and let
>> it go at that!
>
> Right. Asking us to be mature. Like asking a starving dog to refuse
> food.

If you'll reread, you'll see that I was not asking folks to be mature - I
know that's way too much to ask. I merely requested that folks try to act
like adults for a while.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 8:13 am
From: "james"

>>
>> The case was thrown out:
>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Greek_photographer_Tube_photo_case_thrown_out_news_282766.html
>

Thank god the judge can still reason.

A few months ago a man was arrested in mexico because he asked a mother to
let him photograph her daughter.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/28/washington.grandfather.freed/

So asking for permission to take photo does NOT work either.

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

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

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic