rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Raw converters - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0b19041d3c6ee86c?hl=en
* Why EVFs will replace reflex systems - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
* Scenic areas in England - 18 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* Printing Photos - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8ef806fa565f0da1?hl=en
* How can I improve my shoots? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/20f68722a0441cc5?hl=en
* Auto Travel across the USA - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/05db2ce565396666?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Raw converters
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0b19041d3c6ee86c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 4:24 am
From: Neil Ellwood
On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:53:39 -0500, Stephen Drummonds wrote:
> I am wanting to try the Raw format on my camera. Can someone please
> tell me what raw conversion program that I need to start with? Thanks
> for any suggestions
> Steve
DCraw - UFraw - RawStudio among others.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:52 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Neil Ellwood <cral.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:53:39 -0500, Stephen Drummonds wrote:
>
>> I am wanting to try the Raw format on my camera. Can someone please
>> tell me what raw conversion program that I need to start with? Thanks
>> for any suggestions
>> Steve
>
>DCraw - UFraw - RawStudio among others.
DCraw is not really something a person new to processing
camera raw data might want try. It certainly has its
uses, but typically it is not typically used as a
general purpose raw converter.
UFraw and RawStudio both use the code from DCraw and add
a GUI interface, along with all the other necessary
fluff that is required for a production program (color
management, etc. etc.).
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:09 am
From: Chris H
In message <17593599-0fe1-4aec-9a6e-c86da5946aeb@w31g2000prd.googlegroup
s.com>, eNo <grandepatzer@gmail.com> writes
>On May 12, 2:53 pm, "Stephen Drummonds" <stephe...@centurytel.net>
>wrote:
>> I am wanting to try the Raw format on my camera. Can someone please tell
>> me what raw conversion program that I need to start with? Thanks for any
>> suggestions
>> Steve
>
>The most faithful RAW converter will be that which comes from your
>camera's manufacturer. Others will come close, but are usually
>products of reverse-engineering of your camera's RAW format and will
>invariably leave settings out of the mix.
Not if it is a Nikon as their RAW software SDK is freely available.
1 Use the SW that came with the camera.
2 What is your Cameras and why do you want to shoot RAW?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why EVFs will replace reflex systems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 4:29 am
From: Dolts R They
On Wed, 13 May 2009 06:59:47 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>ray wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:44:06 -0500, HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>
>>> ray added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>>
>>>>> The DSLR has a considerably smaller (and probably lighter) battery,
>>>>> and yet twice the number of shots.
>>>>>
>>>> I did not agrue that it got more shots - but "prodigious rate"?
>>>> Come on now.
>>>>
>>> "Prodigious" by my definition was an ACTUAL 4X battery burn rate vs
>>> my DSLR. You really should try viewing things through other people's
>>> eyes AND their real-world experience before you make light of it,
>>> ray. But, in your case, fools are rarely interested in facts.
>>
>> OK - so you figure 4x is 'prodigious' and I don't - I can live with
>> that. Problem is, figures quoted above by David J Taylor indicate the
>> difference is no more than 3.4x. Significantly short of your
>> threshold.
>
>Ray,
>
>I only took some figures off the review pages, and they were /not/ for the
>cameras which Jerry was comparing.
>
>The key difference is that for the sort of number of photos some of us can
>take in a day, with the DSLR battery life isn't an issue, whereas with the
>EVF-class of cameras it's something you need to take into consideration
>when planning your trip. Whether that's a precise factor of 3, 4, or 5
>doesn't really come into it.
>
>Cheers,
>David
You can haul around 20 extra lbs. of glass+tripod in a camera back-pack but
you can't put a few extra AA cells in a jacket pocket? Get real. 550+ shots
per set of NiMHs (1500+ on a set of lithiums) on my EVF/LCD cameras is more
than enough. If you're any kind of decent photographer that is. That's
equivalent to 15 to 42 rolls of 35mm, 36exp. film. That's many many days of
good shots worth, weeks even, on just one set of cells. Unless you're like
all the online photographers around here that play machine-gun with their
DSLR's in auto P&S mode, hoping one out of one-thousand might turn out by
random chance alone. Then by all means, battery-drain issues in any camera
will be of paramount importance to you.
Hint: When you finally figure out how to use any camera then most every
shot will be a keeper worth printing and framing.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:04 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:9dSdnenK-d2XspfXnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> wrote in news:Xns9C09A2F97E115ReplyScoreID@
> 216.196.97.131:
>
>> Alfred Molon added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>
>>> In 5 or 10 years people browsing through the Internet archives
>>> will read your post in disbelief. Do you really think a
>>> mechanical slapping mirror thing is the future?
>>
>> Few people are foolish enough to think the future of photography is
>> anything at all mechanical. But, the "future" is a long time, and
>> mirrorless is still science fiction for most of us.
>>
>
> It'll go the way of the solid rear axel.
That sounds painful
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 4:30 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:13:54 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>> but the perception is as the one gun owner I have known,
>
>ONE owner?
Yes, that one owner fitted the stereotype I believe to be associated
with guns here
>I have known 100's (Been in several clubs of 50 + in the
>past ) AFAIK all the gun clubs I was a member of (full bore rifle and
>pistol) have now gone as have the many shops and firms that supported
>the business. The UK gun ban cost a lot of people their livelihoods and
>saved not one life .
I agree
>>who had cupboards full of Nazi regalia and uniforms.
>
>THAT is worrying. That sort of person would be gently eased out of any
>club I was a member of....
Well yes
>Actually Hamilton was eased out of several gun clubs and the police
>given a "heads up" over several years before he went on his rampage.
>In the past most gun clubs usually had one or more serving police
>officers as members. No conspiracy just how it was. So any people who
>joined the club that later gave any cause for concern usually had
>concern passed on to the Police.
>
>This is why Hamilton had been flaged to the police and the local
>Firearms team recommended his FAC was not renewed. Hamilton could
>have been stopped and lost his legal guns long before he went on the
>rampage with the laws available at the time.
fair point.
--
Mike
== 2 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 4:37 am
From: tony cooper
On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:57:54 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <moKdnUwzSZ02aJTXnZ2dnUVZ_i1i4p2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
><rphunter@charter.net> writes
>>Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-05-12 13:33:10 -0700, "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock
>>>##@hotmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Mostly I use socialism as a descriptor for excessive
>>>> government regulation.
>>> ...and therein lies your problem.
>>> You are actually ignorant as to what "socialism" is or means.
>>> You are not even aware there are Marxist and non-Marxist social
>>>theories, and none of the accepted definitions meet your personal
>>>fabrication.
>>> I have a feeling your idea of socialism grew from over exposure to
>>>the Cheney/Limbaugh postulation.
>>>
>>
>>In a practical sense, a country practices socialism when it takes money
>>from someone via taxes, and gives it to someone else who didn't earn
>>it. Under than definition, both the US, and UK are socialist
>>countries.
>
>By that definition ALL countries are socialist and all countries since
>the beginning of time,.
>
>Clearly your definition of socialism is different to that used by the
>rest of the world
I knew this was coming. A day or so ago I posted that Americans have
a different view of "socialism" and "conservationism" than do
Europeans. Very few Americans understand the real definition of
socialist or socialism. I've never understood this. Any class in
Economics or Government teaches the true definitions, but we persist
in using the definition as written above. I find it embarrassing.
It doesn't have to do with no having traveled to other nations,
though. It has to do with not paying attention in class.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 3 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 4:42 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:37:08 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I knew this was coming. A day or so ago I posted that Americans have
>a different view of "socialism" and "conservationism" than do
>Europeans. Very few Americans understand the real definition of
>socialist or socialism. I've never understood this. Any class in
>Economics or Government teaches the true definitions, but we persist
>in using the definition as written above. I find it embarrassing.
>
>It doesn't have to do with no having traveled to other nations,
>though. It has to do with not paying attention in class.
does it have anything to do with political propaganda?
--
Mike
== 4 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 4:43 am
From: tony cooper
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:34:10 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:50:15 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> there's no way they have to be rude unless approached with arrogance.
>>
>>I leave my arrogance at home with I travel outside my local area. If I
>>wanted 'sameness', I could stay at home. Neither will I talk about the
>>US president, Congress, or Judicial branch outside the country. It's
>>downright rude, as well as presenting a view of the US which may give
>>false impressions.
>
>a discussion about the world does not have to be a lecture about the
>US constitution. True, there is a stereotype of the American tourist
>complaining "we don't do it that way back home" but there's no need to
>be like that.
Nor is there a need to lecture us, but you seem to want to make a meal
out of it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 5 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 4:52 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:43:13 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>a discussion about the world does not have to be a lecture about the
>>US constitution. True, there is a stereotype of the American tourist
>>complaining "we don't do it that way back home" but there's no need to
>>be like that.
>
>Nor is there a need to lecture us, but you seem to want to make a meal
>out of it.
I really don't see why discussing politics has to be "rude"?
--
Mike
== 6 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 4:52 am
From: Jürgen Exner
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Mostly I use socialism as a descriptor for excessive
>government regulation.
You are welcome to create your own language where you say "chair" to
what other people call table. But then you shouldn't be surprised when
people consider you rather wierd if you tell then, you are eating from
your "chair".
jue
== 7 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 4:54 am
From: William Black
Chris H wrote:
> In message <bogus-EBAE93.10241413052009@news.albasani.net>, Jack
Campin
>>Gun owners are generally perceived in the UK as creepy.
>
> No we are not.
>
Oh yes we are...
The last time I asked a friend who happened to be a Civil Servant to
sign my shotgun renewal he refused point blank and muttered something
about "I always thought there was something odd about you..."
--
William Black
== 8 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:03 am
From: tony cooper
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:20:25 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:05:54 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke <see@sig.nature>
>wrote:
>
>>Here are two "European" definitions of socialism:
>
>Europe often practices social democracy
>
>social democracy
>"A form of society in which democratic political methods are used to
>create greater social equality through the redistribution of
>resources. At the beginning of the 20th century, social democracy was
>virtually synonymous with socialism. After the break with communism in
>the 1920s, however, social democratic parties were distinguished by
>their commitment to parliamentary democracy and their moderate
>programmes of social change. They gradually abandoned their commitment
>to public ownership of industry (see nationalization), seeking instead
>to make capitalist economies work in a fairer way by implementing
>equality of opportunity and by using progressive taxation to provide
>social security and welfare programmes for the poorer members of
>society. Most Western societies since World War II have adopted social
>democratic policies to some degree, with the Scandinavian countries
>going furthest in this direction."
>
>
>If anybody still thinks americans dont need to travel more outside US,
>they will never understand.
What are you on about? People - Americans or Europeans - don't travel
to learn about other country's governments, health care, laws, or
mailboxes. People travel to see sights they've never seen before, to
have a relaxing holiday, and to experience different things.
They may notice difference in mailboxes when they travel, but holidays
are not like studying abroad. The stuff mentioned above is textbook
material; information that I learned in high school and college. It's
information that I would expand my knowledge of in my own home by
reading.
Mentioned above is "progressive taxation". What tourist, from any
country, learns about some other country's taxation schemes from a
vacation?
I can think of two exceptions, but they have to do with purchases and
not income. Americans learn that VAT can be refundable, and Europeans
learn that posted prices in the US do not include sales tax.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 9 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:08 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:03:05 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>What are you on about? People - Americans or Europeans - don't travel
>to learn about other country's governments, health care, laws, or
>mailboxes. People travel to see sights they've never seen before, to
>have a relaxing holiday, and to experience different things.
I disagree, I travel to see and experience whatever is different.
Not everybody just wants to "relax"
Often finding those differences leads to research, like reading about
those countries, their history, whatever. Conversations with Europeans
are quite likely to trip up if "socialist" is used to mean "heavily
legislated".
--
Mike
== 10 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:25 am
From: tony cooper
On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:08:31 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:03:05 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>What are you on about? People - Americans or Europeans - don't travel
>>to learn about other country's governments, health care, laws, or
>>mailboxes. People travel to see sights they've never seen before, to
>>have a relaxing holiday, and to experience different things.
>
>I disagree, I travel to see and experience whatever is different.
>Not everybody just wants to "relax"
>Often finding those differences leads to research, like reading about
>those countries, their history, whatever. Conversations with Europeans
>are quite likely to trip up if "socialist" is used to mean "heavily
>legislated".
You've been coy about this, so I'll ask: Have you ever actually been
to the United States? Have you actually done any world traveling
yourself? I think you mention that you've been to two other
countries. That, in the US, is like an American having been in two
different states or maybe crossing across into Toronto from Detroit.
These theories you have about the benefit of world travel...have you
ever actually put them into practice? You sound like an armchair
traveler.
A pub conversation with a European isn't going to explain the true
nature of socialism. The central concept of socialism - government
control of resources and production - wouldn't come up. The
conversation is more likely to center around "Who pays the medical
bills?" or "How many vacation/holiday days do you get?"
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 11 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:30 am
From: tony cooper
On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:42:27 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:37:08 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I knew this was coming. A day or so ago I posted that Americans have
>>a different view of "socialism" and "conservationism" than do
>>Europeans. Very few Americans understand the real definition of
>>socialist or socialism. I've never understood this. Any class in
>>Economics or Government teaches the true definitions, but we persist
>>in using the definition as written above. I find it embarrassing.
>>
>>It doesn't have to do with no having traveled to other nations,
>>though. It has to do with not paying attention in class.
>
>does it have anything to do with political propaganda?
In a sense, yes. If you consider the arguments against a national
health scheme in the US to be described as "creeping socialism", it
is. However, if you do, then I submit that you do not understand the
term "propaganda" any more than the person who misuses "socialism".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 12 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:41 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:25:46 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>You've been coy about this, so I'll ask: Have you ever actually been
>to the United States? Have you actually done any world traveling
>yourself? I think you mention that you've been to two other
>countries. That, in the US, is like an American having been in two
>different states or maybe crossing across into Toronto from Detroit.
I mentioned I *regularly* go to two others countries, I also said I
haven't been to the US. (We don't like long flights and frankly its
not a priority). I've been to loads of countries but I only travel
regularly in the three.
As you seem to be trying a willy waving contest, I take its that
because you can't find anything wrong with what I have said.
>These theories you have about the benefit of world travel...have you
>ever actually put them into practice? You sound like an armchair
>traveler.
Why? Because my view of travel isn't yours?
I go to Spain and Italy three or four times a year, other places
exceptionally. As I explained I believe in intensive travel, you learn
more that way. You get to see more than the superficial which you seem
to think is the limit.
>A pub conversation with a European isn't going to explain the true
>nature of socialism.
you would very quickly learn the false definition used here was way
off beam, there's got to be a reason so many Americans have a clueless
idea of what socialism is, its going to be something related to being
in America.....
>The central concept of socialism - government
>control of resources and production - wouldn't come up. The
>conversation is more likely to center around "Who pays the medical
>bills?" or "How many vacation/holiday days do you get?"
they might well be starting points.
--
Mike
== 13 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:42 am
From: tony cooper
On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:52:28 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:43:13 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>a discussion about the world does not have to be a lecture about the
>>>US constitution. True, there is a stereotype of the American tourist
>>>complaining "we don't do it that way back home" but there's no need to
>>>be like that.
>>
>>Nor is there a need to lecture us, but you seem to want to make a meal
>>out of it.
>
>I really don't see why discussing politics has to be "rude"?
I would say that your own general attitude in this thread has been
rude. You find fault with Americans without any indication that you
understand that many Europeans have the same faults. Instead of being
interested in exchanging information, the points you bring up are all
critical. And, often misfounded.
That pretty much defines rude to me. You are the type I'd avoid in a
pub; the type that says "You do it this way, and that's wrong.".
Also, the type that thinks that all Americans come out of the same box
like we are Cheerios.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 14 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:45 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:30:39 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>does it have anything to do with political propaganda?
>
>In a sense, yes. If you consider the arguments against a national
>health scheme in the US to be described as "creeping socialism", it
>is.
that's the sort of thing I was thinking of.
>However, if you do, then I submit that you do not understand the
>term "propaganda" any more than the person who misuses "socialism".
I would submit you are getting too touchy and defensive.
--
Mike
== 15 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:50 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:42:48 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>I really don't see why discussing politics has to be "rude"?
>
>I would say that your own general attitude in this thread has been
>rude. You find fault with Americans without any indication that you
>understand that many Europeans have the same faults. Instead of being
>interested in exchanging information, the points you bring up are all
>critical. And, often misfounded.
I started talking about getting out of your own countries, it was
Americans I was talking to, so those Americans started pointing out
why they didn't need to leave America, no Europeans said they didn't
need to leave their country............
>That pretty much defines rude to me. You are the type I'd avoid in a
>pub; the type that says "You do it this way, and that's wrong.".
>Also, the type that thinks that all Americans come out of the same box
>like we are Cheerios.
Funny a couple of you keep saying I think all Americans are the same!
To the extent it took an age to get the point across that the lack of
an argument about guns was in Europe, not US, I don't think some of
you are really listening, (and you're getting angry).
--
Mike
== 16 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:31 am
From: Chris H
In message <t2dl05908qpnl0se8mtbc5e8kgrcormdse@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:43:13 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>a discussion about the world does not have to be a lecture about the
>>>US constitution. True, there is a stereotype of the American tourist
>>>complaining "we don't do it that way back home" but there's no need to
>>>be like that.
>>
>>Nor is there a need to lecture us, but you seem to want to make a meal
>>out of it.
>
>I really don't see why discussing politics has to be "rude"?
Politics or "American Politics"? :-)
Or for that matter Politics with a lunatic who thinks that socialist ==
heavily legislated
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 17 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:08 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:31:02 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>>I really don't see why discussing politics has to be "rude"?
>
>Politics or "American Politics"? :-)
its only become "American" because people keep raising American
points, for me its likely to get difficult with subjects like the
civil war, which until recently has been an agreed no go area, but you
only find that out by talking and reading about it :-)
>Or for that matter Politics with a lunatic who thinks that socialist ==
>heavily legislated
you *might* be able to avoid "rude"
--
Mike
== 18 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 6:20 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:41:03 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
> (We don't like long flights and frankly its
>not a priority)
lets do some travel for a change!
my long haul shortlist is
Antarctica
south island new Zealand
Patagonia,
California/grand canyon would be in a small group just after those
my action list is completing the British isles archipelago, return to
Iceland, do the Faeroes, Channel Isles, isle of Man
continue down Italy in la Marche and the deep south
central Spain in winter for the cranes.
--
Mike
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Printing Photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8ef806fa565f0da1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 4:33 am
From: Neil Ellwood
On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:27:55 -0700, 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 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.
> If that does not work for you then select have the printer manage color
> and set the Epson driver for the correct paper type and whatever other
> settings your prefer.
My monitor is an LCD one. there is no problem with it as the brightness
level is adjustable. I have never seen one that isn't.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How can I improve my shoots?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/20f68722a0441cc5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 4:37 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:76t1etF1eg6qbU1@mid.individual.net...
> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> "Atheist Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov> wrote in message
>> news:4a0586e1@news.x-privat.org...
>>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:76l48jF1dmgmuU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> I, like you also found Flickr to be useful in improving my meager
>>> photographic skills,
>
>> How does flickr improve your skills I though it was just a place to show
>> photos.
>
> Specific to photographs there's descriptions, tags, notes, and
> comments, all of which are used by some people to invite and supply
> criticism and help.
That's what I was referring to it's people (others) rather than a site
People have commented on others photos for years.
>Then there are special interest groups with
> discussion threads, some of which are about specific aspects of
> photography and are sometimes used for very detailed discussions of
> specific photographs.
But it's still people, when I fiorst started photography we had a person
standing in front of us telling us what is good/bad about our shots.
Didnt; mean we had to take any notice, but they were judge and placed
in an order 1st 2nd 3rd or given marks out 20.
In that way we could compate how we werre improving over time.
>
>>>but my point still remains (however you try justify yours) flickr had a
>>>cadre of arselickers, and they grow in number every day, that's why I
>>>left
>>>and went to Smugmug,
>
>> I didn;t want some of my more private photos diplayed on flickr so
>> I set up my own website.
>> I use flickr to display photos in a similar way some use exibition halls.
>
> Flickr has lots of ways of controlling the display of
> photographs. There are four general categories of viewers: everyone,
> friends, family, and nobody. Friends and family must be Flickr
> members.
That was a problem most of my friends aren't flickr memebers.
> You can use and combine these categories as you like for
> viewing permissions. In addition to that there are guest passes, which
> you issue to specific individuals who need not belong to Flickr, which
> allow them to see either one specified photograph, or one specified
> category of photograph (you invent the category and use it as you
> like).
>
> So some of my Flickr photographs can be seen by anyone, some can only
> be seen by one specific person, and sundry variations between those
> two extremes.
I do a similar thing but it';s still people that judge pictures, and the
majority
of those that use flickr are people that take photos and like looking at
them,
I don;t consider them photographers in the same way I did those at the
camera club.
In the same way you can either choose to judge a film by the reviewers
or by the number of people that go and see it.
I also occasionally watch Americas next top model, see if I can get any
tips.
But I doubt I'll make a model. But these pros take 50+ shots to get one good
one,
and then they have the cheek to blame the model because her hand is sticking
out
in the wrong place.
> --
> Chris Malcolm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Auto Travel across the USA
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/05db2ce565396666?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 5:19 am
From: Caesar Romano
On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:29:33 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote Re Re: Auto Travel across the
USA:
>Just one issue.
>Some of the folks who are regulars in these NGs do not have access to
>broadband, or have bandwidth caps, so Flash displays/slideshows of
>every shot you have taken(and you have 100's) becomes a turn-off for
>them.
>Consider a non-Flash option to allow a larger audience to follow you.
>Flash slideshows of a more select and smaller number of shots will also
>be better.
Good suggestions.
==============================================================================
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