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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 4:43 pm
From: John Navas

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:43:41 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <090620091843419477%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <g1at2595dh22ri7uosfgfus50l7p1iqo1e@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Actually, with my 30 year-old 40mm pancake, my DSLR also fits conveniently
>> >in my jacket pocket.
>> >How about that?
>>
>> Must be a really, really big pocket!
>> Most of my pockets aren't that big.
>
>so where do you keep your ego?

Presumably the same place you keep yours. ;)

>> >I invested in "archaic" DSLR technology precisely because I could continue
>> >to enjoy my scalpel-sharp glass collected over the years.
>>
>> Wasn't an option for me, since Canon orphaned its excellent FD mount
>> lenses, but the Leica-branded lens on my FZ28 is likewise excellent.
>
>the fd mount needed an overhaul.

To the contrary, arguably the most rugged and durable mount of any SLR
system, but expensive and a bit less convenient for casual users.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 5:17 pm
From: nospam

In article <mnst25lnut7v57lfjpajrtcn57dl3q3eil@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >> Wasn't an option for me, since Canon orphaned its excellent FD mount
> >> lenses, but the Leica-branded lens on my FZ28 is likewise excellent.
> >
> >the fd mount needed an overhaul.
>
> To the contrary, arguably the most rugged and durable mount of any SLR
> system, but expensive and a bit less convenient for casual users.

uh, no. canon tried to further the fd mount and quickly realized it
needed a complete overhaul. the mechanics of the fd mount made it very
difficult to extend its functionality for autofocus and other features.
there was also no wiping action to help keep electronic contacts clean.
they also took the opportunity for changing the mount to woo nikon
users. it worked out very well.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: bluring a messy background?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/16214bbd77176240?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 4:47 pm
From: John Navas

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:40:17 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in
<8grt25lrm2p6b84srkaik3s3llaou36l3s@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:11 +1000, daveFaktor <davefaktor@this.group>
>wrote:

>>For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field map
>>which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point back (or
>>forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you are
>>willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.
>
>Why in world would you buy a program to blur a background?
>[SNIP]

Because the program does a more realistic job than a simple Gaussian
blur, and is less work than multiple Gaussian blurs.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 4:58 pm
From: Marty Fremen

Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?

Someone else mentioned lowering contrast which should work quite well. In
addition you could fog the background slightly to mute it: select the
background and then on a separate layer floodfill it with the dominant
background tone (which you could grab with the eyedropper) or possibly
just with a mid grey. Now adjust the opacity of the layer until it looks
natural (probably 10-20% opacity). You can improve the natural look by
partially erasing the tone where it is over things that are in a similar
plane to the subject.

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 5:12 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-09 15:50:11 -0700, daveFaktor <davefaktor@this.group> said:

> Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>
>> Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>>
>> jue
>
> For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field
> map which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point
> back (or forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you
> are willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.

You can try Tiffin Dfx plugin for CS4 & Elements for 15 days. That has
some selective blurring tools which should work.
http://www.tiffen.com/dfx_v2_home.html

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 6:38 pm
From: Educating The Rudimentary Photoshop Snapshooter Hicks

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:11 +1000, daveFaktor <davefaktor@this.group>
wrote:

>Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>
>> Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>>
>> jue
>
>For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field map
>which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point back (or
>forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you are
>willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.

That feature is built into Photoline's more advanced editor. www.pl32.net
Part of the program. It's the "Variable Blur" filter. It adjusts the amount
of Gaussian Blur by the intensity of the mask value. Editing the mask layer
with black = 0% blur, white = 100% blur. Those 12 or so meticulous,
multi-stage, feathered-mask steps previously described for Photoshop are
done in just one step in Photoline.

Though I have to admit, my favorite is still "Depth of Field Generator Pro"
plugin by Richard Rosenman. Works great with Photoline's more advanced
editing and mask creation tools. Same scenario as in Photoline, create a
DOF Map mask in varying shades of grays. It also compensates better for
that nasty halo effect that happens from pulling in the foreground image
tones into the blurred data for the background.

Now if you really want to have some "you'll never be able to tell the
difference from the real thing" fun, you might want to try the "Lenscare"
plugin. It allows you to design your own lens aperture masks to emulate
catadioptric lens systems, or any number of aperture leaves in your more
simple lens designs. Emulating the exact Bokeh that you want from any lens
design ever made. It also allows you to use depth-maps.

Catch up ... if any of you Photoshop Simpletons ever can. LOL!!

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 6:42 pm
From: tony cooper

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:47:32 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:40:17 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in
><8grt25lrm2p6b84srkaik3s3llaou36l3s@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:11 +1000, daveFaktor <davefaktor@this.group>
>>wrote:
>
>>>For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field map
>>>which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point back (or
>>>forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you are
>>>willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.
>>
>>Why in world would you buy a program to blur a background?
>>[SNIP]
>
>Because the program does a more realistic job than a simple Gaussian
>blur, and is less work than multiple Gaussian blurs.

You have a poster who thinks the Blur Tool is a tool used to blur the
background. You think he can tell what a "better" job is?

Without seeing the image, I couldn't possibly decide what "better"
consists of. He says he has a photo of someone in a workshop and the
background is a distraction so he wants to blur it. Unless the image
is going on the cover of "Popular Woodworking", a simple Gaussian blur
will probably satisfy the OP.

I don't know why where Floyd came up with that suggestion for multiple
applications of a Gaussian blur. He specifically says he doesn't use
Photoshop. The multiple blur technique is used to reduce image noise
while blurring detail.

The OP would have to know what "image noise" is before he should worry
about this. When you know you have a PS novice, you give him the
simple steps.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:09 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Dave Cohen <user@example.net> wrote:
>> I don't use PhotoShop, but the method is rather
>> generic.

Keep the term *generic* in mind. This is not, was it was
explicitly stated, a PhotoShop method, nor specific to any
particular editor.

>> Note that when you add feathering it will go on both
>> sides of
>> the line where it is selected.

...

>PhotoPlus feathers outwards. Not sure about others.

A better choice of words would have been to say that it may do
that. The point was, and is correct, that the reader, when
implementing this generic method using a specific editor, needs
to be precisely aware of how feathering affects the selection
borders.

I'm pleased that the only criticism has been over something
of no significance.

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

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:17 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:40:17 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:11 +1000, daveFaktor <davefaktor@this.group>
>>wrote:
>
>>>For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field map
>>>which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point back (or
>>>forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you are
>>>willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.
>>
>>Why in world would you buy a program to blur a background?
>>[SNIP]
>
>Because the program does a more realistic job than a simple Gaussian
>blur, and is less work than multiple Gaussian blurs.

That is true. The youtube.com video that you posted is
essentially the same as this description. Neither are
sophisticated enough to provide high quality results.

The multiple blurs method that I posted is sophisticated enough,
but if done manually it is exceedingly tedious for even one
image much less multiple images. (Of course I don't do it
manually, and long ago written a script that allows setting
various parameters and then merely waiting for it to finish.)

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

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:23 pm
From: Brian

Thanks Floyd for the detailed step by step instructions.
Very helpful.

Regards Brian

floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

>Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>
>>I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>
>I don't use PhotoShop, but the method is rather generic.
>
>First, do a selection that includes basically the part you
>want to stand out. It does *not* have to be precise. Then
>invert the selection so that it is everything you want to
>be less obvious that is selected.
>
>Then you want to "feather" the selection. But how much depends
>on the resolution of your image and just how large the object
>is. Set the value to enough pixels that a smooth gradient will
>be produced, not a sharp transition that is obvious. This is the
>first of a series, and each time the feathering will be greater.
>This first one should be fairly thin.
>
>Note that when you add feathering it will go on both sides of
>the line where it is selected. Hence some of the feathered
>selection will be outside of the area you want to blur, and
>inside what you want to be sharp. Because of that, you'll want
>to begin with very very mild adjustments. Blur the selection
>with a setting that you can barely see, if at all. And then set
>the contrast ever so slightly lower and perhaps brightness too.
>
>After the first adjustments, decrease the size of the selected
>area by about the same number of pixels as the amount of
>feathering. Reset the feathering too, and use a slightly larger
>number of pixels. Then do the same blur/contrast/brightness
>adjustments, but with slightly greater values.
>
>Repeat the above series. This should probably be done in at
>least half a dozen increments. Eventually you get to a position
>where the selection is half way from the edges of the image to
>the area to be preserved, and it is then possible to set
>feathering to the minimum width of the selected area and hit it
>with the maximum blur that you want to show up at the edges.

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:26 pm
From: Brian

Thanks Tony for the useful information. It sounds like it's easy to
do.

Regards Brian

tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:50:11 +1000, daveFaktor <davefaktor@this.group>
>wrote:
>
>>Jürgen Exner wrote:
>>> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>
>>> Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
>>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>>>
>>> jue
>>
>>For now... There is a Photoshop plugin for creating a Depth of Field map
>>which you can then use to blur the picture from the focus point back (or
>>forward). It's not free but it works exceptionally well if you are
>>willing to spend the time to learn how to use it properly.
>
>Why in world would you buy a program to blur a background?
>
>All you have to do is duplicate the background copy twice (Control J
>twice), make the top layer active, turn off the "eye" in the bottom
>two layers, create a selection of the whatever is in the foreground
>that you want to remain in focus, inverse, and hit "delete". Then go
>to the second layer, turn the eye on, and apply a Gaussian blur to
>that level to the point where the background is sufficiently blurred,
>turn the eye back on in the top layer, flatten, and save as a .jpg.
>Some feathering may be appropriate in making the selection.
>
>I have an extra couple of layers, but I do that because I want to be
>able to dump a layer if I don't like what I've done.
>
>The selection can be made with a layer mask, the Quick Mask, the Pen
>Tool, or one of the lassos if working in full Photoshop. (Lasso or
>Magic Selection Brush in Elements). The Eraser could be used, but
>it's non-correctable.
>
>The Blur Tool is not designed to blur a background. It's for blurring
>small bits, and it's not very good at that. You could take the Blur
>Tool and the Smudge Tool out of Photoshop and no experienced user
>would miss it.
>
>There must be 100 or more tutorials on line on how to make selections
>and delete a background. The only difference here is that you are not
>deleting the background completely. You are keeping it on a layer and
>letting it show through around the sharp foreground part.

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:30 pm
From: Brian

It's an interesting idea Marty. Does fogging the background make the
background duller or does it look like a room full of light smoke?

Regards Brian

Marty Fremen <Marty@fremen.invalid> wrote:

>Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>
>Someone else mentioned lowering contrast which should work quite well. In
>addition you could fog the background slightly to mute it: select the
>background and then on a separate layer floodfill it with the dominant
>background tone (which you could grab with the eyedropper) or possibly
>just with a mid grey. Now adjust the opacity of the layer until it looks
>natural (probably 10-20% opacity). You can improve the natural look by
>partially erasing the tone where it is over things that are in a similar
>plane to the subject.
>
>

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:54 pm
From: tony cooper

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:30:35 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

>It's an interesting idea Marty. Does fogging the background make the
>background duller or does it look like a room full of light smoke?
>

Keep in mind that if you "fog" the background that you will also "fog"
the foreground unless you first make a selection of the foreground and
then "fog" only the layer under the selection. Any way you do it, you
have to make a selection to isolate that from whatever other steps you
take.

>
>Marty Fremen <Marty@fremen.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>
>>Someone else mentioned lowering contrast which should work quite well. In
>>addition you could fog the background slightly to mute it: select the
>>background and then on a separate layer floodfill it with the dominant
>>background tone (which you could grab with the eyedropper) or possibly
>>just with a mid grey. Now adjust the opacity of the layer until it looks
>>natural (probably 10-20% opacity). You can improve the natural look by
>>partially erasing the tone where it is over things that are in a similar
>>plane to the subject.
>>
>>

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photographer sues and loses.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3ce53092f011e80d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 5:43 pm
From: George Orwell

There is no freedom of the press without the right to gather the news.

The press has the freedom to publish editorials and for content, blank
pages, that's all. Anything else is at the mercy of government discretion.

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 5:57 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 21-05-09 08:25, Neil Harrington wrote:

> Later, says Politico, "Dimon also insisted that he'd like to give the
> government's TARP money back as soon as practical . . . But Obama didn't
> like that idea — arguing that the system still needs government capital."

Some TARP clarity for you, Neil. As I said, those banks that show
required liquidity levels will be allowed to pay back TARP. This
article will show you which ones. See the graphic presentation, shows
which of those that are allowed to pay back that are also getting FDIC
support (not all of them).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10tarp.html?ref=business

And really, don't forget 2 key facts.

I- had the government let half, never mind all, of the TARP recipients
fail (as a free wheeling capitalist should) then the country and perhaps
the world would be plunging into a great economic depression.

II- the people responsible for the mess are the ones screaming loudest
to give back TARP funds - so they can open the piggy bank again.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ungrateful Olympus
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/83d64699c3ca7926?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 6:42 pm
From: Robert Coe

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:12:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
: They made a big to do about inviting all the "photographic
: journalists" to Germany to view the new E-1P unveiling but no mention
: was made about the people who keep Olympus afloat, the users. The
: journalists of the photographic world have not exactly embraced
: Olympus offerings. Some have been very hostile to them. Obviously,
: you need the journalists (paid off or otherwise) to push the product,
: but the users, many quite loyal to a fault deserved some mention, IMO.

I agree. They should have chartered a plane and hauled all 250 of you over
there.

Bob

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:21 pm
From: Rich

On Jun 9, 9:42 pm, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:12:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : They made a big to do about inviting all the "photographic
> : journalists" to Germany to view the new E-1P unveiling but no mention
> : was made about the people who keep Olympus afloat, the users. The
> : journalists of the photographic world have not exactly embraced
> : Olympus offerings. Some have been very hostile to them. Obviously,
> : you need the journalists (paid off or otherwise) to push the product,
> : but the users, many quite loyal to a fault deserved some mention, IMO.
>
> I agree. They should have chartered a plane and hauled all 250 of you over
> there.
>
> Bob

I wouldn't have done that, but the only thing keeping Olympus afloat
(besides the rectal and penile probes they sell) are the fanboys.
They HAVE no professional base of users to speak of.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why EVFs will replace reflex systems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 6:49 pm
From: dj_nme

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <7944ihF1ouvv0U2@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm says...
>
>> The lag in the EVFs in low light I have seen aren't a simulation of
>> motion blur, because they don't change if I adjust the shutter
>> speed. I thought they were due to the need to collect sensor data over
>> a longer interval in order to be able to create a viewable EVF image
>> in dim light.
>
> The lag in the Sony R1 changes very clearly as you change the exposure
> time. Not all cameras implement this motion blur preview.

That may have been what Sony did on their DCS-R1.
It would seem that other manufacturers didn't, don't or can't with their
own EVF digicams.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:07 pm
From: Morons Morons Everywhere and Not a Pro In Sight

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:49:51 +1000, dj_nme <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <7944ihF1ouvv0U2@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm says...
>>
>>> The lag in the EVFs in low light I have seen aren't a simulation of
>>> motion blur, because they don't change if I adjust the shutter
>>> speed. I thought they were due to the need to collect sensor data over
>>> a longer interval in order to be able to create a viewable EVF image
>>> in dim light.
>>
>> The lag in the Sony R1 changes very clearly as you change the exposure
>> time. Not all cameras implement this motion blur preview.
>
>That may have been what Sony did on their DCS-R1.
>It would seem that other manufacturers didn't, don't or can't with their
>own EVF digicams.

You must not use nor know about many cameras. All my cameras with EVF's
have motion-blur preview. I particularly like my CHDK capable cameras. Then
motion-blur preview will even stop the spinning of a 30,000 RPM disk in
real-time preview in my EVF when cranking it up to shutter speeds above
1/10,000 of a second. Any time that some bleeding moron goes into a
department store and complains about EVF-Lag, I KNOW that they don't
realize they are seeing motion-blur preview due the slower shutter speed
that kicks in from them testing the cameras indoors. Quite useful, for
those that know what they are looking at and know the least bit about
photography. But then again, most of the "pro" advisors in this newsgroup
are complete and utter morons. Count yourself included.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ISP ending Usenet service: which free/cheap ones are best?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d3d77142c047e8f0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 6:51 pm
From: SMS

Don Lancaster wrote:
> AKT wrote:
>> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>>
>>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>>
>> Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
>
> news.individual.net works well for us.

OMG, can you autograph my copy of the TTL Cookbook?!

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:19 pm
From: Rich

On Jun 9, 5:46 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:26:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com>
> wrote in
> <bd94e6b5-af20-46ed-b9ad-7e2957467...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Jun 9, 10:38 am, AKT <a...@null.void> wrote:
> >> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>
> >> > Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
> >> > offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>
> >> Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
>
> >And naturally, you ISP will raise their rates on cue, despite this
> >service cut-back.
>
> The "service cut-back" affects only a tiny minority of subscribers.

Which is why they get away with it. It won't affect the Facebook and
Twitter morons.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:31 pm
From: James E. Morrow

In article <7987vrF1pkqguU1@mid.individual.net>, don@tinaja.com says...
> AKT wrote:
> > My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
> >
> >> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
> >> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
> >
> > Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
>
> news.individual.net works well for us.
>
>
The following information was correct recently but should be checked at
the web sites of the various providers.

Options for free or low cost news servers.

Individual.net

http://news.individual.net/

Registration required. Price 10 Eros a year. No binaries. No sex
groups. No nonsense. This is a very dependable server for text. Spam
filtering is superior to most other servers I've used.

newsgate. xprivat.org

http://www.x-privat.org/international.php

Registration required. This server in now free. Text and some (few)
binaries. This server is faster than
individual.net but may lack some groups. Its binary completion should
not be depended upon.

Sunsite.dk

http://dotsrc.org/usenet/

Free text only, registration required. This server now only carries
the comp groups.

News.aioe

http://news.aioe.org/

No registration required. Free server. Text only. Limit of 25 posts
per day.

Motzarella.org
http://motzarella.org/

A free server, registration required.

"Apart from de.* (including de.alt.dateien.*) news.motzarella.org
carries the Big 8, alt.* (approx. 8000 groups) and several regional
hierarchies (more than 200).

For tests, information and support for users of news.motzarella.org the
local hierarchy motzarella.* is open to unregistered users, too.
Retention is currently 1 year for de.*, 40 days for alt.* and 30 days
for the Big 8 and other hierarchies."
***********************************************************************
**********************
Albasani.net

http://albasani.net/

Like Motarella, Albasani.net is free and requires registration. Easy
email registration.

=3FDo you have binary groups?

We have de.alt.dateien.misc and de.alt.dateien.weibsbilder, but none of
the big binary hierarchies.=3F See also
http://albasani.net/technical/cleanfeed.html.en#Binaries_Allowed

Some limits on cross posting across domains.

***********************************************************************
*************************
Astraweb.com
Paid server with block plans.

http://www.news.astraweb.com/downloadplans.html

We are offering $25 for 110GB! Other plans available.

--
James E. Morrow
Email to: jamesemorrow@email.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd33b306beae64ab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:19 pm
From: Brian

Thankd Fon for the useful information.

Regards Brian

Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

>Brian wrote:
>> I have a Fujifilm S8000 camera and find it difficult to get a good
>> exposure when photographing in low lighting conditions such as
>> photographing someone on stage but if I use the movie clip mode on the
>> camera the exposure is good....why is that? Is there any way of
>> getting a better exposure when photograping in low light conditions?
>> If the ISO level is too high then the photo will be grainy. I'd be
>> happy if I could make 6 x 4 inch prints of the low light photos
>> without them looking too grainy.
>>
>> Regards Brian
>
>In viewing a movie, the eye averages noise, due to limitations on
>persistance of vision.
>
>Another way to get the same effect requires a tripod- take ten or twenty
>exposures and then stick them together (takes either a special "filter"
>or lots of playing with brightness and contrast to do this manually).
>The background noise is always different from frame to frame, so the
>averaging process eliminates it. Some amateur astronomy software will
>do this.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:20 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:43:42 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>Your broad definition could be, for example, used to obfuscate
>>the discussion ...
>
>Why should I use the definition of 'interpolation' to obfuscate an
>argument when all I have to is let you expound on the subject? :-)

To cover up the silly statements you've made about where
interpolation is done, and to avoid admitting that someone else
described it precisely, without error.

Tell us again how the raw data is interpolated.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Style Christian Audigier Beach Shorts - discount
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/140a3304304ddb71?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 7:40 pm
From: tanvon19@gmail.com

Our Designer Christian Audigier Beach Shorts are fine quality.
You can check them:
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Christian-Audigier-Men-Shorts.html

And find more new fashionable apparels please view :
www.luxury-fashion.org

Welcome check our other pages or feel free contact us.
You can find what do you want here!

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

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic