Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: No more doubts about the SB900 power !!! (sample photos)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/048eb5829deae882?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 9:14 am
From: ASAAR

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:46:52 -0400, Matt Clara wrote:

> A little Photoshop work to even out exposure, perhaps? Or are those
> foreground walls further away than they appear? It certainly looks like an
> impressive flash, in any case. I've owned many Nikon flashes, and I've been
> impressed with all of them.

They're closer than they appear. 16mm lens focused at 5 meters
(probably the distance of the person closest to the camera)
according to the EXIF data and supported by the illumination.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 10:06 am
From: Bob Larter

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In bright sun you can use the sun to light the shadows. A large
> spring-out folding reflector is a lot cheaper and lighter than a big
> flash, has no overheating problems, and incorporates modelling
> illumination :-) For face portraits even something as simple as a
> nearby white shirt can do it.

<grin> I've used someone's white shirt / T-shirt as a reflector more
than once. ;^)

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

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 12:36 pm
From: DMac

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems DMac <d-mac@d-mac.info.delete> wrote:
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> On 2009-06-04 15:46:59 -0700, DMac <d-mac@d-mac.info.delete> said:
>>>
>>>> Bertram Paul wrote:
>>>>> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal
>>>>> (not tele!) and ISO 400:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Now if you can just repeat that 20 time and not fry the flash...
>>> What on earth are you doing that for? The SB-900 is not built for that
>>> kind of work; no small strobe is. However, the SB-900 is perfectly
>>> adequate for most wedding and portrait photography, especially if you
>>> use multiple units. Heck, I could get by most of the time with a simple
>>> video light.
>>>
>>> Or you could just get the Metz. :D But if I need that kind of power I
>>> generally go with real strobes controlled by Pocket Wizards. I plug them
>>> into walls or rent serious battery power.
>
>> Different strokes for different folks.
>> I don't know where you reside but in Queensland Australia, on a beach at
>> midday or thereabouts in spring, summer and autumn, the harshness of the
>> light needs plenty of flash to overcome the shadows unless it's one of
>> those rare days that is overcast. I used s5 Pro Fujifilm cameras for a
>> while but even their dynamic range isn't enough.
>
> In bright sun you can use the sun to light the shadows. A large
> spring-out folding reflector is a lot cheaper and lighter than a big
> flash, has no overheating problems, and incorporates modelling
> illumination :-) For face portraits even something as simple as a
> nearby white shirt can do it.
>
>> In a cathedral. Even a small one, late in the afternoon, try to light
>> the alter and beyond from mid distance without plenty of flash power.
>> I've mostly overcome the need to use ISO 100 (the Fuji's base setting)
>> by changing to Nikon cameras.
>
> You can also get close to Nikon's noise performance with noisier DSLRs
> with the same size of sensor if you use one of the sophisticated
> computer noise reducers and work from RAW.
>

The problem with your suggestions Chris are several: The software - I
use noise ninja for preference - all rub out the noise right enough but
they also leave a creamy look on people's faces with all the fine detail
lost. An s5 is a good example of a noisey camera. Even at ISO 160!

I found it a little invasive to ask the priest to move around until the
reflection off his white robes lit the area under a bride's eyebrows. I
have a reflector. I've got several actually but never anyone over 3 feet
tall to hold it when I need it!

A 1.2m reflector doesn't go too well when you spring it open in the
middle of an outdoor beach ceremony either! (insert a little grin here).

The picture in this page:
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/gallery/Aspect-ratio.htm
demonstrates some of the nightmares of using natural light. The walls
were a natural grey yet some of it turned out green.

The child's dress was white and that's the white balanced point. The
rest of the colours might be OK if you consider this artistic lighting -
certainly not unpleasant if that is the look you aimed for... But, it is
not accurate colour and the dynamic range is at the upper extreme of
what a D700 can handle! Shot at ISO 1600. Out of the question for a s5
but in the middle of a D 700's happy zone.

Lit with even a small, hand held flash, the dynamic range would have
narrowed and the ISO could have come down inside the happy range of
older cameras like the s5.

If you want to colour in the picture later, do it with Photoshop!. My
belief is that it might be OK for me or you to pull shots like this
after setting them up but keep in mind my shooters take as many as 600
frames in under 5 hours. They have limited time to change lighting. I
would much prefer to have this sort of shot lit by bounce off the
ceiling or a reflector.

I need a safety margin in every one of my shooters shots. Shots like
this take away that margin and as little as half a stop wider in the
highlights will remove my ability to recover the shot in post.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 12:46 pm
From: DMac

ASAAR wrote:
>
> I'm sure, but I resisted the urge to exercise my credit card by
> clicking on your "Donate" button. Most good photo websites are
> produced by experienced photographers that have considerable
> knowledge and experience in the subjects that they cover. You,
> instead attempt to be a tutor for subjects that you've just become
> acquainted with, and have only a partial knowledge of. You're
> website is no Strobist. When your "Strobist" link is clicked :
>
>> http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/search/label/strobist
>
> it takes the browser to what appears to be identical to your blog
> home page : "http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/". Care to explain?
>

I bet you waited all year to make a post like this! :)

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 1:31 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 04-06-09 18:08, Bertram Paul wrote:
> Taken in the biggest caves of Portugal, with the flash set at normal (not
> tele!) and ISO 400:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/

Ignores the reality that a flash shot from a camera mounted flash only
gives correct exposure at a given distance from the flash. Further is
under; closer is over-exp.

This has nothing to do with brand or model.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c04187075ef6f9c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 9:15 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>In message <87bpp290fz.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>In message <87k53r83x8.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
>>><floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>>>>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>In message <87ab4nbrlt.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
>>>>><floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>>>>>>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>In message <871vq1eyu4.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
>>>>>>><floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>>>>>>>>Okay. Now, is that firmware just controlling the data
>>>>>>>>flow or is it manipulating the data?
>>>>>>>Yes to both
>>>>>>Cite?
>>>>>>>> Is there a CPU
>>>>>>>>in the ASIC?
>>>>>>>Normally.
>>>>>>In the specific ASICs used the cameras we are talking about?
>>>>>>Cite?
>>>>>NDA
>>>>Giggle snort.
>>>Grow up. I am in a position to know and you are not.
>>Your reply above is what is called "non responsive". It
>>has nothing to do with the question.
>
>What you mean the "giggle snort"?

It's a hoot.

>>I did not ask what you know.
>
>Yes you did

I asked for a cite, not a statement from you.

>> I asked you to support
>>what you claim by citing a credible source.
>
>I am a credible source in the Embedded systems and electronics industry.

You are a joke. See "giggle snort".

>However it is clear you are an aperture in the field of software and
>embedded systems.
>
>> An NDA has
>>absolutely nothing to do with whether you can find
>>another source.
>
>Well it does if al the sources I know are not public. All I know is we
>supplied the compilers for the core used in the ASICS

I am asking for a cite that there are CPU's in ASICs
used in digital cameras.

I don't know if any DSLR's have such. I'm doubtful
simply because it would be wasteful of precious battery
power when they also have a very specialized CPU
designed to do exactly whatever it is that would be
assigned to the ASIC.

Regardless of that, there *certainly* are no CPU's used
an any ASIC that is in the data flow prior to the ADC, which
would be necessary for what Eric claims.

I also note your repeated use the incorrect term
"ASICS". It is an ASIC, and the plural is either ASICs
or ASIC's, but never ASICS.

>>>>I doubt that even one DSLR has a CPU in the ASIC.
>>>
>>>Then, as so often, you would be wrong.
>>>
>>>Just because you are an amateur programmer does not mean you understand
>>>embedded engineering. Stick to photography.
>>
>>We aren't talking about photography, or for that matter
>>"embedded engineering". Digital data transmission
>>systems are something you seem to have very little
>>experience with,
>
>Only about 5 years producing them professionally. You are using some of
>the equipment now.

Another Non Sequitur. What does that have to do with
it? Clearly you may be associated with a company that
does those things, and just as clearly you do not
understand at least some of the technical aspects of
what your company does. Therefore citing what your
company does is clearly very distinct from citing what
*you* understand.

>>and that is what we are discussing
>>(even if you are not aware of it).
>
>I have noticed in your many discussions you seem at odds with almost
>everyone.

Better than being at odds with the facts.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 10:20 am
From: Bob Larter

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> In message <87ab4nbrlt.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
>> <floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>> In message <871vq1eyu4.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
>>>> <floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>>>>> Okay. Now, is that firmware just controlling the data
>>>>> flow or is it manipulating the data?
>>>> Yes to both
>>> Cite?
>>>
>>>>> Is there a CPU
>>>>> in the ASIC?
>>>> Normally.
>>> In the specific ASICs used the cameras we are talking about?
>>>
>>> Cite?
>> NDA
>
> Giggle snort.
>
> I doubt that even one DSLR has a CPU in the ASIC.

Are you kidding?

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

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 10:23 am
From: Bob Larter

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:13:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:48:52 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>> Davidson) wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> The data from the sensor is analog data.
>>> The sensel counts photons which it converts to photons. The data is
>>> integer.
>> At this point, it's an analog voltage whose magnitude *approximately*
>> corresponds to the number of photons that have hit the sensel, plus
>> various kinds of noise. That voltage is then amplified (more noise)
>> according to the ISO setting, & sent to an A-to-D converter, which
>> generates a binary number that *approximates* the voltage out of the
>> amplifier.
>
> Is voltage analog when you are measuring it in integer steps?

You're confusing domains. Analog is analog, & digital is digital. You
*will* get errors when you convert from one to the other.

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

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 11:20 am
From: Chris H

In message <4a2953ee$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>> In message <87ab4nbrlt.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
>>> <floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>> In message <871vq1eyu4.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
>>>>> <floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>>>>>> Okay. Now, is that firmware just controlling the data
>>>>>> flow or is it manipulating the data?
>>>>> Yes to both
>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a CPU
>>>>>> in the ASIC?
>>>>> Normally.
>>>> In the specific ASICs used the cameras we are talking about?
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>> NDA
>> Giggle snort.
>> I doubt that even one DSLR has a CPU in the ASIC.
>
>Are you kidding?

He's not in the real world... BTW have a look at the C source code on
his web site. Speaks volumes. :-)

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

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 12:39 pm
From: tony cooper

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:39:09 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>In message <78sdsmF1m0gviU4@mid.individual.net>, Huge
>><Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes
>>>On 2009-06-05, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Grow up. I am in a position to know and you are not.
>>>
>>>Fallacious; Argument from authority. Put up or shut up.
>>
>>I put up.
>
>That would require several cites to a variety of experts
>on the topic, demonstrating that what you have said is also
>the same response that virtually all experts on the topic
>would provide.
>
>Since you cannot cite even a single source other than
>yourself, it is a fallacious Ad Verecundiam.

Oh, this is painful. A fallacious Argumentum Ad Verecundiam is the
fallacy of using an authority when that authority has no standing or
expertise in the field of discussion. It would be a fallacious Ad
Verecundiam if he used me as an authority because I have no standing
in the field. The statement does not represent Chris as an authority.

Chris is referring to unidentified "experts" (authorities) who have,
presumably, standing and expertise. Unless Chris identifies the
experts, and it can be ascertained that they do not have appropriate
standing, there is no fallacious Argumentum Ad Verecuniam.

>>I also demonstrated why I am in a position to know.
>
>Argument by non-sequitur.

You don't argue *by* non sequitur. A response could be a non sequitur
if it "does not follow", but the above is not an example of that even
if Chris is not in a position to know.

> You may well be in a
>"position" where you could know, but you have not
>demonstrated that you do know.

That does not constitute a non sequitur.

>>Floyd has demonstrated nothing so far bar unsupported opinion.
>
>And a bent for logic plus accurate facts. (Note that what
>you just did is also false logic. This one is Ad Hominem.)

No, nothing in that statement attacks your character. While it
questions the validity of your points by labeling them as no more than
opinions, it does not malign your character. It is no more Ad Hominem
than "You have not proven your point".

Examples of an Argumentum Ad Hominem would include statements like
"You are ignorant" as a response in argument. It does seem like we've
heard that in here.

Argumentum Ad Hominem is not "false logic". It is a fallacy of
relevance.

Later, we may cover your misuse of "out-of-kilter".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 1:13 pm
From: Chris H

In message <87oi255i3p33tc2ld4ld5c0m8hb8re8ism@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:39:09 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>In message <78sdsmF1m0gviU4@mid.individual.net>, Huge
>>><Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes
>>
>>Since you cannot cite even a single source other than
>>yourself, it is a fallacious Ad Verecundiam.
>
>Oh, this is painful.

I know. I was wondering why we are bothering. He seems out of synch with
the rest of the world.

>The statement does not represent Chris as an authority.
>Chris is referring to unidentified "experts" (authorities) who have,
>presumably, standing and expertise.

Actually I *am* an authority in this field.

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

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 1:28 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:39:09 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>In message <78sdsmF1m0gviU4@mid.individual.net>, Huge
>>><Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes
>>>>On 2009-06-05, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Grow up. I am in a position to know and you are not.
>>>>
>>>>Fallacious; Argument from authority. Put up or shut up.
>>>
>>>I put up.
>>
>>That would require several cites to a variety of experts
>>on the topic, demonstrating that what you have said is also
>>the same response that virtually all experts on the topic
>>would provide.
>>
>>Since you cannot cite even a single source other than
>>yourself, it is a fallacious Ad Verecundiam.
>
>Oh, this is painful. A fallacious Argumentum Ad Verecundiam is the
>fallacy of using an authority when that authority has no standing or
>expertise in the field of discussion. It would be a fallacious Ad
>Verecundiam if he used me as an authority because I have no standing
>in the field. The statement does not represent Chris as an authority.

Sheesh, you can't even look up simple things like that!

The statement *does* represent Chris as an authority,
which he is not. To be valid he has to be an authority
*and* what he says has to agree with what virtually all
such authorities say.

He loses on all counts.

>Chris is referring to unidentified "experts" (authorities) who have,
>presumably, standing and expertise. Unless Chris identifies the
>experts, and it can be ascertained that they do not have appropriate
>standing, there is no fallacious Argumentum Ad Verecuniam.

>>>I also demonstrated why I am in a position to know.
>>
>>Argument by non-sequitur.
>
>You don't argue *by* non sequitur. A response could be a non sequitur
>if it "does not follow", but the above is not an example of that even
>if Chris is not in a position to know.

So much for you being articulate. So much for your ability to
follow logic too! What a hoot.

He responded with a statement that had no bearing on the
discussion. Even if it is true that he is "in a
position" it does not indicate that he actually knows.
That is "argument by non-sequitur".

>> You may well be in a
>>"position" where you could know, but you have not
>>demonstrated that you do know.
>
>That does not constitute a non sequitur.

How could it be more of a non sequitur!

>>>Floyd has demonstrated nothing so far bar unsupported opinion.
>>
>>And a bent for logic plus accurate facts. (Note that what
>>you just did is also false logic. This one is Ad Hominem.)
>
>No, nothing in that statement attacks your character.

Who said it did. I said it was an Ad Hominem.

>While it
>questions the validity of your points by labeling them as no more than
>opinions, it does not malign your character. It is no more Ad Hominem
>than "You have not proven your point".

You are ignorant of what the term means.

>Examples of an Argumentum Ad Hominem would include statements like
>"You are ignorant" as a response in argument. It does seem like we've
>heard that in here.

That is not an Ad Hominem or even close. It's a
statement of fact. You clearly to not know what the
term means.

>Argumentum Ad Hominem is not "false logic". It is a fallacy of
>relevance.

It's false logic.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 1:30 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>Actually I *am* an authority in this field.

Sure you are Chris. You don't understand the definition
of Public Domain. You can't cite other authorities that
agree with you.

Your a wannabe.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Use your build-in flash better!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e73c75a13086e0a0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 10:00 am
From: John A.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:19:53 -0700 (PDT), Pat
<groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote:

>On Jun 3, 7:12 pm, "Bertram Paul" <d...@mail.me> wrote:
>> If you want better pictures with your internal flash (and external), this is
>> a good place to look:http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Just leave a comment if your interested.
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> Bertram Paul
>
>Hey McGiver, this is great if you happen to be carrying around a
>backpack full of odds and ends for when you need it.
>
>What I can't believe is that you did all of that and didn't take a
>rubbing alcohol bottle and cut it to fit over the flash. Simpler and
>better.
>
>And next week "reflectors". I can hardly wait. Get out your aluminum
>foil and crinkle it up !!!

Half a Pringles can? :)

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 10:05 am
From: tony cooper

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:48:48 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>>You're trying to flim-flam me, Floyd.
>
>I think the above shows exactly who has the flim flam. Note
>that those are direct quotes, they are also in context.
>
>>A "discussion of significance" would be a discussion that actually
>>took place, wouldn't it?
>
>Non-sequitur. Obviously you have tried to obfuscate the
>original discussion that had significance by throwing out
>a huge volume of meaningless drivel that is of no significance.

Did I? What part of your meaningless drivel of no significance did I
throw out?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A question about Irfanview & RAW images
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/102cc5161e3384a4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 10:25 am
From: Bob Larter

Al Dykes wrote:
> When I look at a RAW image in Irfanview, am I looking at the RAW bits
> or am I looking at the jpg that the camera produces with it?

Usually the latter, unless you've installed the optional Irfanview
plugin package. You can tell which you're using by how long it takes to
load the picture.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photographing Groups
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ca34e76815965c4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 10:37 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

David <david_trafalgar@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I just wondered the about the problem of getting everyone in focus.
>Would it be a solution to arrange the group in an arc, of constant
>radius from the lens. Or would it look odd ? No experience myself.

I'd be surprised if there's an issue with focus. More important is
the fact that if the group is spread out in a line then those at the
ends will be farther away and thus smaller in the resulting image.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon PowerShot SX10 IS - any good?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/afb1d7a1a6711842?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 10:56 am
From: "Ken"

"Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:78o0umF1mskckU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje
> news:4a26b33c$0$18252$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "Clair Johnston" <cbj0129@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:O42Ll.36274$v8.14800@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clair thanks for the informative I was beginning to have doubts but NOT
>>>> really as the movable LCD is something I had an old Olympus and miss.
>>>> So this feature alone is worth extra points.
>>>>
>>>> Ken
>>>
>>> Ken,
>>>
>>> If you decide to get the camera, let us know your thoughts after a
>>> reasonable period of use. Remember to read the manual to make full use
>>> of the camera.
>>>
>>> Clair
>>
>> My opinion posted to the Dpreview site.
>> It sure beats my sons Panasonic FZ18 by a very long margin.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>> Opinion
>> A few weeks on and so far so good. The best 'straight from the camera'
>> shots with any digital camera I have owned. The colours are so authentic
>> and the pictures are very sharp. Even my wife is very impressed and she
>> is not interested in photography. There is minimal need for post shot
>> processing - just a little sharpening in my case.
>>
>>
>> Problems
>> Only two aspects which nearly made me send the camera back after a few
>> days. It was only the superb shots that stopped me.
>>
>> Firstly not being able to access the scenes options without using the
>> control wheel/dial.
>>
>> Secondly, and really repeating myself, but my total disbelief that Canon
>> could have such a clumsy physical control as the control wheel/dial. I am
>> still not used to it as it is hit and miss - poor show on this Canon!
>
>
> Ken, does the PowerShot SX10 IS posible the playback of the audio of the
> videos?
>
> Because I read a problem with this option.
>
> --
> Miguel M. Yalán
> http://mmyv.com

Hi Miguel

I am not sure I fully understand your question???

I never use my camnera for video clips but have just tried and it takes good
quality videos with sound?

Ask again and I will get back to you.

Ken

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 11:32 am
From: Stephen Henning

I got my SX10 IS last fall and love it. I do a lot of closeup work and
its closeup features work best NOT in macro mode. Macro mode works well
at short focal lengths, but with longer focal lengths, closeup work is
much better NOT in macro mode.

Closeup focus is the best in this class of cameras. I tried them all
and none even came close to this model.

Another peculiarity is that you can't use fill flash in Auto mode. You
need to switch to Program mode. That is a minor inconvenience. The
fill flash works well in this mode. I always use fill flash for flower
photography on sunny days in sunlight, but never on cloudy days or in
the shade.

I found that when I use this camera and go to Photoshop CS3, the Auto
Level in photoshop will correct almost perfectly for color temperature
and contrast. It boggled my mind. It was uncanny how accurate it was.

I am writing a book and used this camera to copy about 8,000 items for
use in the book. These items ranged from newspaper articles, and
photographs, to historic documents and artifacts. I have a copy stand
with side lighting using compact fluorescent bulbs, and the color
matching with this camera and the Auto Level control in photoshop was a
humungous time and effort saver.

My one problem with this camera is that sometimes I bump one of the 11
buttons and end up in a mode that I have no idea how to get out of. I
just shut it off and turn it back on.

On thing I find difficult with this camera is wild life photography from
a moving train. It is difficult to find and then zoom in on an animal
that is close to the train. Of course things that are further away are
easy to work with. One habit I have to stop, is touching the shutter
button when I am zeroing in on an object. Unfortunately, if the camera
is focusing on a nearby or distant object when I touch the shutter
button, the focus will be off. I need to remember not to touch the
shutter button until I have the object ready to focus on. When panning,
this can be difficult.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 12:22 pm
From: "Miguel"

"Ken" <none@none.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje
news:4a295c68$0$18239$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:78o0umF1mskckU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje
>> news:4a26b33c$0$18252$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Clair Johnston" <cbj0129@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:O42Ll.36274$v8.14800@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Clair thanks for the informative I was beginning to have doubts but
>>>>> NOT really as the movable LCD is something I had an old Olympus and
>>>>> miss. So this feature alone is worth extra points.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>> Ken,
>>>>
>>>> If you decide to get the camera, let us know your thoughts after a
>>>> reasonable period of use. Remember to read the manual to make full use
>>>> of the camera.
>>>>
>>>> Clair
>>>
>>> My opinion posted to the Dpreview site.
>>> It sure beats my sons Panasonic FZ18 by a very long margin.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>>
>>> Opinion
>>> A few weeks on and so far so good. The best 'straight from the camera'
>>> shots with any digital camera I have owned. The colours are so authentic
>>> and the pictures are very sharp. Even my wife is very impressed and she
>>> is not interested in photography. There is minimal need for post shot
>>> processing - just a little sharpening in my case.
>>>
>>>
>>> Problems
>>> Only two aspects which nearly made me send the camera back after a few
>>> days. It was only the superb shots that stopped me.
>>>
>>> Firstly not being able to access the scenes options without using the
>>> control wheel/dial.
>>>
>>> Secondly, and really repeating myself, but my total disbelief that Canon
>>> could have such a clumsy physical control as the control wheel/dial. I
>>> am still not used to it as it is hit and miss - poor show on this Canon!
>>
>>
>> Ken, does the PowerShot SX10 IS posible the playback of the audio of the
>> videos?
>>
>> Because I read a problem with this option.
>>
>> --
>> Miguel M. Yalán
>> http://mmyv.com
>
>
> Hi Miguel
>
> I am not sure I fully understand your question???
>
> I never use my camnera for video clips but have just tried and it takes
> good quality videos with sound?
>
> Ask again and I will get back to you.

Hello Ken, thanks for your answer, after that you use the SX10 to video
clips, can you listen in the same camera the recorded audio?

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Raios de Sul (ex-16 photographs by al-Farrob)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a05456d7e80c1468?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 11:04 am
From: al-Farrob

As always I invite you to visit:

www.al-farrob.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does anybody have an answer?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c4ad2c7afb485eca?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 11:57 am
From: "Pete D"

"sambarluc" <sambarluc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e71398a-2723-44bc-bcc5-596f6ebe65c5@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> Reading all the mess about DP2, and expectations on Olympus, and the
> dissatisfaction of many (or at least me) with the building philosophy
> of present day digital cameras, I came up with a thought.
> Camera world seems a bit like the world of computing these days.
> Companies sell always new, more powerful hardware to stay up to date
> with new and more demanding software, which in fact very seldom
> improves user experience. At least for software there's the open
> source community, much more sensitive to a minimalist/high
> productivity approach, but what about cameras? I have a silly idea: a
> modular camera, that you can build on your needs like a PC. You don't
> buy the 73rd autofocus point, if you don't need it. You don't buy
> smile detection if you only use Av. You can keep it simple and
> lightweight, or make it look like (Concise) Oxford dictionary, with as
> many functions as MS Word. If cameras and electronics have to merge,
> why not going all the way? A bit like Leica a la carte, but less
> stupidly useless.
> Now, why nobody came up with something like this? Why something like
> this exists for medium format but not for more compact formats? Shall
> I found a new company? ;-) Hey, anybody from Canon or Nikon listening?
> I would really like to have a serious answer.
> Andrea

Because it would not be simple, lightweight or cheap, just like MF.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dpreview getting paranoid in its old age
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d233184892e2a160?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 11:59 am
From: "Pete D"

>
> In DP Review, they say they are a separate entity. They
> should perhaps update their site. I have always liked Imaging Resource,
> and still like it more than DP Review. DP Review shows up first
> in Google most of the time. Perhaps thast why its overly rated.
> I still have not find a side by side image comparision in DPR. Perhaps I'm
> miissing it. ?
>
> greg
>
>
>>Um, they do own it and cn do whatever they want realy, if you don't like
>>it
>>you can just go elsewhere, its not like it is a bunch of newsgroups.
>>
>>

Personally I pretty much only use DP Review for the Pentax SLR forum, great
bunch of contributors and great info and I have met some of the people from
the group. All good positive stuff.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 1:03 pm
From: "Pete D"

> couldn't get the login to "stick", no matter what I did it would tell me
> I wasn't logged in whenever I tried to reply to something so I gave up.

I get this with Firefox so just use IE for this site.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 5 2009 1:14 pm
From: "Pete D"

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a28a4df$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> RichA wrote:
>> I've noticed a lot of long-time posters there getting banned, posts
>> getting deleted and it seems like the reason has little to do with
>> actual problems, but more to do with how the advertisers might look on
>> the site.
>
> They banned you for trolling, eh?

Actually Rich has been repeatedly banned and probably still doesn't get the
fatc that DP Review is a owned site and is not Usenet so being an ass is not
an option, well you can be up to a point but then they ban you.

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

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