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: Best Picture of the Month
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2b9f33c72f8fb935?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 12:05 pm
From: BF

BF wrote:
> GregS wrote:
>> http://zekfrivolous.com/penguins/CrosbyCupcrop.JPG
>>
>> greg
> I got my picture taken with the cup. To me that is the best picture of
> the month.
I don't know if you people are responding to my post but I didn't take
that picture of Crosby. My best picture of the month is of me with my
hand on the cup.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: HDR programs
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/af2f20906160eb6d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 12:46 pm
From: John Navas

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:18:55 +1000, daveFaktor <davefaktor@this.group>
wrote in <79veohF1sv5h0U1@mid.individual.net>:

>ransley wrote:
>> At Dp review where people submit photos for contest, I see many people
>> have used Photomatrix HDR, is this one of the best- easiest to use,
>> programs for HDR, what are the down sides to doing HDR, ive never
>> tried HDR but it seems to be the way to go.
>
> From what I've read of some of the other replies, few people actually
>have a handle on the process of widening the dynamic range of a photograph.

Must you insult those who don't do it your way? [sigh]

>With one technique of mine, you only need a tripod if you intend to make
>long exposures - same as with every day shots. You do need a RAW or DNG
>file to start with.
>
>The process is called WDR or wide dynamic range imaging. You Make 3
>(tiff for preference)copies of the RAW file and create a tone mapped
>image from it.

That's only possible when the camera has wide dynamic range and RAW
output, whereas multi-image HDR works with *any* camera.

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

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 2:54 pm
From: DanP

On Jun 18, 12:59 pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> At Dp review where people submit photos for contest, I see many people
> have used Photomatrix HDR, is this one of the best- easiest to use,
> programs for HDR, what are the down sides to doing HDR, ive never
> tried HDR but it seems to be the way to go.

tripod is a must, bracketing exposure helps.

did one hdr with a canon sx100 is combining
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/IMG_2305.jpg
and
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/IMG_2307.jpg
resulting in
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/sunset%20victoria%20park%20hdr.JPG

had the camera on a table with hand pressure to keep it still.

program used is photomatix. it can align photos but the result is not
fantastic.

see this more like an example to have fun with whatever you have, i am
not bashing expensive cameras that have raw and bracketing.

DanP

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 3:52 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-18 09:48:59 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> said:

> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:39:30 -0400, Charlie Choc
> <charlie.choc@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
> <a4rk359n9af2qs95a6s44gd674qpbgbh55@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:31:05 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:17:27 -0400, Charlie Choc
>>> <charlie.choc@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
>
>>>> My D200 has exposure bracketing, too, but I haven't figured out how to take 3
>>>> multi second exposures in .5 sec. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> A lot of the HDR's I do involve some long exposures ...
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Well, when I'm trying to get detail out of the shadows in a cave,
>> building, etc.
>
> With a D200 why not high ISO?
>
>> and also want to get good depth of field is one reason the exposure is long.
>
> Fair enough, but is that really an issue when shooting buildings or even
> a cave?
>
>> If
>> I want to get a silky look on the water in a stream or waterfall is another.
>
> I normally use 1/4 second, only rarely more than 1 second.

Try this:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/BridalVeilCreek_DSC1003w.jpg
Exposure Time: 1 / 10
FNumber: 22
Focal Length: 24
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 36
Gamma: 2.2
ISO Speed Ratings: 200

or this:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/BridalVeilCreek_DSC1008w.jpg
Exposure Time: 1 / 6
FlashPix Version: 1.0
FNumber: 25
Focal Length: 34
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 51
Gamma: 2.2
ISO Speed Ratings: 200
--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 5:01 pm
From: daveFaktor

DanP wrote:
> On Jun 18, 12:59 pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> At Dp review where people submit photos for contest, I see many people
>> have used Photomatrix HDR, is this one of the best- easiest to use,
>> programs for HDR, what are the down sides to doing HDR, ive never
>> tried HDR but it seems to be the way to go.
>
> tripod is a must, bracketing exposure helps.
>
> did one hdr with a canon sx100 is combining
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/IMG_2305.jpg
> and
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/IMG_2307.jpg
> resulting in
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sepe.petre/sunset%20victoria%20park%20hdr.JPG
>
> had the camera on a table with hand pressure to keep it still.
>
> program used is photomatix. it can align photos but the result is not
> fantastic.
>
> see this more like an example to have fun with whatever you have, i am
> not bashing expensive cameras that have raw and bracketing.
>
> DanP

Do you like the result Dan?
Without trying to grandstand, I've always tried to avoid pictures (you
can hardly call them photos when they had that much work) that don't
quite look right. Your example doesn't look 'natural' to me.

There's a fellow in Germany who does a lot of steam locomotives in HDR.
His pictures always look surreal and totally unnatural. Perhaps doing it
his way is like if you are going to go a little over, why not go way
over and make art from it.

I've got Lucis art which some people use for this stuff. I've had it for
a few years and only ever used it to recover images until one day a guy
came into the studio with some HDR portraits he made with LucisArt.

Strange looking for sure but he sells plenty - or so he said when he was
at the job interview!

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 5:58 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:52:42 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-06-18 09:48:59 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> said:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:39:30 -0400, Charlie Choc
>> <charlie.choc@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
>> <a4rk359n9af2qs95a6s44gd674qpbgbh55@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:31:05 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:17:27 -0400, Charlie Choc
>>>> <charlie.choc@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
>>
>>>>> My D200 has exposure bracketing, too, but I haven't figured out how to take 3
>>>>> multi second exposures in .5 sec. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of the HDR's I do involve some long exposures ...
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Well, when I'm trying to get detail out of the shadows in a cave,
>>> building, etc.
>>
>> With a D200 why not high ISO?
>>
>>> and also want to get good depth of field is one reason the exposure is long.
>>
>> Fair enough, but is that really an issue when shooting buildings or even
>> a cave?
>>
>>> If
>>> I want to get a silky look on the water in a stream or waterfall is another.
>>
>> I normally use 1/4 second, only rarely more than 1 second.
>
>Try this:
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/BridalVeilCreek_DSC1003w.jpg
>Exposure Time: 1 / 10
>FNumber: 22
>Focal Length: 24
>Focal Length In 35mm Film: 36
>Gamma: 2.2
>ISO Speed Ratings: 200
>
>or this:
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/BridalVeilCreek_DSC1008w.jpg
>Exposure Time: 1 / 6
>FlashPix Version: 1.0
>FNumber: 25
>Focal Length: 34
>Focal Length In 35mm Film: 51
>Gamma: 2.2
>ISO Speed Ratings: 200

I'm interested to see that you have specified the gamma. Are these
images intended for screen or print and, if the latter, is this the
gamma you use for printing?

Eric Stevens

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 6:27 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-18 17:58:30 -0700, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> said:

> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:52:42 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-06-18 09:48:59 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:39:30 -0400, Charlie Choc
>>> <charlie.choc@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
>>> <a4rk359n9af2qs95a6s44gd674qpbgbh55@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:31:05 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:17:27 -0400, Charlie Choc
>>>>> <charlie.choc@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in
>>>
>>>>>> My D200 has exposure bracketing, too, but I haven't figured out how to take 3
>>>>>> multi second exposures in .5 sec. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of the HDR's I do involve some long exposures ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Well, when I'm trying to get detail out of the shadows in a cave,
>>>> building, etc.
>>>
>>> With a D200 why not high ISO?
>>>
>>>> and also want to get good depth of field is one reason the exposure is long.
>>>
>>> Fair enough, but is that really an issue when shooting buildings or even
>>> a cave?
>>>
>>>> If
>>>> I want to get a silky look on the water in a stream or waterfall is another.
>>>
>>> I normally use 1/4 second, only rarely more than 1 second.
>>
>> Try this:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/BridalVeilCreek_DSC1003w.jpg
>> Exposure Time: 1 / 10
>> FNumber: 22
>> Focal Length: 24
>> Focal Length In 35mm Film: 36
>> Gamma: 2.2
>> ISO Speed Ratings: 200
>>
>> or this:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/BridalVeilCreek_DSC1008w.jpg
>> Exposure Time: 1 / 6
>> FlashPix Version: 1.0
>> FNumber: 25
>> Focal Length: 34
>> Focal Length In 35mm Film: 51
>> Gamma: 2.2
>> ISO Speed Ratings: 200
>
> I'm interested to see that you have specified the gamma. Are these
> images intended for screen or print and, if the latter, is this the
> gamma you use for printing?
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

No specific reason for including the gamma other than copying it to my post.
I probably should have cut it and included lens + camera info:

Lens Info: 24, 120, 3.5, 5.6
Lens Model: AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
Date Time: 2009:06:16 11:19:10
Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D300

--
Regards,

Savageduck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Paper recommendations for an Epson 3800
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ca39e6b2bd3c417a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 12:53 pm
From: Kulvinder Singh Matharu

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:34:40 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>I've just retired my Epson 1800 printer with its Ultrachrome inks in
>exchange for an Epson 3800 with its K3 inks. I'm now trying to come to
>grips with the range of papers available to me for this printer. The
[snip]

I've been using Ilford "Gold Fibre Silk" and Harman "Gloss FB AI".
Both are baryta-based papers. Of the two, I normally go for the Gold
Fibre Silk as it is less glossy than the Harman. The Ilford is a bit
warmer than the Harmon. It's really down to personal preference
between the two...oh, and you should check the prices as that may
determine which paper to go for!
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 1:19 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:09:00 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:18:03 +1000, daveFaktor <davefaktor@this.group>
>wrote in <79uiiuF1sklopU1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> I've just retired my Epson 1800 printer with its Ultrachrome inks in
>>> exchange for an Epson 3800 with its K3 inks. I'm now trying to come to
>>> grips with the range of papers available to me for this printer. The
>>> price of paper is rather too much for me to experiment with and I am
>>> rather at a loss of what to try. Epson is an obvious starter but I
>>> also have access to Ilford and Hanemuhl.
>>>
>>> My printer is not the only thing which has just retired, I have too.
>>> My previous photography was technical (engineering) for which glossy
>>> paper was ideal. I am now releasing the pent-up photographer within me
>>> so its all an entirely new ball game. Portraits will be a minor part
>>> of what I do. Most of it will be general scenery and things that
>>> happen in the real world.
>>>
>>> I would be very grateful for any comments from people with relevant
>>> experience.
>
>>Ilford is excellent with a 3800. You can either get a profile from
>>ilford or if you are fussy, have one made for you. Hanemuhl is made by
>>HP. It works OK but I prefer Moabe for rag paper.
>>
>>You might care to check out a small manufacturer with excellent products
>>called breathing color. The havea full range of highly regarded paper
>>and will give you profiles free for their range. A sample pack is
>>available for most stuff too. I particularly like their canvas and matt,
>>fine art paper. It's all 100% compatible with Epson and Pantone inks.
>
><http://www.breathingcolor.com/>

They make it sound great!

The only problem is that all their paper is in roll form and the 3800
will not handle rolls. They say its flat after printing but I'm not
sure how it would behave if it was cut into shorter sheet lengths
before printing.

Eric Stevens

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 5:15 pm
From: daveFaktor

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:09:00 -0700, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:18:03 +1000, daveFaktor <davefaktor@this.group>
>> wrote in <79uiiuF1sklopU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> I've just retired my Epson 1800 printer with its Ultrachrome inks in
>>>> exchange for an Epson 3800 with its K3 inks. I'm now trying to come to
>>>> grips with the range of papers available to me for this printer. The
>>>> price of paper is rather too much for me to experiment with and I am
>>>> rather at a loss of what to try. Epson is an obvious starter but I
>>>> also have access to Ilford and Hanemuhl.
>>>>
>>>> My printer is not the only thing which has just retired, I have too.
>>>> My previous photography was technical (engineering) for which glossy
>>>> paper was ideal. I am now releasing the pent-up photographer within me
>>>> so its all an entirely new ball game. Portraits will be a minor part
>>>> of what I do. Most of it will be general scenery and things that
>>>> happen in the real world.
>>>>
>>>> I would be very grateful for any comments from people with relevant
>>>> experience.
>>> Ilford is excellent with a 3800. You can either get a profile from
>>> ilford or if you are fussy, have one made for you. Hanemuhl is made by
>>> HP. It works OK but I prefer Moabe for rag paper.
>>>
>>> You might care to check out a small manufacturer with excellent products
>>> called breathing color. The havea full range of highly regarded paper
>>> and will give you profiles free for their range. A sample pack is
>>> available for most stuff too. I particularly like their canvas and matt,
>>> fine art paper. It's all 100% compatible with Epson and Pantone inks.
>> <http://www.breathingcolor.com/>
>
> They make it sound great!
>
> The only problem is that all their paper is in roll form and the 3800
> will not handle rolls. They say its flat after printing but I'm not
> sure how it would behave if it was cut into shorter sheet lengths
> before printing.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

That's not entirely correct. I use a home made roll holder for my
printer and it works just fine. There is a rear paper feed opening. When
you push paper into it, the machine picks it up and transports it ready
to print. I use a piece of plastic plumbing pipe for a spindle and two v
blocks I cut from timber.

breathing color sell everything except canvas and vinyl in boxes up to
13"x19". Some more expensive stuff comes in packets.

Right now, I'm using up some 48" rolls in mine by cutting pieces 17"
wide x 48" long from rolls where I stop using paper due to its step that
shows up in the last two or three wraps on the cardboard tube. My wide
printer doesn't like the lumps it causes. Nice panoramas 17 x 48! I'll
consign to galleries.

If you get paper with a curl in it, use a hair dryer to flatten it. Just
don't get it hot enough to melt the coating. It will flatten just with
the warm air alone.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What a waste these groups are...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad679aa87d2eb7b1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 1:56 pm
From: "Pete D"

"LOL" <toofunny@noaddress.com> wrote in message
news:9mgh35prhredufdp3th8dbphpbdcjkvuo4@4ax.com...
> On 17 Jun 2009 09:09:50 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2009-06-14 18:13:09 -0700, LOL <toofunny@noaddress.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:03:09 -0700, Savageduck
>>>>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2009-06-14 17:13:15 -0700, "Bertram Paul" <dont@mail.me> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You show some picture, you get none or just a few replies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You start talking about something trivial like card types and you
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> hundreds of replies. But all are fighting each other.
>>>>>>> It makes kinder garden look like a university!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm out of here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Relax, enjoy it for what it is.
>>>>>> ...but I agree there are times the digression from OP can be damaging
>>>>>> to the groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh look! It's another DSLR TROLL!
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean continuously going off-topic like that?
>>>>>
>>>>> You useless piece of shit pretend-photographer TROLL.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> We still wait for the evidence that you even own a camera, or an image
>>>> you have created, good, mediocre or bad, if you do.
>>
>>> At long last, he's posted a link:
>>> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3629777547_e63d510046.jpg>
>>> Unsurprisingly, it's an average snapshot.
>>
>>What's more important is that as presented, small and compressed etc.,
>>it fails to illustrate his point about the capture of the myriad
>>glittering colours. He also later gives a pointer to a DSLR image to
>>show how bad they are the task. Unfortunately it's a slightly larger
>>image, enough larger to do the job better than the tiny dull snap he
>>posted.
>
> I see ... so because an image is LARGER that means it is BETTER. LOL! How
> thick are those coke-bottle-bottom glasses of yours? Anyone with even the
> most average of eyesight could have seen the bands of rainbows in that
> web.
> It was downsized and compressed just to the point so as not to destroy
> that
> completely. It was posted only to show how much of the web can easily be
> captured in focus with any P&S camera to faithfully record the effect,
> something that no DSLR will ever do. NOT to entertain your desperate need
> to see "purty pichers of reality while living in your mommy's basement".
> But then again, you're over a day late and you never saw it. So ...
>
>>
>>It takes a special kind of conviction to post evidence in support of
>>your much repeated grandiose claims which actually contradicts you!
>>It's called pathological delusion.
>
> Over a day late for you to have even seen the long-gone photo for which
> you
> are now inventing comments. Who is pathological? My how you do project.
> You
> should get a job in a movie theatre. Though I doubt the patrons would
> appreciate their scenes so distorted and blurry as you would provide to
> their screens.
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!
>

So this means that you admit to not being about to use a decent camera
properly and use a P&S to justify your existence, good for you, excellent
choice, keep up the great work.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 2:03 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 18-06-09 16:56, Pete D wrote:

> So this means that you admit to not being about to use a decent camera
> properly and use a P&S to justify your existence, good for you, excellent
> choice, keep up the great work.

I get all choked up when members here have correctly diagnosed
somebody's issues and wish them well along their best path.

Thanks Pete.

--
-- 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 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 2:29 pm
From: Troll Killer

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:03:07 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 18-06-09 16:56, Pete D wrote:
>
>> So this means that you admit to not being about to use a decent camera
>> properly and use a P&S to justify your existence, good for you, excellent
>> choice, keep up the great work.
>
>I get all choked up when members here have correctly diagnosed
>somebody's issues and wish them well along their best path.
>
>Thanks Pete.

Dear Resident, Pretend-Photographer, DSLR-Trolls,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 3:21 pm
From: "Pete D"

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:pNSdnUXXkb8WNqfXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 18-06-09 16:56, Pete D wrote:
>
>> So this means that you admit to not being about to use a decent camera
>> properly and use a P&S to justify your existence, good for you, excellent
>> choice, keep up the great work.
>
> I get all choked up when members here have correctly diagnosed somebody's
> issues and wish them well along their best path.
>
> Thanks Pete.
>
Cheers mate, I try.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 3:24 pm
From: "Pete D"

Bought time you changed your name sonny, you did a few posts there with the
same Sig, what were you thinking dude? You will have to conecntrate a bit
better in future or we will stop laughing at you, oh and best if you use all
caps we will get your ideas better that way.

Keep up the good work by the way.

Cheers.

Pete

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus launches micro 4/3 camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/106fab96d8be9fe1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 2:45 pm
From: Marty Fremen

ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
. Knowledgeable
> managers have started to criticize Olympus's management for not
> realizing how popular the camera was going to be, so it's going to
> be in very short supply for a very long time,

That's why they made such a crap website, to limit demand to a level they
could cope with. Never underestimate the Japanese!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: GodDamnStupidF------ Olympus!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5d61a010f7604821?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 4:55 pm
From: "Neil Harrington"

"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009061807455942612-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...

>
> In some cases polycarbonates are far more durable than many metals.

Yup. They don't dent as easily (if at all) for one thing. I have a couple of
lightly dinged metal cameras but have never owned or even seen a dented
polycarbonate body.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 6:03 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:55:34 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
<secret@illumnati.net> wrote:

>
>"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>news:2009061807455942612-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>
>
>>
>> In some cases polycarbonates are far more durable than many metals.
>
>Yup. They don't dent as easily (if at all) for one thing. I have a couple of
>lightly dinged metal cameras but have never owned or even seen a dented
>polycarbonate body.
>
I remember the sales pitch when the agents were trying to sell
polycarbonate for school windows. They challenged any sceptic to try
and break the window with a sledge hammer. Nobody succeeded.

Porsche use polycarbonate for windscreens in some cars.

Most cars now use polycarbonate headlamp lenses. It's years since I've
seen a headlamp lens damaged by a flying stone.

Eric Stevens

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 6:44 pm
From: Rich

On Jun 18, 7:55 pm, "Neil Harrington" <sec...@illumnati.net> wrote:
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2009061807455942612-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>
>
>
> > In some cases polycarbonates are far more durable than many metals.
>
> Yup. They don't dent as easily (if at all) for one thing. I have a couple of
> lightly dinged metal cameras but have never owned or even seen a dented
> polycarbonate body.

Sure. They crack or shatter instead, making them unusable.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photography tip: How to create an illusion that sells
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7035a735248c1225?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 5:34 pm
From: orida70

Here's a photograph from the deck of a cruise ship, while cruising the
Mexican Riviera in early December. I was teaching a photography
workshop on this trip, and I took this shot in between classes. The
idea in my mind was to create a romantic, moonlight evening view of
the ocean, as one would see from the elevated deck of a cruise ship.

With info on how I took this photo...

http://bit.ly/OmLaz
http://roycebair.blogspot.com/2009/06/moonlight-reflecting-across-ocean-my.html

Royce Bair
Your Photo Vision blog
http://www.YourPhotoVision.com/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 5:57 pm
From: John Navas

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:34:30 -0700 (PDT), orida70 <orida70@gmail.com>
wrote in
<2d028b78-a6f1-4e36-a8d6-f0b407a4abcb@o5g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:

>Here's a photograph from the deck of a cruise ship, while cruising the
>Mexican Riviera in early December. I was teaching a photography
>workshop on this trip, and I took this shot in between classes. The
>idea in my mind was to create a romantic, moonlight evening view of
>the ocean, as one would see from the elevated deck of a cruise ship.
>
>With info on how I took this photo...
>
>http://bit.ly/OmLaz
>http://roycebair.blogspot.com/2009/06/moonlight-reflecting-across-ocean-my.html

Nice image, but what makes it different from /better than a great many
similar images?

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Crop Photos Pixel Calcalutions
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8a383ccab4bc2407?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 6:27 pm
From: thankyou

I've posted on this subject last week. Enlarge Digital Photos.

Is there a trick to this cropping and/or aspect changing thing?

Mostly cropping to fit a desired aspect ratio?

My Canon 350D is 3:2 @ 3465x2304 pixels, that's a 1.5 ratio, perfect
for at 18x12 or 6x4 print.

Ok, got that, thanks for your help.

But, If I want to print a 5x7 at 1.4 ratio how do I figure out the
number of pixels to crop on one and/or each of the sides of my
3465x2304 pixel, 1.5 ratio?

Or if I want to print a 10x8 at 1.25 ratio how do I figure out the
number of pixels to crop on one and/or each of the side?

Can someone help me with the math formula? The variations are endless,
so is there some trick or suggestions?

I'd like to do this in Canon DPP or IrvanView.

Regards, John

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 6:32 pm
From: thankyou

I must add....

I have a copy of PS 6 or 7 that is mothballed and/or if there is a
program I should buy that makes this process simple, please, give me a
suggestion.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Shot Seen 'Round the World
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15107f2ca666bb2e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 6:38 pm
From: Bob Larter

Jürgen Exner wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>> Chris H wrote:
>>> In message <4A39BF13.AAF53A01@concentric.net>, John Turco
>>>> Basketball is an American invention, which became internationally
>>>> popular. It's probably the world's most widespread team sport, in
>>>> fact.
>>> Not compared to football
>> Don't be too sure about that. Basketball of sorts can be played in a
>> residential driveway or a tennis court or just about anywhere else that
>> there's a small expanse of pavement and a place to hang a hoop. Football
>> (either real football or soccer) needs more space. I suspect that worldwide
>> you'll find that more people regularly play basketball in one variation or
>> another than football.
>
> Hardly. All you need for football is just the ball, no hardware like a
> hoop required. For goal posts two t-shirts or school bags will do very
> well (much easier to improvise in e.g. a public park than a basketball
> hoop) and a simple garage door, preferably metal, will make a perfect
> goal because you will even get an audiable feedback much to the
> annoyance of the neighbours..

Similar for cricket, which can be played by two kids, using a rubbish
bin for a wicket.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Inkjets
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/11a2afc88d5ea5a5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 18 2009 6:44 pm
From: Woger

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:04:29 -0700 (PDT), ransley <Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com>
wrote:

>How often should a printer left idle be made to print a photo to keep
>the heads clean-working, are the jets in the cartrige, so if they clog
>you just buy a new ink cartrige? Ive idled mine for months and printed
>fine the other day, I was just wondering what is a safe time frame for
>an idle period.

With Epson printer you just power them up one a week, no need to print plus a
lot depends or ware you are and how Hot does the printer gets.

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

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

Thursday, June 18, 2009

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

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Thursday, June 18, 2009

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

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic