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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 12:08 pm
From: Chris H

In message <6b47137b-a43c-4218-a84c-310bedccde08@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups
.com>, Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us> writes
>On Jun 8, 10:58 am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> In message <39045a0f-b8a2-49d5-8eff-e47678150...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroup
>> s.com>, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> writes
>>
>> >Two quick answers:
>>
>> >First, no, a RAW file cannot be seen without computer manipulation of
>> >some sort. But neither can a JPG or TIFF or anything else. No matter
>> >what format it is, it is just a bunch of 0s and 1s. So unless you can
>> >visualize 1101001110001110010000111010101000111100011
>>
>> Not seen the Matrix recently ? :-)
>
>I don't remember the exact title of the book, but Johnny Mnumatic also
>comes to mind -- about a guy transporting (too much) data in his brain.

I know that feeling. One of the joys of working in the embedded
software industry :-(

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

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 2:35 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On 8 Jun 2009 09:33:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:53:36 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:02:01 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <heavily edited for brevity>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dingbat - interpolation is an assential part of going from the Bayer
>>>>>>> array to the RAW data file. Please don't continue to pretend
>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>> <edited>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello, Eric:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dingbat," eh? Why don't youss dummy up, ya meathead, ya! <g>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd got suckered off onto a tangent at that point. There is no
>>>>> interpolation if the raw data is written to file in unmodified form.
>>>>> However, as more recent chunks of this thread have made clear (to all
>>>>> except possibly Floyd L Davidson) many/most raw files are a modified
>>>>> form of the raw sensor data. This is likely to involve interpolation.
>>>>
>>>>In general, no, because interpolation is done by the RAW converter, not
>>>>the camera.
>>>
>>>That's a separate issue. I'm referring to processing of the signal
>>>between the sensor and the recording of the so-called raw data. Nikon
>>>certainly does something and, from what Chris Hills has written so too
>>>probably do others.
>
>> It is not interpolation.
>
>I've seen different usages of "interpolation" in this newsgroup.
>
>I prefer to think of "interpolation" in the strict literal sense as
>the invention of a new value in an ordered set in a place between two
>existing values ("inter") to create a new hypothesised data point
>where one did not exist before ("polate"). You have to do that if
>you're upsizing an image. Strictly speaking you're not doing
>interpolation if you're downsizing, or if you're reducing noise by
>averaging each pixel with its neighbours, or if you're converting
>Bayer sensor data to jpeg.
>
>But I note that some here seem to use it to mean the adjustment or
>creation of a value at an existing point in an ordered set based on
>the values of its neighbours. In that case converting a RAW image to
>jpeg does interpolate, as does mapping out dead sensor elements.
>
>I hope some of this heated argument isn't because people have been
>arguing about interpolation without having first agreed what they mean
>by interpolation.

I've been effecting interpolation in the mathematical sense for at
least 50 years. As far as I am concerned interpolation means the
determination of the value at a point on the basis of the values at
two or more related points. I could express that more rigorously but
it would take too long.

Eric Stevens

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 5:52 pm
From: Bob Larter

Pat wrote:
> On Jun 8, 10:58 am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> In message <39045a0f-b8a2-49d5-8eff-e47678150...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroup
>> s.com>, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> writes
>>
>>> Two quick answers:
>>> First, no, a RAW file cannot be seen without computer manipulation of
>>> some sort. But neither can a JPG or TIFF or anything else. No matter
>>> what format it is, it is just a bunch of 0s and 1s. So unless you can
>>> visualize 1101001110001110010000111010101000111100011
>> Not seen the Matrix recently ? :-)
>>
>> --
>> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
>> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
> I don't remember the exact title of the book, but Johnny Mnumatic also
> comes to mind -- about a guy transporting (too much) data in his brain.

'Johhny Mnemonic'

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

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 12:13 pm
From: "Pete Stavrakoglou"

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:xfudneT8CLGCybDXnZ2dnUVZ_j9i4p2d@giganews.com...
> On 08-06-09 14:09, D. Peter Maus wrote:
>> On 06/08/09 12:56, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 08-06-09 13:38, D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then, again, it was CBS brass that killed the Mike Wallace tobacco
>>>> industry expose on 60 Minutes.
>>>
>>> Not sure that was for advertising as much as the huge back channel
>>> network that CBS brass is part of ... old boys networks.
>>>
>>
>>
>> At the time, the tobacco industry was about 30% of CBS's revenue stream.
>>
>> Good old boy's have a say. But nothing talks like a third of your income.
>
> I didn't know tobacco advertising on television was legal at the time.

They own a lot more than tobacco businesses. Phillip Morris owns Kraft
Foods - that advertising is what they would likely leverage.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 12:22 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 08-06-09 15:13, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
> "Alan Browne"<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:xfudneT8CLGCybDXnZ2dnUVZ_j9i4p2d@giganews.com...
>> On 08-06-09 14:09, D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>> On 06/08/09 12:56, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 08-06-09 13:38, D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Then, again, it was CBS brass that killed the Mike Wallace tobacco
>>>>> industry expose on 60 Minutes.
>>>> Not sure that was for advertising as much as the huge back channel
>>>> network that CBS brass is part of ... old boys networks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> At the time, the tobacco industry was about 30% of CBS's revenue stream.
>>>
>>> Good old boy's have a say. But nothing talks like a third of your income.
>> I didn't know tobacco advertising on television was legal at the time.
>
> They own a lot more than tobacco businesses. Phillip Morris owns Kraft
> Foods - that advertising is what they would likely leverage.

Better yet! These are businesses I don't follow much...

--
-- 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.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 12:49 pm
From: "D. Peter Maus"

On 06/08/09 14:13, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
> "Alan Browne"<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:xfudneT8CLGCybDXnZ2dnUVZ_j9i4p2d@giganews.com...
>> On 08-06-09 14:09, D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>> On 06/08/09 12:56, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 08-06-09 13:38, D. Peter Maus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Then, again, it was CBS brass that killed the Mike Wallace tobacco
>>>>> industry expose on 60 Minutes.
>>>> Not sure that was for advertising as much as the huge back channel
>>>> network that CBS brass is part of ... old boys networks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> At the time, the tobacco industry was about 30% of CBS's revenue stream.
>>>
>>> Good old boy's have a say. But nothing talks like a third of your income.
>> I didn't know tobacco advertising on television was legal at the time.
>
> They own a lot more than tobacco businesses. Phillip Morris owns Kraft
> Foods - that advertising is what they would likely leverage.
>
>

AT the time they didn't own Kraft. The products advertised were
tobacco.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Changing File Date
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b26de0af051fe004?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 12:16 pm
From: Jürgen Exner

Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net> wrote:
>Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> Boris <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in news:790m3nF1o4eu7U3@mid.individual.net:
>>> And that will also edit the date that Windows Explorer shows, too? That's
>>> exactly what I'm trying to do.
>>
>> Maybe you could be more specific about _WHICH_ date you are talking?
>> There are file created, file modified, file accessed coming from the
>> file system and picture taken coming from the EXIF.
>> Any of those can be shown by Windows Explorer.
>
>My turn to get pedantic :-) it the OP knew about these timestamps he
>would have used these terms... so may I suggest you explain him what
>they are so he can make an informed choice?

Well, I think the names are rather self-explanatory.
- date the file was originally created
- date the content of the file was last modified (although not all
applications set this date correctly)
- date the content of the file was last accessed
- data item "Date Picture Taken" as stored in the EXIF header of a JPEG
His camera should have set all 4 values when the original file was
created on the memory card.

Which of those dates he is viewing in Windows Explorer (WE) is still
everyone's guess. WE never says plain "Date" but it is always specific
about "Modified"/"Created"/... regardless if you are looking at the file
details in the side bar or at the file properties in the popup dialog or
the column headers in the "Details" view mode.

jue

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 1:04 pm
From: Ofnuts

Jürgen Exner wrote:

> Well, I think the names are rather self-explanatory.
> - date the file was originally created

Definitely not... the file was "originally created" on the camera
storage, so this time would be the creation or modification date (which
are identical or very close) of the file on the flash card. But the
Windows "creation date" is the date the file was put on the device where
it resides. Typically, for a picture on your disk this is later than the
modification date (since this is the time the file was transferred from
the camera or card, while the modification date is the time the picture
was taken). In other words the "creation" date is associated to the
container (and so is the "last access" date) while the "modification"
one is usually associated with the contents.

> - date the content of the file was last modified (although not all
> applications set this date correctly)

This normally done by the file system, not by applications...

> - date the content of the file was last accessed
> - data item "Date Picture Taken" as stored in the EXIF header of a JPEG
> His camera should have set all 4 values when the original file was
> created on the memory card.
>
> Which of those dates he is viewing in Windows Explorer (WE) is still
> everyone's guess. WE never says plain "Date" but it is always specific
> about "Modified"/"Created"/... regardless if you are looking at the file
> details in the side bar or at the file properties in the popup dialog or
> the column headers in the "Details" view mode.

Except that be default the Windows explorer shows the "last modified"
and that few people know that can have it display something else.

--
Bertrand

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Filters" is up, pleast take a look!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2364e0c5cced6fcd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 12:16 pm
From: Peter Chant

Bowser wrote:

> All the usual suspects have shot tons of pics, filtered out the best ones,
> and submitted for your viewing pleasure. Take a look here:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/filters

Can you confirm the submission address? I made a submission but it is not
there.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 6:40 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 20:14:24 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:

>All the usual suspects have shot tons of pics, filtered out the best ones,
>and submitted for your viewing pleasure. Take a look here:
>
>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/filters
>

Tim Conway - old - (sun and hay bales) Nice composition, The hazy
look works for me.

Bret Douglas - blue - This is an example where technique distracts and
dominates. All I can think of is "How did he do that?". It's a great
demonstration of whatever technique was used, but the end impression
is that its an exercise in special effects and not photography.

SavageDuck - Red Sky - Great image. I'm torn on the cropping, though.
Should the fence be in or out? I think I'd take it out because any
element of a composition that competes with the overall composition is
a distraction. Nicely framed, too.

Alan Browne - (filters) - Precise and pure, but too sterile.

On the others...If post-processing filters are to be used, a light
touch is usually better than a heavy application. The photo itself
has to come through.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus u4/3rds, an overpriced bust in the making?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4d68d57742d3b85f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 1:39 pm
From: Steven Wandy

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127@gmail.com>
wrote:

>That's what simple optical viewfinders or EVFs are for, brain trust.

But most OVF on small P&S cameras are pretty useless (and that's being
polite).

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 1:40 pm
From: "Pete D"

"Steven Wandy" <swandy@si.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0ntq251ercu81l9ehrkap640llr5sic2qr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>That's what simple optical viewfinders or EVFs are for, brain trust.
>
> But most OVF on small P&S cameras are pretty useless (and that's being
> polite).

And most EVFs are bloody awful.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 3:07 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 08-06-09 16:39, Steven Wandy wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3127@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> That's what simple optical viewfinders or EVFs are for, brain trust.

You are so obtuse as to nearly be a flatline.

Or is that your brain activity?

Do you understand Oly's strategy at all?

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 4:55 pm
From: Rich

On Jun 8, 4:40 pm, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Steven Wandy" <swa...@si.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0ntq251ercu81l9ehrkap640llr5sic2qr@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>That's what simple optical viewfinders or EVFs are for, brain trust.
>
> > But most OVF on small P&S cameras are pretty useless (and that's being
> > polite).
>
> And most EVFs are bloody awful.

Except the ones in the G1 and GH1 are BETTER than the cheap optical
viewfinders in the 4/3rds cameras, if focusing manually is your goal.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 4:56 pm
From: Rich

On Jun 8, 6:07 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> On 08-06-09 16:39, Steven Wandy wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> That's what simple optical viewfinders or EVFs are for, brain trust.
>
> You are so obtuse as to nearly be a flatline.
>
> Or is that your brain activity?
>
> Do you understand Oly's strategy at all?
>

Selling only to women, soccer moms who don't know a thing about
cameras or photography?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: About Sunday
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b2d6726e6c3b4736?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 1:52 pm
From: Ofnuts

Pat wrote:
> On Jun 8, 11:27 am, "Miguel" <responderalgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Hello:
>>
>> Yesterday I had the opportunity to do this photo:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3606969967/
>>
>> Your technical comments about photography always are interestings.
>>
>> --
>> Miguel M. Yalánhttp://mmyv.com
>
> If the scene or statue inspired or awed you, now go back and take a
> picture to capture your inspiration or awe. Without some emotion,
> it's just a piece of painted plaster.

Hey, this the first picture from Miguel where the subject is 1)
discernible, and 2) not partially hidden by something.

<voice type=borat>great success</voice>

--
Bertrand

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 2:55 pm
From: "Charles"

"Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:794p0iF1onqpgU2@mid.individual.net...
> Hello:
>
> Yesterday I had the opportunity to do this photo:

It is a photo but needs something else to add interest ... unusual lighting,
a captivating human (someone praying or ...). Think about the message that
you would like to tell others about, and shoot it again.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 3:04 pm
From: "Miguel"

"Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:h0k1cj$j2v$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:794p0iF1onqpgU2@mid.individual.net...
>> Hello:
>>
>> Yesterday I had the opportunity to do this photo:
>
> It is a photo but needs something else to add interest ... unusual
> lighting, a captivating human (someone praying or ...). Think about the
> message that you would like to tell others about, and shoot it again.

Hello, thanks for your answer, It was an image that I saw in Sunday and I
thought to show these different colors in a photo.

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 5:18 pm
From: Pat

On Jun 8, 6:04 pm, "Miguel" <responderalgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> escribió en el mensajenews:h0k1cj$j2v$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > "Miguel" <responderalgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:794p0iF1onqpgU2@mid.individual.net...
> >> Hello:
>
> >> Yesterday I had the opportunity to do this photo:
>
> > It is a photo but needs something else to add interest ... unusual
> > lighting, a captivating human (someone praying or ...). Think about the
> > message that you would like to tell others about, and shoot it again.
>
> Hello, thanks for your answer, It was an image that I saw in Sunday and I
> thought to show these different colors in a photo.
>
> --
> Miguel M. Yalánhttp://mmyv.com

If you want to show the colors, do a few things.

First off, get rid of the background. You can use PS or you can shoot
it again with a plain background.

Second, move in and get closer. Get rid of the table cloth and
everything else that isn't relevant (and colorful). Crop it in
closer.

Finally, play with the lighting to make the colors POP off of the page.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: The Road Less Travelled, Due July 19th, 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b358cb0f0fb31833?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 2:07 pm
From: "Bowser"

Courtesy of our Canadian friend, the new mandate is "The Road Less
Travelled." The due date for this mandate is July 19th, 2009. I had to
extend the due date a bit to accomodate my work and vacation schedule, but
it'll give us more time to shoot some originals rather than submitting
archive shots. So please avoid the archive shots for this one!

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/road_less_traveled

The photo in the gallery is from Southern Utah, taken shortly before the
road became impassable by SUV.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Problem Transferring Photos to PC
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0674154e181b313f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 2:13 pm
From: ncoathup

On 8 June, 20:07, Dave Cohen <u...@example.net> wrote:
> ncoathup wrote:
> > I have been using a 4GB SDHC with a Samsung ES55. The card had been
> > previously formatted with another Digital Camera (Canon Digital
> > Rebel). I am able to view all of the saved images on the camera, but
> > when connecting to the PC (either through a card reader or directly
> > from the camera via USB) no images are found. There are no files
> > shown, just an empty DCIM directory. However, 2GB of the 4GB is
> > reported as being used.
>
> > Any suggestions as to how I can retrieve my photos?
>
> Download the free recovery program from:http://vaiosoft.com/products/recoverymanager.html
>
> Assuming that works (it doesn't care about card formatting), save the
> pics then format the card in the camera in which it will be used.
> Dave Cohen

I found the free utility 'Photorec'. Did the trick and managed to
recover all photos and video from this card. I have now reformatted
the card using the Samsung, and the card is functioning as expected.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 3:50 pm
From: Stefan Patric

On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:13:02 -0700, ncoathup wrote:

> On 8 June, 20:07, Dave Cohen <u...@example.net> wrote:
>> ncoathup wrote:
>> > I have been using a 4GB SDHC with a Samsung ES55. The card had been
>> > previously formatted with another Digital Camera (Canon Digital
>> > Rebel). I am able to view all of the saved images on the camera, but
>> > when connecting to the PC (either through a card reader or directly
>> > from the camera via USB) no images are found. There are no files
>> > shown, just an empty DCIM directory. However, 2GB of the 4GB is
>> > reported as being used.
>>
>> > Any suggestions as to how I can retrieve my photos?
>>
>> Download the free recovery program
>> from:http://vaiosoft.com/products/recoverymanager.html
>>
>> Assuming that works (it doesn't care about card formatting), save the
>> pics then format the card in the camera in which it will be used. Dave
>> Cohen
>
> I found the free utility 'Photorec'. Did the trick and managed to
> recover all photos and video from this card. I have now reformatted the
> card using the Samsung, and the card is functioning as expected.

Out of curiosity, what operating system are you using on your PC, and
what applications/utilities did you use initially to try to read the card
before using PhotoRec?

Stef

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 2:47 pm
From: John McWilliams

Bertram Paul wrote:
> Most answers will quote automatically. I don't know what this guy is using,
> but it doesn't work here and I'm not going to place > marks all over the
> place by hand.
> If these few lines are too hard to follow....

He's on Google, but it's your news client that's also broken, top poster.

--
lsmft

Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in
the country.
-- Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, D.C.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555753247e2a15f7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 5:12 pm
From: Greg Amstead

On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>
>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>> Preview
>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>
>
>The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays you
>money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>
>David

That's something that I'll never understand. Why people would pay more for
compromised photography gear that prevents them from getting 70% of their
shots because they're busy swapping lenses, can't use fill-flash outdoors
because their slow-sync focal-plane shutters prevent it, can't use them for
hand-held available-light macro photography because none of their lenses
can provide enough DOF, can't frame and focus in dim light because their
OVF image can't be electronically amplified, finding out days later that
all their shots are ruined because of crud on their sensor, losing shots
because of badly designed auto-exposure system and they can't see the
blown-out lights and darks in a real-time preview in their viewfinder
before they even press the shutter, not being allowed into 80% of all
public events and buildings because their camera is so obnoxiously loud and
intrusive. But then ... they pays their money and takes their greatly
reduced chances with their severely limited photography opportunities. I'd
rather have a camera that can be used anywhere at a moment's notice under
the widest variety of conditions without all the above-mentioned, real, and
huge set of drawbacks. I'd rather not have to fumble around being some
pretentious gear-head. Some people mistakenly and misguidedly think their
trying to be a gear-head makes them into a photographer. Content trumps
quality every time if you are the silliest worried about very minor quality
issue differences. I capture content worth seeing when using any camera, if
that camera can be used when needed that is. I reject all those that slow
or weigh me down or prevent me from getting the shots I need and want
because I'm too busy trying to swap lenses or having to put that heavy gear
on a cumbersome and expensive tripod to try to hold it steady enough to
even use that overpriced, poorly figured, monster hunk of glass. That's way
too much compromise for me just to get to use a couple of extra steps of
ISO. Big deal, my longer zoom lens reach at widest aperture easily makes up
for that pittance of difference. It's not even a compromise.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 8 2009 6:03 pm
From: Bob Larter

Greg Amstead wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>> []
>>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>>
>>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>>> Preview
>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>>
>> The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays you
>> money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>> FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>>
>> David
>
> That's something that I'll never understand.

What a shock.

Can we expect to see any of your amazing P&S shots any time soon?

--
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