rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Scenic areas in England - 23 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* Interesting Photos - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/021d3ff544bc6eea?hl=en
* Printing Photos - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8ef806fa565f0da1?hl=en
* Why EVFs will replace reflex systems - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:58 am
From: "Mike"
On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:47:09 +0100, "William Black"
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> right, so the forest drive to get there is a dirt road and I pay an
>> entrance fee, correct?
>
>At the coast end the entrance to the forest is just past the Moorcock Inn at
>Langdale End. You put coins in a machine and buy a ticket, I've never seen
>anyone collecting money there, and then you can drive on the forest roads
>as far as you want to go.
>
>I'd recommend you take the appropriate OS map with you if you intend going
>off the marked route.
thanks, i will try it on way to from a scottish trip
--
Mike
== 2 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:59 am
From: Erick T. Barkhuis
William Black:
>
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:0$675PV0mYCKFA2P@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> > In message <gubvni$g7q$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> > <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
> >>
> >>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> >>> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
> >>>>Cite please,
> > Cites please... we could do with some evidence
Ah, please. Don't answer "cites, please" with "cites, please". That's
childish. Either you cite, or you don't, but that should be it.
> >> The big influx of small-arms from the old Soviet Union and its slave
> >> states dried up a decade ago.
> Nobody, including myself, can prove a negative.
> It's up to you to prove your positive.
Well, I don't really agree with this, either. You weren't claiming a
negative. If you wished, you could prove your claim by showing
statistics of imports of small-arms in 1998 and 2008, and compare the
figures. That would be evidence.
--
Erick
== 3 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:01 am
From: Erick T. Barkhuis
William Black:
>
> "Erick T. Barkhuis" <erick.use-net@ardane.c-o-m> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2473ab617c6f35c7989865@127.0.0.1...
> >> I believe they've already removed the ammunition.
> >
> > Correct. That was decided June 20th, 2007.
> > So, soldiers will have their arms at home, next to a box with private
> > ammunition. The official bullets stay at the army warehouses.
>
> Ammunition in Switzerland, as in the UK, is sold to an individual only on
> production of a valid certificate allowing ownership.
>
> Or are you suggesting that the holders of military firearms in Switzerland
> are, in the main, criminals?
I'm suggesting that ammunition can be bought quite easily and without
questions being asked in several countries in Europe. Not just the
Eastern countries, but for instance in Belgium, as well.
--
Erick
== 4 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:03 am
From: William Black
Erick T. Barkhuis wrote:
> William Black:
>>
>> Or are you suggesting that the holders of military firearms in
>> Switzerland
>> are, in the main, criminals?
>
> I'm suggesting that ammunition can be bought quite easily and
without
> questions being asked in several countries in Europe. Not just the
> Eastern countries, but for instance in Belgium, as well.
I'm sure it can.
Do you suggest that this is done on a wide scale in Switzerland?
--
William Black
== 5 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:05 am
From: William Black
Erick T. Barkhuis wrote:
> William Black:
>> Nobody, including myself, can prove a negative.
>> It's up to you to prove your positive.
>
> Well, I don't really agree with this, either. You weren't claiming a
> negative. If you wished, you could prove your claim by showing
> statistics of imports of small-arms in 1998 and 2008, and compare
the
> figures. That would be evidence.
Well no.
He's making claims about the illegal importation of arms.
There are no reliable statistics.
What's more, everyone knows it...
--
William Black
== 6 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:07 am
From: S Viemeister
Mike wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 07:03:46 -0400, S Viemeister
> <forename@surname.oc.ku> wrote:
>
>>> and in UK we have letterboxes in the front door, a bigger difference
>>> or not?
>> There's a letter slot in my front door, but we took pity on the postie,
>> and installed a box at the front gate.
>
> yes, farms and landed gentry like yourselves in rural areas will often
> have a mailbox, but in general houses do not. And I assume not to any
> design, or do the Post Office have recommendations for what to use? I
> saw an old boiler on its side with a milk crate fitted inside on a
> farm on Arran.
If there are recommendations, they seem to be largely ignored. I've
even seen a small kitchen waste bin mounted on a fence post - the kind
with a hinged lid. The 'Big House' down the road from us, has what
looks like an old wooden shipping trunk just inside the gates.
Ours is just a standard metal mailbox with a lid, from B&Q.
== 7 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:41 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-12 06:11:00 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:57:04 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> and in UK we have letterboxes in the front door, a bigger difference
>>> or not?
>>
>> That depends entirely on the neighborhood here.
>
> I still think the bigger difference is letterbox through door into
> house or mailbox.
...and those exist in the US. Variety is the thing, isn't it?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 8 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:40 am
From: Chris H
In message <guc2oi$aeq$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:uPZ9FrU7lYCKFAXz@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <gubv0c$ace$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
>> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>news:+hZZOLR5tXCKFAnk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <jomi0594k35diqs9lk2o9magp7ak01pgsi@4ax.com>, Mike
>>>
>>>>>Yes, everyone is keen to stop that, not respond with more guns.
>>>>
>>>> Not correct. (See Switzerland)
>>>
>>>Swiss guns are something of a special case as the holders usually cannot
>>>use
>>>them for home defence, or anything else much.
>>>
>>>Anyway, there's currently a strong movement to get them all handed in and
>>>locked away in nice strong government arsenals.
>>
>> Very silly idea.
>
>Why?
>
>The firearms are issued to military reservists.
>What is the credible threat to the Swiss state?
None.
However tactically and strategically they are far better off where they
are in their homes.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 9 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:47 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-12 02:24:28 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 04:11:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> I do it 5 times a year with no problems, as long as the car is set up
>>> correctly for the country, its easy. Driving a Spanish car in UK (or
>>> vice versa) isn't.
>>
>> I have seen a few right hand drive cars on US roads (mostly 'classic
>> car' conventions), and it seems to me that passing would be virtually
>> impossible.
>
> people sometimes buy US or continental cars here, IMHO they are mad
For me, the disconcerting thing driving a "wrong-sided" drive vehicle
in either country, is the odd feeling you are following the curb/kerb
and not the road. That can be distracting in an unexpected way.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 10 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:43 am
From: Chris H
In message <MPG.2473adae4c1f38d989867@127.0.0.1>, Erick T. Barkhuis
<erick.use-net@ardane.c-o-m> writes
>William Black:
>>
>> "Erick T. Barkhuis" <erick.use-net@ardane.c-o-m> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2473ab617c6f35c7989865@127.0.0.1...
>
>> >> I believe they've already removed the ammunition.
>> >
>> > Correct. That was decided June 20th, 2007.
>> > So, soldiers will have their arms at home, next to a box with private
>> > ammunition. The official bullets stay at the army warehouses.
>>
>> Ammunition in Switzerland, as in the UK, is sold to an individual only on
>> production of a valid certificate allowing ownership.
>>
>> Or are you suggesting that the holders of military firearms in Switzerland
>> are, in the main, criminals?
>
>I'm suggesting that ammunition can be bought quite easily and without
>questions being asked in several countries in Europe. Not just the
>Eastern countries, but for instance in Belgium, as well.
I suppose it would make them sensible, pragmatic and far sighted. As
well as technically criminals which would indicate it is a bad law.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 11 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:45 am
From: Chris H
In message <MPG.2473ad418778edb2989866@127.0.0.1>, Erick T. Barkhuis
<erick.use-net@ardane.c-o-m> writes
>William Black:
>>
>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> news:0$675PV0mYCKFA2P@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> > In message <gubvni$g7q$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
>> > <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>> >>
>> >>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>
>> >>> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>> >>>>Cite please,
>
>> > Cites please... we could do with some evidence
>
>Ah, please. Don't answer "cites, please" with "cites, please". That's
>childish. Either you cite, or you don't, but that should be it.
>
>
>> >> The big influx of small-arms from the old Soviet Union and its slave
>> >> states dried up a decade ago.
>
>> Nobody, including myself, can prove a negative.
>> It's up to you to prove your positive.
>
>Well, I don't really agree with this, either. You weren't claiming a
>negative. If you wished, you could prove your claim by showing
>statistics of imports of small-arms in 1998 and 2008, and compare the
>figures. That would be evidence.
I doubt we will ever see William prove anything.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 12 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:42 am
From: Chris H
In message <guc2m5$9t4$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Erick T. Barkhuis" <erick.use-net@ardane.c-o-m> wrote in message
>news:MPG.2473ab617c6f35c7989865@127.0.0.1...
>> William Black:
>>>
>>> "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> > gun people always drag in the exceptions in Switzerland
>>>
>>> Which is odd because there's now a strong movement in Switzerland to take
>>> the guns back.
>>>
>>> I believe they've already removed the ammunition.
>>
>> Correct. That was decided June 20th, 2007.
>> So, soldiers will have their arms at home, next to a box with private
>> ammunition. The official bullets stay at the army warehouses.
>
>Ammunition in Switzerland, as in the UK, is sold to an individual only on
>production of a valid certificate allowing ownership.
>
>Or are you suggesting that the holders of military firearms in Switzerland
>are, in the main, criminals?
Now there is stupid logic. You must have been a policeman.
I would have thought he is implying they are mostly all legitimate
private gun owners anyway.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 13 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:57 am
From: "Mike"
On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:45:24 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>I doubt we will ever see William prove anything.
there are no figures for illegally imported guns, only opinions.
--
Mike
== 14 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 9:00 am
From: "Mike"
On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:41:47 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>> I still think the bigger difference is letterbox through door into
>> house or mailbox.
>
>...and those exist in the US. Variety is the thing, isn't it?
as a few mailboxes exist here, the biggest difference is the
popularity of letterboxes here and mailboxes in US.
--
Mike
== 15 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:56 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Chris H wrote:
> In message <numdnTGPQoQup5TXnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> writes
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 May 2009 18:13:47 -0500, Ron Hunter
>>> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have several native cultures that are in the area of 15,000
>>>> years old.
>>> I'm sure I would feel the vibe of it in the average shopping mall
>>> :-)
>> There are no shopping malls in that area, and few places one could
>> call a town, much less a city.
>>
>> One of the things that Europeans don't seem to understand about the
>> US is that is so big, that some areas are almost unpopulated.
>> Consider that the largest city in Wyoming is under 100,000
>> population. On the other hand, areas like the East Coast have large
>> cities almost non-stop for over 100 miles. LOTS of variation.
>> Climate, and vegetation, and the character of the land can change
>> drastically in as little as 20 miles! Drive from Hood River, Oregon
>> to 'The Dalles'. The climate, and topography will change from
>> sub-tropical to desert, in 20 miles! Unbelievable!
>
> Something most Americans don't appreciate is ALL countries are like
> that. The variations in the US are not really any more different to
> the variations in most other countries.
So where's the below sea level desert in Sweden or the 14,000 foot mountains
in England?
== 16 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:47 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Mike wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009 17:31:46 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> About the only really consistent thing you will see in
>>>> traveling through the US is the currency.
>>>
>>> no national restaurant chains?
>>
>> Sure there are, but I usually try to find the local ones. Some
>> parts of the US have rather unique cuisine. Shoo-fly pie from
>> Lancaster, County, Pennsylvania, or Pecan pie in Georgia. Texas
>> barbecue, Cajun food, Creole, Buffalo steaks (American Bison). Why
>> go to chain restaurants when traveling?
>
> I quite agree, but I don't believe the "only consistent thing across
> the US is the currency" and I don't believe there is as much cultural
> difference within individual countries as across different countries.
> If you start a conversation with a fellow American from out of state
> about health provision, he may not agree with you, but you will have
> the same old argument, start it with a European or an African and you
> will get a new viewpoint.
I haven't noticed Brits bringing anything new to the medical treatment
payment discussion other than their general defensiviseness about their own
system.
== 17 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 9:07 am
From: "Mike"
On Tue, 12 May 2009 11:47:31 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>I haven't noticed Brits bringing anything new to the medical treatment
>payment discussion other than their general defensiviseness about their own
>system.
well, it certainly appears to be true of Americans it seems, I hear
there is now general concern, voiced by the president that your
current system is unsustainable.
two Americans can discuss the same system.
an American and a Brit can discuss two different approaches.
--
Mike
== 18 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 9:09 am
From: "Mike"
On Tue, 12 May 2009 11:56:32 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>> Something most Americans don't appreciate is ALL countries are like
>> that. The variations in the US are not really any more different to
>> the variations in most other countries.
>
>So where's the below sea level desert in Sweden or the 14,000 foot mountains
>in England?
the highest mountains and lowest points are not in the US, next
irrelevant point?
(incidentally, you will be surprised to find that climbing the
relatively small mountains in Scotland is quite a good challenge for
most people)
--
Mike
== 19 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 9:15 am
From: William Black
Chris H wrote:
>>The firearms are issued to military reservists.
>>What is the credible threat to the Swiss state?
> None.
>
> However tactically and strategically they are far better off where
they
> are in their homes.
Only if the accident rate is zero...
--
William Black
== 20 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 9:17 am
From: William Black
Chris H wrote:
> I would have thought he is implying they are mostly all legitimate
> private gun owners anyway.
>
That is an error.
The guns being talked about are the property of the Swiss state.
--
William Black
== 21 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 9:13 am
From: Chris H
In message <guc1u4$320$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:VBjTmdSTzXCKFAh$@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <gubopt$o4u$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
>> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>news:f0DBr5MQQVCKFAiJ@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> I agree.. As a former UK gun owner it was never about self protection or
>>>> stopping crime. The members of the UK population who were in a
>>>> position to carry firearms for self protection were not affected by the
>>>> banning of guns for the general population anyway.
>>>
>>>Nobody on the UK mainland has been issued a 'carry for the purposes of
>>>self
>>>defence' type firearm certificate for about three decades now.
>>>
>>>Only two were ever issued in Northern Ireland, and these were withdrawn
>>>after the Good Friday Agreement.
>>>
>>>The only people carrying firearms for use on the UK mainland are members
>>>of
>>>the police force. Soldiers are not usually permitted loaded firearms for
>>>operational use when in the UK except under exceptional circumstances.
>>
>> Lot of exceptions then.
>
>Well no, outside Northern Ireland there aren't.
Yes there are.
>What's more no loony tune can claim there are.
There is one I can see claiming other wise
>There's this lack of dead people with soldiers with guns standing over
>them...
I see... flawed logic... were you ever a policeman?
1 I did not say "soldiers" you did.
2 The FBI all carry guns all day every day. How many people to they kill
in the US on an average year? In the UK the Diplomatic Protection group
carry guns all day every day and how many dead people are there.
People DO carry guns in the UK it does not mean that there will be dead
people everywhere. It's not like "The Professionals"
>>>For example, when the Met shot a Brazilian electrician by mistake a
>>>parliamentary answer indicated that although members of the National
>>>Reconnaissance Regiment were deployed on the operation, none of them were
>>>armed.
>>
>> Where do you get your information? Cites please.
>
>The statement about the NRR not being armed is in the IPCC report 'Stockwell
>1' available at http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/stockwell_one.pdf
I can see why they were not armed. The NRR were not "deployed" on this
operation as such. They had people attached to the surveillance teams
in that month. This was also not what I was referring to.
>The matter of the issue of gun licenses for self defence is in a
>parliamentary answer in 2009 by Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary. If
>you're interested then you can look it up, but it's old news..
You mean trust what a politician says? However "you can look it up"
is not a cite.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 22 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 9:16 am
From: Chris H
In message <m27j05dg8lncfm2gdh2h1o0gtt0fkfjqbi@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:45:24 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>I doubt we will ever see William prove anything.
>
>there are no figures for illegally imported guns, only opinions.
There are the numbers for those stopped at borders and those recovered
in side the UK. Also the police have reasonably good intelligence on
approximate numbers of guns in some areas.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 23 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 9:14 am
From: Chris H
In message <4n7j051l3i47jhv34v53bhn1vnpnte11j2@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Tue, 12 May 2009 11:56:32 -0400, "J. Clarke"
><jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> Something most Americans don't appreciate is ALL countries are like
>>> that. The variations in the US are not really any more different to
>>> the variations in most other countries.
>>
>>So where's the below sea level desert in Sweden or the 14,000 foot mountains
>>in England?
>
>the highest mountains and lowest points are not in the US, next
>irrelevant point?
>(incidentally, you will be surprised to find that climbing the
>relatively small mountains in Scotland is quite a good challenge for
>most people)
Quality being more important than size.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Interesting Photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/021d3ff544bc6eea?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:58 am
From: George Kerby
On 5/12/09 3:56 AM, in article T8Cdne_54pB-pJTXnZ2dnUVZ8rednZ2d@pipex.net,
"Frank Deux" <nospan@nospam.com> wrote:
> Came across this. Bit depressing, but great sound track and interesting
> photos:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctb-SrwL884
>
>
Poignant. Powerful. Thanks.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Printing Photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8ef806fa565f0da1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:06 am
From: ray
On Tue, 12 May 2009 04:29:19 -0700, boothmarcus@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can anyone help....when printing photos on plain paper they come out
> fine. But when printing on glossy photo paper 200 299 gms the pics come
> out too green, ie brown turns to green etc.
>
> I have tried all sorts of printer settings & colour profiles in
> photoshop cs2 but to no avail.
>
> Basically the printer is not printing exactly whats on the monitor. I
> have asked the printer not to make adjustments, but this still does not
> make any difference.
>
> I am using Photoshop cs2, Epson Stylus photo R200 printer, Windows Vista
> sp1, Acer X223w LCD 22inch monitor, & Nvida geeforce 8300gs graphics
> card.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Marcus
For starters, have you told the printer that you're printing on 'glossy
photo paper'? If it still thinks it's printing on plain paper, that could
explain the difference.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why EVFs will replace reflex systems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 8:08 am
From: ray
On Tue, 12 May 2009 05:53:28 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 May 2009 15:16:32 -0500, HEMI-Powered wrote:
> []
>>> EVFs also eliminate quite a bit of the quality of a DSLR and also eat
>>> batteries at a prodigious rate. But, what difference does this make to
>>> you? YOu simply buy what you like and let the other fools spend their
>>> money they way they want to.
>>
>> I take it you have not tried one lately. My Kodak P850 does not "eat
>> batteries at a prodigious rate".
>
> ... although cameras where the EVF or LCD has to be used typically have
> a rather smaller number of pictures per given capacity of battery than
> do those without.
>
> For example, comparing your Kodak P850 with my Nikon D60:
>
> - Kodak P850, 1700 mAh, 250 shots
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/kodak/p850-review/
>
> - Nikon D60, 1000mAh, 500 shots
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d60-review/
>
> The DSLR has a considerably smaller (and probably lighter) battery, and
> yet twice the number of shots.
>
> Cheers,
> David
I did not agrue that it got more shots - but "prodigious rate"? Come on
now.
==============================================================================
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment