Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CF dying?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2d949e57f899e814?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 22 2009 11:29 pm
From: "N"

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:pGMRl.32636$OO7.9145@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> I'd also like to see independent measurements of failure rates of
> different brands and capacities of both CF and SD cards. Fat chance!
>
> David

Would this do?
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

--
N

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 12:19 am
From: Ron Hunter

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Mike Cawood, HND BIT wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:l82dnfk5yp27JovXnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>> I don't see this as a problem. First, most photographers have no use
>>> for SD cards larger than 2GB, let alone 32GB.
>
> I have 11 GB of CF cards total. I consider it enough, not too much.
>
> I have to be able to carry cards and (charged) batteries for
> up to two weeks shooting in areas where there is no way to
> charge a battery (short of solar cells of course) especially one
> big enough to run a laptop computer. I have come close to
> filling up the 11 gigs.
>
> A picture takes up about 9 megabytes, 11 gigs is thus roughly
> 1200 pictures. This seems a lot until you start taking
> panoramas. Them when you decide you need HDR panoramas
> (e.g. inside Carlsbad Caverns) everything double. I'm
> talking 500 megabytes per final picture!
>
> Doug McDonald

I would like to see some of those. As for 9MB per picture, perhaps a
more frugal image format is in order for those longer excursions. And
taking panos isn't something the average photographer does often, I
suspect, although I have long enjoyed doing them, even before digital
cameras.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 12:26 am
From: "David J Taylor"

N wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote
> in message news:pGMRl.32636$OO7.9145@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> I'd also like to see independent measurements of failure rates of
>> different brands and capacities of both CF and SD cards. Fat chance!
>>
>> David
>
> Would this do?
> http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

Thanks, but no. No reliability figures as far as I could see.

David

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 12:33 am
From: "N"

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:qyNRl.32647$OO7.20949@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>N wrote:
>> "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote
>> in message news:pGMRl.32636$OO7.9145@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>
>>> I'd also like to see independent measurements of failure rates of
>>> different brands and capacities of both CF and SD cards. Fat chance!
>>>
>>> David
>>
>> Would this do?
>> http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007
>
> Thanks, but no. No reliability figures as far as I could see.
>
> David

Yeah, I had a poke around there, thought I remembered reliability figures
being there, but apparently not, just performance figures.

--
N

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 6:15 am
From: retsuhcs@xinap.moc (Mike S.)

In article <eIqdnfahbvQtr4rXnZ2dnUVZ_hBi4p2d@giganews.com>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>Mike S. wrote:
>> In article <hlad155ut1l1drqquja7kq8qv4nn75mh41@4ax.com>,
>> Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "David J Taylor"
>>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>>> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
>>>> SD has been winning for the last several years, David. I get the
>>>> impression that CF is now a niche product - restricted to higher end,
>>>> so-called "professional" DSLRs.
>>> On the other hand the SD consortium made some other very foolish design
>>> decisions. Remember that SD is limited to 2GB and SDHC to 32GB.
>>> As card capacity is quickly approaching that limit we are in for another
>>> round of "HELP, my card reader can't read my SD card", just 4 years
>>> after the previous war of confusion.
>>>
>>> The brand new SDXC finally has some leeway with 2TB (maybe they got
>>> smart finally?), but by spec it uses the proprietary exFAT, which means
>>> you need to run a new Windows if you want to read what your camera
>>> wrote. Maybe there will be a new exFAT drivers for Windows XP, maybe
>>> ther won't. Mac users will probably be fine, too, because for sure Apple
>>> is going to licence exFAT. But users of older OS's or free OS's will be
>>> left in the dark unless someone manages to illegally reverse engineer
>>> the exFAT format.
>>
>> exFAT drivers for XP were relased in January as MS hotfix KB955704.
>>
>>
>>
>Hummm. Not in my list of fixes. Unless it is included in SP3, I don't
>have it, but then I don't need it, either.

It is not offered automatically by Windows Update; you must seek it out.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 7:38 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Mike S. wrote:
> In article <eIqdnfahbvQtr4rXnZ2dnUVZ_hBi4p2d@giganews.com>,
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>> Mike S. wrote:
[]
>>> exFAT drivers for XP were relased in January as MS hotfix KB955704.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hummm. Not in my list of fixes. Unless it is included in SP3, I
>> don't have it, but then I don't need it, either.
>
> It is not offered automatically by Windows Update; you must seek it
> out.

FWIW, exFAT appears to be built in to Windows Vista and Windows-7.

Cheers,
David

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 8:21 am
From: Robert Coe

On Fri, 22 May 2009 06:36:51 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
: David J. Littleboy wrote:
: > "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: >> Seems more and more DSLR manufacturers are switching to SD cards...
: >
: > My first dcams were Sony (S85 and F707) which use the far superior
: > memory stick; I've always thought the pins that CF uses are a
: > disaster asking to happen. A bit of dust on the connector, and your
: > camera needs a trip to the mfr. I've seen lots of bent pins in that
: > sort of connector in the past.
: > So maybe this is good news.
: >
: > (Our CEO just bought a portable DVD player, and it has an SD card
: > slot, so it does seem that SD is winning.)
:
: SD has been winning for the last several years, David. I get the
: impression that CF is now a niche product - restricted to higher end,
: so-called "professional" DSLRs.
:
: Just be thankful that it's not micro-SD which has won! Too many lost
: cards then. <G>

Ah, but the useful thing about micro-SD cards is that spies can swallow them.
Just try swallowing a CF card!

Bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Easy way to check 2 similar cameras please
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b2908e8d2cba22a5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 12:19 am
From: Bob Williams

Rob G wrote:
> I've got two Panasonic FX01's. OK it's a basic P & S, but not too bad
> a one for the price I've paid.
>
> Why 2 and why the question?
>
> The screen on my first got broken. I bought a second off Ebay for an
> acceptable price mainly because it was cheap, I'm familiar with the
> camera and didn't particularly want to go through the 'analysing
> what's best for me' process again. I also then went ahead and replaced
> the screen on the first, partly to satisfy the challenge of being able
> to do so. That was successful. So I've now got 2 identical working
> cameras.
>
> But there will be differences and before I pop of one of them back
> onto Ebay, is it likely these differences will be detectable and how
> easy to find ?
>
> Thanks
> Rob

First of all, the test conditions must be identical and reproducible.
I suggest using a tripod and using the time delay (10 seconds?) to trip
the shutter.
Set both cameras on Program AE, Same ISO, Fine Quality, etc.
Choose a camera-to-subject distance of about 15 feet.
As your subject, use a page from a quality magazine with several font
sizes of text and some color pictures.
Take several pictures with each camera at wide, normal and max tele
focal lengths.
When you display the images on your computer, you will find that your
eyes are exquisitely sensitive to the clarity of text.
If the text sizes are chosen correctly, you should BARELY be able to
read the words taken with the best camera. With the poorer camera, you
will be able to read much less of the text.
Compare the accuracy of the colors on both cameras vs your original
magazine page.
Bob Williams
P.S.
Make sure that the sky is clear so clouds will not drift over the sun
during the test process.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 4:07 am
From: Grimly Curmudgeon

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Marvin <physchem@verizon.net>
saying something like:

>So you are looking for someone to abet your deceptive
>practice!

What deceptive practice?
You fucking moron.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 6:36 am
From: Rob G

On 23 May, 08:19, Bob Williams <mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote:
> Rob G wrote:
> > I've got two Panasonic FX01's. OK it's a basic P & S, but not too bad
> > a one for the price I've paid.
>
> > Why 2 and why the question?
>
> > The screen on my first got broken. I bought a second off Ebay for an
> > acceptable price mainly because it was cheap, I'm familiar with the
> > camera and didn't particularly want to go through the 'analysing
> > what's best for me' process again. I also then went ahead and replaced
> > the screen on the first, partly to satisfy the challenge of being able
> > to do so. That was successful. So I've now got 2 identical working
> > cameras.
>
> > But there will be differences and before I pop of one of them back
> > onto Ebay, is it likely these differences will be detectable and how
> > easy to find ?
>
> > Thanks
> > Rob
>
> First of all, the test conditions must be identical and reproducible.
> I suggest using a tripod and using the time delay (10 seconds?) to trip
> the shutter.
> Set both cameras on Program AE, Same ISO, Fine Quality, etc.
> Choose a camera-to-subject distance of about 15 feet.
> As your subject, use a page from a quality magazine with several font
> sizes of text and some color pictures.
> Take several pictures with each camera at wide, normal and max tele
> focal lengths.
> When you display the images on your computer, you will find that your
> eyes are exquisitely sensitive to the clarity of text.
> If the text sizes are chosen correctly, you should BARELY be able to
> read the words taken with the best camera. With the poorer camera, you
> will be able to read much less of the text.
> Compare the accuracy of the colors on both cameras vs your original
> magazine page.
> Bob Williams
> P.S.
> Make sure that the sky is clear so clouds will not drift over the sun
> during the test process.

Many thanks Bob - that's the guidance I was looking for. It will be
interesting to see if there is much difference.

As for the rest of you (less Grimly C ) - I knew that this NG was
suffering badly from spammers, but I hadn't realised it was also been
taken over in parts by idiots.

Firstly I said that I'd been successful in replacing the screen, try
reading and understanding Ofnuts, and in terms of deceptive practice,
what is the difference between replacing a screen in a camera and some
broken part in a car you sell ?
Rob

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 8:29 am
From: Robert Coe

On Fri, 22 May 2009 14:48:38 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net> wrote:
: Rob G wrote:
: > I've got two Panasonic FX01's. OK it's a basic P & S, but not too bad
: > a one for the price I've paid.
: >
: > Why 2 and why the question?
: >
: > The screen on my first got broken. I bought a second off Ebay for an
: > acceptable price mainly because it was cheap, I'm familiar with the
: > camera and didn't particularly want to go through the 'analysing
: > what's best for me' process again. I also then went ahead and replaced
: > the screen on the first, partly to satisfy the challenge of being able
: > to do so. That was successful. So I've now got 2 identical working
: > cameras.
: >
: > But there will be differences and before I pop of one of them back
: > onto Ebay, is it likely these differences will be detectable and how
: > easy to find ?
:
: Well, one of them has a broken screen...

Didn't he just say he fixed it? ("I also then went ahead and replaced the
screen on the first...")

Bob

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 12:30 am
From: Ron Hunter

House of Frauds wrote:
> On May 22, 11:20 pm, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-05-22 07:43:12 -0700, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> said:
>>>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESP...@me.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:200905190910046752-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>>>>>> On 2009-05-19 07:33:11 -0700, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> said:
>>>>>>> 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 are correct, that is movie myth, dodging is not the appropriate
>>>>>> action and is not going to help you.
>>>>>> Stopping the threat with your defensive firearm is.
>>>>>> Defense against a knife once engage up close is a totally different
>>>>>> story and requires a different skill set to be effective.
>>>>> Yep, and I donl;t see how someone with a gun 10ft or 100ft way
>>>>> can do much about it.
>>>>> Sure that might fire at the attacker but with you claims of the accuracy
>>>>> of teh average hand gun in teh average 'joe' doesn;t convinve me that
>>>>> no one other than
>>>>> the attacker will get heard.
>>>>> Perhaps you've have stats on the number of lives saved in this situation.
>>>>> But the number of situations that I know of where people have been
>>>>> attack by knives
>>>>> there's hasn;t been the opportunity to be protected by someone else's gun.
>>>>> >We always consider a knife just as dangerous as a firearm if not more
>>>>>> so.
>>>>> Is that why the USA llicence guns and not knives
>>>>>> Therefore the procedure in dealing with a noncompliant knife wielder,
>>>>>> is to negate the threat with a firearm before the distance between you
>>>>>> is closed.
>>>>> And if that knife wielder had a gun ?
>>>>>> Somehow whenever a knife wielder is shot there is some ignorant member
>>>>>> of the press or letter writer who asks, "Why did they shoot him? He
>>>>>> only had a knife!"
>>>>> Yes that is a little said but then their is appropriate actiojn. What about the
>>>>> youth that was killed on teh London underground by cops with legal guns
>>>>> because they thought he had a bomb.
>>>>> Does that make imaginary weapons more dangerous than real ones .
>>>>>>> Well I think I could dodgy a knife thrown from 20 ft but a bullet ????
>>>>>>> I wouldn't be so sure.
>>>>>> Who said anything about the knife being thrown?
>>>>> We are talking about which weapon is the most dangerous.
>>>>> I think guns are more dangerous in the hands of an attacker than a
>>>>> knife would be.
>>>>>> The knife wielder can close that gap very quickly and slash or stab.
>>>>> A gun wielder doesn't have to bother top close the gap.
>>>>>> Throwing a knife is not something a knife fighter would normally do.
>>>>> Yep his more likely to creep up behind you,
>>>>> a gun wielder could do the same but wouldn't have to get so close
>>>>> to threaten your life.
>>>>> The best way to get away from a kife is to run from it,
>>>>> you won;t get as far if the person hasd a gun.
>>>>>> Throw the knife and miss, and you have effectively disarmed yourself.
>>>>> Yes, making a knife safer for the victim.
>>>>> The knife wielder has to run after you and get within a few feet to
>>>>> have any effect. It can't be that difficult to hit a running target with a gun.
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> The Police departments and military should.
>>>>> Yes hopefully, but that didnt; help jon demanzes on teh London underground.
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>> Only a handful of officers I know carry a knife as a backup weapon, but
>>>>>> some do.
>>>>> I wonder if any carry two like in the movies ;-)
>>>>>> In my career I have used department issued 38 Special, 9mm automatic,
>>>>>> .40 S&W automatic (all S&W), 12 gauge shotgun (Remington 870 with both
>>>>>> 00 buckshot or "bean-bag" loads), 40mm & 35mm projectile launchers,
>>>>>> which fire a variety of projectile types, and 5.56mm (.223) & 7.72mm
>>>>>> (308) rifles.
>>>>>> I also have used personal weapons as carry weapons , a Glock Model 23
>>>>>> .40S&W, and most recently a Kimber Custom 45 ACP, we were encouraged to
>>>>>> practice regularly on top of mandatory training and quarterly
>>>>>> qualifying.
>>>>> In a confrontation would you prefer one of the above or a knife.
>>>>>> There are also other weapons trained & qualified with, such as chemical
>>>>>> agents and a number of different types of baton.
>>>>> I guess they can only be used for self defence ;-)
>>>>> But I was in a car in London and the polce stopped and search it and
>>>>> found a can of some sort of defence gas against attackers.
>>>>> The three girls in the car wrere taken to the police station and
>>>>> questioned for 3 hours
>>>>> Why if it's only for defence purposes ?
>>>>>> I retired in February and as a retired peace officer can carry a
>>>>>> concealed firearm in California, provided I maintain an annual
>>>>>> qualification & re-certification. All the firearms Laws for the use of
>>>>>> that weapon apply.
>>>>> Makes sense but perhaps peace officers in the USA need to carry
>>>>> a gun, but I can't understand why you don;t prefer a knife.
>>>>>> I also own a number of target weapons which are not suitable for
>>>>>> concealed carry.
>>>>>> Having said all of that I can do this;
>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSCF0076c3.jpg
>>>>>> with this,http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-Kimber-CDP-LAc.jpg
>>>>>> and defend myself at home if I have to.
>>>>> Defending from people dressed in black ;)
>>>>>> A firearm seems to me to be the best tool for the job.
>>>>> That's why some criminals prefer them I guess.
>>>>> It also seems strange that more police get shot in the USA than the UK,
>>>>> thankfully it's quite rare in the UK.
>>>> That might be due to the fact that the US has about 6 times the
>>>> population of the UK. Don't you think. Given that so many of the
>>>> criminals in the US are armed, it is rather amazing that more aren't
>>>> killed. It is still true that most police officers will never fire
>>>> their gun except at the pistol range during a normal career. Don't
>>>> believe all those cop shows. They don't represent reality very well.
>>> Agreed.
>>> The movies & TV are not an accurate portrayal of practcal weapons usage
>>> (knife or firearm.)
>>> After over 20 years in Law enforcement, with thousands of rounds fired
>>> on the range to gain good proficiency with a number of weapons, and
>>> many years as a trainer & range master, I have never fired my duty
>>> firearm while performing my duty as a peace officer. I have used my
>>> firearm to provide cover during an arrest and securing a crime scene
>>> many times.
>>> Firearms are a useful tool allowing us to effect safe arrests of armed
>>> felons. The shoot out is not a common thing. The armed criminal is
>>> still, for the most part smart enough to understand the odds of
>>> survival are better in Court and will surrender.
>>> Professional training and dealing with dangerous situations with
>>> authority and confidence, will for the most part resolve 99% without
>>> any shots being fired.
>>> Discipline in firearms usage is a vital part of training, unfortunately
>>> there are times when the individual officer(s) make tragic mistakes.
>> Yes, like a local officer who shot himself in the leg during a gun
>> safety demonstration. Sigh.
>
> a very good demonstration then....and a man who loves his job!

Just proves that one can always serve as a bad example. Grin.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 7:57 am
From: tony cooper

On Sat, 23 May 2009 02:30:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>>>> Discipline in firearms usage is a vital part of training, unfortunately
>>>> there are times when the individual officer(s) make tragic mistakes.
>>> Yes, like a local officer who shot himself in the leg during a gun
>>> safety demonstration. Sigh.
>>
>> a very good demonstration then....and a man who loves his job!
>
>Just proves that one can always serve as a bad example. Grin.

It is not just policemen who are hoisted on their own petard:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479813,00.html

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall
by 12%
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/13c7f45bc1c23aa1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 1:56 am
From: Savagefuckhead

On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:08:00 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-05-22 21:01:20 -0700, TrollTagger <tt@trollkillers.org> said:
>>
>>
>> I just changed my sock, and I'm back again.
>>
>
>Now go away.

Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
that befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and
posts:

1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
will ever be made for larger format cameras.

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
lens.

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.

6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
alerting them to your presence.

7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
example-image link in #10.)

9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.

11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
(fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)

13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
human history one day.

14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.

15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)

16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.

17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.

19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
related where DOF is concerned.

21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.

22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
instantly reveal to them their piss-poor photography skills. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.

23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
experience.

24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.

25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
are just better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of the pretend-photographer usenet trolls yelling "You NEED
a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
a foolish thing."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon's tips for semi-pros
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/83dd5dc1e72232a9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 3:41 am
From: Bob Larter

Filthy Phil wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Do not feed the |
>> | trolls. Thank you. |
>> --Mgt. |
>>
>
> Who's Margaret?

She's a manager. Duh.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ford, The Survivor
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 6:29 am
From: "Neil Harrington"

"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009052221241677923-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
> On 2009-05-22 21:13:56 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>
> said:
>
>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:40:41 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>> <secret@illumnati.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm an independent. Actually I was a registered Democrat for 58 years --
>>> until last year when I changed to unaffiliated. But I don't think I ever
>>> voted Democrat in a national election. I was a Democrat originally for
>>> local
>>> small-town reasons, nothing to do with political philosophy.
>>
>> I'm similar, but the reverse. I've been a registered Republican since
>> 1959, but I haven't voted for a Republican for national office in many
>> years. I do vote for some, but not many, Republicans for local
>> office. I remain registered as a Republican so I can vote in the
>> Primary for the opponent of any Republican candidate who is backed by
>> the Christian Coalition or any similar organization.
>
> I am embarrased to say the last Republican I voted for was Nixon.
>
> Stupid, but I bought the Vietnamization program. Oh well.
>
> Anyway I have been wary of Republicans, the Christian right, and politicos
> in general ever since.

I certainly don't identify with "the Christian right," but they don't bother
me that much either. It's creeping socialism and ever-increasing government
intrusion and meddling that bother me, so I never vote Democrat in a
national election. "That government is best which governs least." (Thomas
Paine)

In many ways, we've gotten too far away from our roots.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 8:45 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/22/09 11:13 PM, in article kmte15lfughd9nj2pq2nkb0td3ig3gohf4@4ax.com,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:40:41 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> <secret@illumnati.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm an independent. Actually I was a registered Democrat for 58 years --
>> until last year when I changed to unaffiliated. But I don't think I ever
>> voted Democrat in a national election. I was a Democrat originally for local
>> small-town reasons, nothing to do with political philosophy.
>
> I'm similar, but the reverse. I've been a registered Republican since
> 1959, but I haven't voted for a Republican for national office in many
> years. I do vote for some, but not many, Republicans for local
> office. I remain registered as a Republican so I can vote in the
> Primary for the opponent of any Republican candidate who is backed by
> the Christian Coalition or any similar organization.
Here in Texas, I voted in the Democratic Primary for the first time since I
turned thirty and left my leftist ways behind. The reason being was that I
saw the upcoming Coronation of the Anointed One and did my best to block his
being crowned. So I cast my ballot for the Ashtray Slinger while I held my
nose and the election judges noticed my gagging and offered some help.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 8:48 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/22/09 11:24 PM, in article
2009052221241677923-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom, "Savageduck"
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:

> On 2009-05-22 21:13:56 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:40:41 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>> <secret@illumnati.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm an independent. Actually I was a registered Democrat for 58 years --
>>> until last year when I changed to unaffiliated. But I don't think I ever
>>> voted Democrat in a national election. I was a Democrat originally for local
>>> small-town reasons, nothing to do with political philosophy.
>>
>> I'm similar, but the reverse. I've been a registered Republican since
>> 1959, but I haven't voted for a Republican for national office in many
>> years. I do vote for some, but not many, Republicans for local
>> office. I remain registered as a Republican so I can vote in the
>> Primary for the opponent of any Republican candidate who is backed by
>> the Christian Coalition or any similar organization.
>
> I am embarrased to say the last Republican I voted for was Nixon.
>
That election was the last time I voted Democrat. I have been wary of
Socialist hand-in-my-pocket DemoRats ever since. What we have running this
country right now is a perfect example of why I chosen to do so.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 8:55 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/23/09 8:29 AM, in article
dLadnU7G1s7CZ4rXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Neil Harrington"
<secret@illumnati.net> wrote:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009052221241677923-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>> On 2009-05-22 21:13:56 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>
>> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:40:41 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>> <secret@illumnati.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm an independent. Actually I was a registered Democrat for 58 years --
>>>> until last year when I changed to unaffiliated. But I don't think I ever
>>>> voted Democrat in a national election. I was a Democrat originally for
>>>> local
>>>> small-town reasons, nothing to do with political philosophy.
>>>
>>> I'm similar, but the reverse. I've been a registered Republican since
>>> 1959, but I haven't voted for a Republican for national office in many
>>> years. I do vote for some, but not many, Republicans for local
>>> office. I remain registered as a Republican so I can vote in the
>>> Primary for the opponent of any Republican candidate who is backed by
>>> the Christian Coalition or any similar organization.
>>
>> I am embarrased to say the last Republican I voted for was Nixon.
>>
>> Stupid, but I bought the Vietnamization program. Oh well.
>>
>> Anyway I have been wary of Republicans, the Christian right, and politicos
>> in general ever since.
>
> I certainly don't identify with "the Christian right," but they don't bother
> me that much either. It's creeping socialism and ever-increasing government
> intrusion and meddling that bother me, so I never vote Democrat in a
> national election. "That government is best which governs least." (Thomas
> Paine)
>
> In many ways, we've gotten too far away from our roots.
>
>

Once upon a time, on a farm in Virginia, there was a little red hen
who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few
grains of wheat. She called all of her neighbors together and said, 'If
we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me
plant it?'

'Not I,' said the cow.
'Not I,' said the duck.
'Not I,' said the pig.
'Not I,' said the goose.

'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little! red hen and so she
did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.

'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen.

'Not I,' said the duck.

'Out of my classification,' said the pig.
'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow.
'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose.

'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread.

'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen.

'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow.

'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck.

'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig.

'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose.

'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to
see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little
red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.'

'Excess profits!' cried the cow. ( Nancy Pelosi)

'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)

'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)

The pig just grunted in disdain. (Jimmy Carter)

And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and
around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then a government agent came. He said to the little red hen, 'You must
not be so greedy.'

'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen.

'Exactly,' said the agent. 'That is what makes our free enterprise
system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he
wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive
workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who lazy and
idle.

And they all lived happily ever after, including! the little red hen,
who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.'

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again
baked bread, because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free.
And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one
cared... so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying
for.

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.

Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for the memories
from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under
oath, that they couldn't remember anything.

IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?!?

A great time to be a delinquent debtor as well...

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 6:32 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article
<f639b731-2bc1-4ae2-bd20-2f63ff53953a@r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:

> Where you can (if you want) dispense with the tiny-sensored things you
> shoot with. I assembled a used DSLR set-up as cheaply as I could.
> DSLR- 6 megapixel $127.00. D70 body, no battery, no charger.
> 1990s AF 35mm 70-300mm zoom $25.00.
> modern 18-55mm kit lens $60.00.
> battery and charger: $30.00.
>
> So, for $242.00 a camera that despite its age will still beat a
> pathetic P&S when it comes to image quality and a set-up that has a
> sufficiently long zoom range that will satisfy most people's needs.
> That's the price of a new middle-road P&S.

Why do you care at all what camera complete strangers use? I have both a
dSLR and a P&S. I get a lot of use out of both cameras. Each has its
advantages and disadvantage. For example, when I was a guest at a
colleague's wedding last Sunday, I took my P&S with me and I shot a few
dozen photos, just as keepsakes. I posted them on facebook and people
loved them.

I didn't want to bring my dSLR gear with me because its cumbersome and I
was there as a guest. The bride and groom hired a pro photographer to
shoot "official photos" of their wedding, so the last thing they needed
was me getting in the photographer's way with my dSLR.

When I go out for long walks or bike rides in the park in my
neighborhood, I take my P&S camera with me. I love my Canon dSLR and the
lenses I have with it, but I have no desire to drag 50 pounds of camera
gear with me when I go out biking, with my god kids to their swim club,
or I am just walking home from work.

On the other hand, when I am in a creative mood, I depend a lot on my
dSLR. There are some kinds of shots I can do with my dSLR that would be
extremely difficult if not impossible with my P&S.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 7:43 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Shawn Hirn wrote:
[]
> When I go out for long walks or bike rides in the park in my
> neighborhood, I take my P&S camera with me. I love my Canon dSLR and
> the lenses I have with it, but I have no desire to drag 50 pounds of
> camera gear with me when I go out biking, with my god kids to their
> swim club, or I am just walking home from work.

You must have a lot of kit! I just checked, and my entire gadget bag with
DSLR and 16-300mm VR lenses weighs less then 6 lbs.

Cheers,
David

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 7:55 am
From: Robert Coe

On Wed, 20 May 2009 07:48:39 +0100, "Fred" <fredapain@hotmail.com> wrote:
: "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
: news:f639b731-2bc1-4ae2-bd20-2f63ff53953a@r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
: > Where you can (if you want) dispense with the tiny-sensored things you
: > shoot with. I assembled a used DSLR set-up as cheaply as I could.
: > DSLR- 6 megapixel $127.00. D70 body, no battery, no charger.
: > 1990s AF 35mm 70-300mm zoom $25.00.
: > modern 18-55mm kit lens $60.00.
: > battery and charger: $30.00.
: >
: > So, for $242.00 a camera that despite its age will still beat a
: > pathetic P&S when it comes to image quality and a set-up that has a
: > sufficiently long zoom range that will satisfy most people's needs.
: > That's the price of a new middle-road P&S.
: >
: >
: Useless for purpose, won't fit in my pocket, nuff said.

No, NO! You just need bigger pockets. Add another $30 for a pair of cargo
pants, and you're all set. Well, until that one crappy 3rd-party battery
cashes in, but that could take weeks. In the meantime, happy shooting!

Actually, it appears that Rich may have forgotten to include a memory card. I
don't believe he actually takes pictures, so that may not matter to him. But
it may possibly matter to you.

Bob

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 8:14 am
From: Robert Coe

On Wed, 20 May 2009 18:45:38 -0500, Franklin Kest <fkest@goawaytroll.org>
wrote:
: On Wed, 20 May 2009 15:31:19 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127@gmail.com>
: wrote:
:
: >On May 20, 8:33 am, Franklin Kest <fk...@goawaytroll.org> wrote:
: >> On Tue, 19 May 2009 16:24:33 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com>
: >> wrote:
: >>
: >> >Where you can (if you want) dispense with the tiny-sensored things you
: >> >shoot with. I assembled a used DSLR set-up as cheaply as I could.
: >> >DSLR- 6 megapixel $127.00. D70 body, no battery, no charger.
: >> >1990s AF 35mm 70-300mm zoom $25.00.
: >> >modern 18-55mm kit lens $60.00.
: >> >battery and charger: $30.00.
: >>
: >> >So, for $242.00 a camera that despite its age will still beat a
: >> >pathetic P&S when it comes to image quality and a set-up that has a
: >> >sufficiently long zoom range that will satisfy most people's needs.
: >> >That's the price of a new middle-road P&S.
: >>
: >> Oh let us entertain the useless troll just one more time, shall we?
: >>
: >> See if you can get that dslr while also getting rid of that amazingly loud
: >> and crappy slapping mirror, the image-distorting slow-sync shutter, the
: >> bulk, weight, gargantuan size for all the optics that you need to make it
: >> the least bit functional, the heavy tripod required to use it all, and
: >> maybe, just maybe you've got a deal.
: >>
: >> You couldn't give me a top of the line dslr today, even if it came with
: >> every lens made that fits it. I got rid of all my dslr gear long ago. I'd
: >> take a sledge to any new one even if given to me for free. When are you
: >> going to realize that the freedom and flexibility afforded by a good P&S
: >> camera FAR outweighs the meager ISO gain of a dslr? Some people are
: >> smarter, more creative, more talented,
: >
: >Remember that song from the 1970's "Lazy?"
:
: Aww... the poor ignorant DSLR-Troll can't handle reality. (Like that's some
: big surprise?) It had to snip out the very words that prove he's a troll.
: The words that show that "lazy" has nothing to do with it. After setting up
: base-camps from my photo-rig vehicle (solar panels on top fire-up the PC,
: and wide-bed printer used for required waterproof topo maps and photos
: while traveling), I then head on foot or by mountain-bike, canoe, or kayak.
: The mountain-bike showing an odometer totaling some 2,500 miles last year
: alone. That's miles by human-powered bike in just one year, not including
: the miles by gas-powered vehicle, canoe, kayak, or on foot.
:
: Lazy? A useless troll like you who lives on the internet is *LAZY*. Go play
: with your imaginary cameras some more. If you're not too lazy to do even
: that much.
:
:
: Here again is the part you snipped out, the important bit capitalized, the
: part that bothered your feeble mind so much. So much that you had to stop
: reading there and try to invent another lame reason that someone would even
: remotely value your choice in pathetic crippled cameras. You really have no
: clue do you. You don't even know the extent to which _real_ photographers
: use their gear. What a pity.
:
: On Wed, 20 May 2009 07:33:09 -0500, Franklin Kest <fkest@goawaytroll.org>
: wrote:
:
: > Some people are smarter, more creative, more talented, and MORE MOBILE
: >than you'll ever be in your pathetic internet-only life. For some real
: >pros the multitudes of drawbacks of any dslr is always a detriment to
: >their photography, NEVER an asset.
: >
: >I'd ask you to get a clue but that is beyond you. The only experience that
: >you'll ever have with dslr's is from your chair and imagination. Dslr's
: >look good in print but are really lame pigs when used in real life.

The man is gibbering; that could be a stroke symptom. Someone should call 911.
They take those things very seriously at the ER. They could have him in a CAT
scanner 5 minutes after he's wheeled in the door.

Bob

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 8:58 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/22/09 6:48 PM, in article gv7dji$gr2$1@news.eternal-september.org,
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, gosh, no! That would be racial profiling. Isn't that
> taboo in UK? You can be as Muslim as you want, and that's
> protected. But take a photo, and off to the gaol house with
> you!

<http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor/pictures/2006/whatsthepoint.jpg>

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 8:59 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/19/09 5:07 PM, in article
4a132dae$0$4900$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
wrote:

>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C63823AC.2AA42%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> 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]
>
> A few years back when Clinton was visiting Martha's Vineyard, the running
> gag was this:
>
> Bad news: The Clintons are coming to the Vineyard.
> Good news: Ted's driving.
>
<G!>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, May 23 2009 9:00 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/19/09 5:10 PM, in article
4a132e6e$0$4890$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
wrote:

>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C6381D93.2AA3D%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/18/09 8:45 AM, in article EDdQl.283$X6.35@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com,
>> "Bowser" <over@the.rainbow> wrote:
>>
>>> 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!
>> I was playing "P.C." with the North vs. South thing, but DO look what
>> happened!
>>
>> "Ladies and germs, we have a WIN-NAH!"
>
> OK, look, we all know that the northerners hate the southerners, but I bet
> you don't know why. Barbeque. You simply can't get good barbeque up north,
> and I don't think that's a coincidence at all. It's a GD barbeque
> conspiracy, that's what it is! Once you've had the pulled pork at Charlie
> and Jakes or Meemaws in Melbourne, FL, anything up north is simply sub-par.
> People up here throw some chicken on the grill, slap on some sugar-sauce,
> and call it barbeque. It ain't...
>
I'll have to remember that next time I'm in FL.