rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Anything for the Perfect Shot - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
* Boycott Panasonic cameras - forced proprietary battery use in firmware - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/79623194af1b296b?hl=en
* Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes? - 5 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a72842738be30c46?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anything for the Perfect Shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 9:55 pm
From: Bob Larter
Alan Browne wrote:
> On 19-06-09 23:25, Matt Clara wrote:
>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
> Those have been posted before, Matt. There are some good ones in there
> (the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>
> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled with
> computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and they
> come right up again).
That's where Firefox + NoScript is a life saver.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 11:08 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
Alan Browne wrote:
> On 20-06-09 17:31, lobo wrote:
>> "Matt Clara"<none@myexpense.com> wrote in message
>> news:wEY_l.350$W_2.197@newsfe02.iad...
>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>
>> Be careful viewing this site. Avast! indicated a Trojan.
>
> I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector.
> Oh, I don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.
You have my sympathy, Alan, but you have only yourself to blame.
<G>
David
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 11:23 pm
From: "J. Clarke"
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:38:52 -0700, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:45:09 -0400, Alan Browne
>>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20-06-09 17:31, lobo wrote:
>>>>> "Matt Clara"<none@myexpense.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:wEY_l.350$W_2.197@newsfe02.iad...
>>>>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>>>> Be careful viewing this site. Avast! indicated a Trojan.
>>>> I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector.
>>>> Oh, I don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.
>>>
>>> See
>>> http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm
>>
>> Why? The site says there is mac anti virus software, but for now I
>> say it's useless, or worse than useless, as AV soft ware can
>> interfere with O/S ops.
>>
>> There aren't any proven Mac viruses in the wild.
>
> That site doesn't agree with you.
Well of course it doesn't. "Currently, Mary is a Senior Security Researcher
for ScanSafe." She's trying to sell you some piece of crap you don't need.
I've also never had malware affect one of my Windows boxen--I've had far
more damage done by antivirus crap. Use a hardware firewall, don't run as
admin.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 11:55 pm
From: Bob Larter
Alan Browne wrote:
> On 20-06-09 11:01, John McWilliams wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 19-06-09 23:25, Matt Clara wrote:
>>>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>>
>>> Those have been posted before, Matt. There are some good ones in there
>>> (the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>>>
>>> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled
>>> with computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and
>>> they come right up again).
>>
>> Not a single popup using Safari just ten minutes ago.
>
> I was using Firefox with ad-block activated. This was not the pop-over
> type, but drop boxes when scrolling or closing the page.
Dump ad-block & use no-script instead. I didn't see any rubbish at all
when viewing that page with Firefox + No-Script.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Boycott Panasonic cameras - forced proprietary battery use in firmware
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/79623194af1b296b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 11:16 pm
From: Twibil
On Jun 20, 1:48 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>
> > What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony).
>
> Before screaming "boycott" like some 1970's shop steward you might like to
> consider that fake batteries could be a problem.
Before screaming "1970's shop steward" like a right wing fruitcake,
you might like to consider that fake batterys could carry any name at
all, including Panasonic.
You know: just like fake aircraft parts, fake pharmaseuticals, and all
the other pirated-name-brand products that are sold in the US every
day.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a72842738be30c46?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 11:25 pm
From: Bob Larter
thankyou wrote:
> No crop (3:2). This was my sample photo I took to the print shop for
> testing. Sort of crazy... they print quickly out of a upright printer
> and charge you $17 bucks.
>
> The uploaded resolution is 1024 x 1535
>
> From what I learned here. My 3465 x 2304 master photo "max" enlargment
> should only be:
> 10 x 7
>
> 3456ppi / 350 dpi = 9.87
> 2304 / 350 = 6.68
>
> I'll figure out what you wrote and try it. Thanks for the tip.
IMO, 200DPI is generally plenty for printing.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 11:28 pm
From: Bob Larter
tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:20:22 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <ilon35dbaig21pbqvtnhhrfvdtvpegjiq1@4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming that the image has been taken with a good lens, for printing
>>> figure at least 130 PPI (pixels per inch) for acceptable results (at
>>> normal viewing distances), and up to 230 PPI for excellent results.
>>> With current technology, anything more than 300 PPI is pretty much
>>> wasted.
>> nonsense. 130 ppi is very low, 230 ppi is decent for most purposes and
>> 300 ppi is generally accepted as tack sharp but higher ppi can be seen
>> in good light.
>
> My own rule is 240 to 300. Never below 240 for printing. Always at
> 300 unless I'm trying to hold down the file size as some condition for
> submission.
>
> People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
> convincing argument that proves this.
If the native resolution of the output device is only 300DPI, anything
over that will be wasted, & might even produce artifacts.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 11:31 pm
From: Bob Larter
nospam wrote:
> In article <dmtn35t52isccta89a5v45alfrgch4m3h6@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
>> convincing argument that proves this. Of course, I've never seen
>> convincing argument that anything over 300 improves, either.
>
> it depends on the image and viewing conditions.
>
> <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/>
>
> Laser printers used to be 300 dots per inch (dpi), but evolved to 600
> and even 1200 dpi. Why? People could see ragged edges on letters on 300
> dpi laser printers. At 600 dpi edges appear smoother. Some can tell the
> difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers if the paper quality is
> high.
That's for monochrome bi-level prints. Continuous tone images are much
less demanding. For example; dye-sub prints give good results at 100-150DPI.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 11:33 pm
From: Bob Larter
Bob Williams wrote:
> thankyou wrote:
>> Right, good, makes sense. But, still, when I tried to get a handle on
>> all this at the photo shops, many looked at me like I was nuts.
>> Anyway… That guy was pretty angry.
>>
>> Not sure this is the correct forum, but, since we are talking.
>>
>> Could you take a look at this photo?
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/traveltv/3641954486/
>>
>> It's a depth of field thing, but the subject that is OUT of focus is
>> much larger and prominent than the subject that is IN focus. That sort
>> of bothers me.
>>
>> Does this photo "work" for you? If not, why?
>>
>> Thanks again, John
>
> Some people LIKE the shallow depth of field effect, because it keeps
> mundane backgrounds from distracting the eye from the central image.
> In fact, one reason that many people CHOOSE a DSLR over a good P/S, is
> because it is much harder to get a shallow depth of field with small
> sensor cameras like most P/S on the market.
> I, personally, do not want my camera to provide the shallow DOF for me.
> I like my entire image to be as crisp as possible.
> Then, if I want to blur certain parts of the background, I do so in
> Photoshop.
Rather you than me! I usually shoot wide-open or close to it for very
shallow DoF.
> I think it is purely a matter of aesthetics and personal preferences.
> Bob Williams.
Indeed.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 11:50 pm
From: Bob Larter
John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:35:44 -0700, Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net>
> wrote in <kMR_l.9352$FI5.6956@newsfe12.iad>:
>
>> Some people LIKE the shallow depth of field effect, because it keeps
>> mundane backgrounds from distracting the eye from the central image.
>> In fact, one reason that many people CHOOSE a DSLR over a good P/S, is
>> because it is much harder to get a shallow depth of field with small
>> sensor cameras like most P/S on the market.
>
> Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
> can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
> <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
cars in the background.
Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large file):
<http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment