Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 7 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* The Shot Seen 'Round the World - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15107f2ca666bb2e?hl=en
* A newbie request help selecting digital camera - 11 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
* grim news for photographers tourism and rights - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
* ** AT&T Usenet Netnews Service Shutting Down - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2e3799354b816db1?hl=en
* Enlarge Digital Photos - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/061331efe25fcd40?hl=en
* wear from 1/4 Whitworth versus 1/4 UNC - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c88b466b5bf2732c?hl=en
* What a waste these groups are... - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad679aa87d2eb7b1?hl=en

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 8:06 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 02:51:44 -0500, John Turco wrote:

> Hey, man, let's allow those poor, unfortunate Australian wretches (and
> their countless counterparts, in other non-U.S., English-speaking nations),
> to broaden their horizons, shall we? :-)

Nah, lets just throw a few of them on the barbie. Good to see
you've returned. Unfortunately so has the infamous Mssr. Navas.

> Oh, well, there was >some< justice, after all...as the New York Yankees
> defeated their crosstown rivals (the Giants), 4 games to 2, in the 1951
> World Series. :-J

It would have been just as enjoyable had the "shot" never happened
and the Yanks ended up beating "Dem Bums" instead! :)

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 8:14 pm
From: ASAAR

On 15 Jun 2009 01:08:13 GMT, rascally ray wrote:

>> Finally, and none too soon!
>
> Hardly correct since much of the world cares not at all about baseball.

Yeah, and the camera you use is really awful, no matter what it is.

Maybe even if it's the same one that I use.

I'm afraid to tell you to "Unlax, Doc." because I don't know if
you're familiar with the "Quip heard round the world." If you
aren't, it may Bug you no end.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 8:40 pm
From: ray

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:33:22 -0700, Frank ess wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:02:16 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
>>
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424737510590641.html?
>>> mod=googlenews_wsj
>>>
>>> Finally, and none too soon!
>>
>> Hardly correct since much of the world cares not at all about baseball.
>
> Seems to me the point was related to recognition of the photographer,
> not the game.

Let me see: "shot seen round the world" tells me about the photographer.
Curious logic.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 10:59 pm
From: ASAAR

On 15 Jun 2009 03:40:46 GMT, ray wrote:

>> Seems to me the point was related to recognition of the photographer,
>> not the game.
>
> Let me see: "shot seen round the world" tells me about the photographer.
> Curious logic.

Not at all. The "shot" and the picture of it had all the fame it
needed or deserved. The articles that I and others pointed to were
almost entirely about the photographer who never earned a penny from
his famous photo, was finally returned to him just days before his
death, and that it will now help his sons. Since you probably
haven't read the article, I'll quote the last part of it here :

> There, 57 years after an epochal swing, miniature Giants
> and Dodgers still had not reacted to a batted ball. The old
> man took his negative home, the provenance of perhaps
> baseball's most famous image at last authenticated.
>
> On April 29, Mancuso sat on his sofa with his nephew
> Peter and Michael Santo, a lawyer and baseball fan
> offering advice pro bono, and discussed what to do with
> his precious negative. "What's money going to do for me?"
> he asked. "If the money would help my body, I would say
> alright. What am I going to do -- buy a car?" And so, true
> to his namesake Rodolfo, the poet in La Bohème, Mancuso
> bequeathed ownership of his negative to his sons, content
> that it could provide for them. The trio discussed copyright,
> licensing and prints.
>
> On Saturday, May 9, Mancuso felt short of breath.
> Paramedics took him to St. Vincent's hospital. He died on
> Sunday, May 10, at 1 a.m.
>
> When Justin Gonzalez, a former manager at the Hotel
> Rivington, heard that the King of the LES had died, he
> started a page on Facebook for him. Dozens mourned their
> beloved old friend online and then on Bleecker Street
> where, on May 16 at the Guidetti Funeral Home, Mancuso
> shared his open casket with roses, rosary beads, his gray
> straw hat, the crook of his tiny cane, my book and two
> prints of his famous shot.
>
> Mancuso's elder son Rudy remembered to the assemblage
> through tears what, a few months prior, a friend had told
> him after speaking to his father: "Pop was worried that he
> had no legacy to leave me and my brother."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424737510590641.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A newbie request help selecting digital camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 9:25 pm
From: Kris Krieger

Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls <nocontact@noaddress.com> wrote in
news:rcp53592mhqpk3l22takmegp8h0tuphagf@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>
>>Hello!
>>
>>I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>>telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos,
>>but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs
>>more and more to develop "experiments".
>>
>>So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st
>>century, and go digital.
>>
>>But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and
>>the huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was
>>trying to make my way through this site
>>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Digital-SLR-Camera-
>>Reviews.aspx
>>but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo
>>newsgroup where I might be able to get some basic guidance.
>>
>>So here I am.
>>
>>WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural
>>subjects, such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've
>>(sometimes) been able to get using the above non-digital combination,
>>BUT it'd be nice to see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital
>>cameras, and it'd be nice to not have to pay so much for "experimental"
>>film shots (esp since the shops develop *everythign*, even the complete
>>junk, since that's how they make their money). I've been *hoping* to
>>get a digital camera that would use my Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm
>>lens.
>>
>>What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
>>control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to
>>where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've
>>been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are
>>merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality
>>photographs).
>>
>>At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so
>>price is a consideration
>>
>>Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho'
>>I wouldn't reject that ability, either ;)
>>
>>
>>So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>>confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>>
>>Many Thanks in Advance!
>>
>>Kris K.
>
>
> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
> lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer
> cameras). You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S
> models. Full manual control and much more. You'll wonder why you've
> waited so long. The convenience and adaptability of an all-in-one camera
> can't be beat. No more missed shots and you'll get your live-preview of
> exactly what you'll get on your final image at all times. (Not to
> mention high-quality video recording too.) Don't listen to the throngs
> dSLR-pushing trolls. They know not of what they speak.

I feel compelled to note that nobody is pushing SLR on me. As mentioned
elsewhere, I'm used to using my film SLR, so I did ask about DSLR.

I'm looking for my first digital camera (I don't count the crappy little
web-cam thingy I got for $20 in Target in 1999), so I just asked what was
an obvious Q. for me (i.e., about DSLR). So in all fairness, nobody can
blame people for answering the question I admittedly asked.

Meanwhile, the link you offered is excellent, and give me additional food
for thought:

> Here's a good example of how an inexpensive P&S super-zoom camera beats
> a new dSLR hands-down in resolution and chromatic aberration problems.
>
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results
> .shtml

That's certainly useful info, esp. the info re: macro photography...I will
add that model to the things I'll look at in detail.

>
> In order to get the same image quality and zoom-reach (of the P&S
> camera) from that dSLR it would cost over $6,500 in lenses and an extra
> 20 lbs. in weight for the dSLR. This would include the cumbersome and
> heavy tripod to be able to use the longer-focal length lenses with it. I
> did the math.

Yeah, $500 is absolute upper limit - $300 is preferable upper limit. A
"Pro" setup simply is not in the budget.

>
> Since you've been shooting with ASA100 film all this time you won't even
> have need for ISO's (ASAs) above 400.

Exactly. I'm definitely a "dew on dragonfly sidelit by morning sun" type.
Or "lie on freezing ground for 30 min to get *perfect* upshot of frosted
grass-blades against Winter sunset sky". I also would really love to be
able to do low-light photos, like "running brook in moonlight", or "full
moon over snow", and the like, which I don't even bother attempting with
film.

My frustration w/ film is that, all too often, I get the light wrong, and
end up with pneumonia, or covered with mosquito bites, or whatever, for
nothing but a smear of blobs (that cost a lot fo money to get developed).
It's not the medium I don't like - it's the utter frustration of not
getting the settings right, with no way of knowing they're wrong until
after getting them developed.

But with digital, you can see the shot on those little screens, so you know
instantly whether, and how, it needs to be tweaked. That's the attraction
for me.

> That's the one and only thing that
> dSLRs are better at, at the great cost of their crippling smaller
> apertures on all longer dSLR lenses. The larger apertures at longer zoom
> settings on P&S cameras easily makes up for a dSLR's piddly higher ISO
> benefit.
>
> For your macro-photography needs there is no better choice than a P&S
> camera. You will finally be able to do hand-held available light macro
> photography without having to use a tripod and flash to get enough
> depth-of-field due to a stopped-down SLR lens. You also won't have to
> worry about all your photos being ruined because you got dust on your
> dSLR's sensor while out shooting and fumbling around swapping cumbersome
> lenses.

That's a good point I hadn't thought of.

>
> This is the 21st century, it's time to ditch the outmoded concepts of
> the 1900's. The same way we ditched the wet-plates, flash-powders, and
> horse-drawn covered-wagon darkrooms before. It might take you a while to
> adapt and learn to use these newer cameras effectively but in the end
> the convenience and adaptability of them far outweighs what you've been
> doing all along.
>
> If you want even more control and features than any dSLR ever made, or
> will ever be made, check out any of the Canon P&S models supported by
> the free CHDK software add-on for them.
>
> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
>
> See this camera-features chart http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures
> for what new capabilities each model might have, beyond what was
> originally provided by the manufacturer.
>
> Some models support manual shutter speeds from 2048 seconds (and even
> longer in the extended "Factor" shutter-speed mode) to a record-breaking
> 1/40,000th second. With 100% accurate flash sync up to the highest
> speed. You're no longer limited and crippled by a focal-plane shutter's
> maximum 1/250th second X-Sync speed when trying to use flash to fill
> shadows in harsh sunlit conditions. They also have built-in motion
> detection for nature and lightning photography. Their shutter response
> times are fast enough to catch a lightning strike triggered from the
> pre-strike step-leader of a lightning event. One person even doing
> hand-held lightning photography during daylight this way. Using short
> shutter speeds and the built-in motion detection to trigger the shutter
> at the right time. That's never been done before in the history of
> photography. No need for a tripod and keeping the shutter open hoping
> for a random lightning event. Just hold the camera in the direction of
> the storm, composing your shot. The camera snaps off a frame only when
> there's an actual strike.

Wow, now that's pretty nifty...

>
> Some of the more amazing uses of CHDK cameras have been lofting them in
> weather balloons into the upper atmosphere, running an internal
> intervalometer script to record the whole event. A dSLR's lenses and
> archaic mirror contraptions would freeze-up solid at those temperatures.
> Some images taken from so high that you can see the curvature of the
> earth. Kite-aerial photography is another popular use for CHDK cameras
> that run internal scripts.
>
> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of
> CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's
> Best CHDK Photos" at this link:
>
> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk

Wow, I never realized!

Nice think is the links to the site where you can get the info of what
camera was used. So it's easy to see who takes the kids of photos I'd like
to take, and see what they used, so I then can look into those models =:-D

>
> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
> type" P&S cameras.
>

Since I don't know squat about them, that wouldn't be hard <LOL!!>

Anyway, thanks for all the great info, and links!

- Kris

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 9:27 pm
From: Kris Krieger

Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
news:2009061219480928524-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom:

> On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
> <nocontact@noaddress.com> said:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>>> telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature
>>> photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and
>>> it costs more and more to develop "experiments".
>>>
>>> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st
>>> century, and go digital.
>>> <--------->
>
> <-----Diatribe snipped------>
>
>> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of
>> CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+
>> "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link:
>>
>> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>>
>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>> type" P&S cameras.
>
> If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of
> these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them
> were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.
>

Oh! Well, I'll add that to my list of things to look at in more detail,
too...Thanks for the heads-up...

- Kris

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 9:53 pm
From: Kris Krieger

Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in news:4a333f53$1
@dnews.tpgi.com.au:

> Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>> Kris K.
>>
>>
>> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>
> Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
> complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
> want to downgrade to a digicam.
>

I thought DSLR is a type of digicam? I want to get away from film because I
missed too many shots (that I suffered to get) because of not getting the
settings just right, and not finding out until paying a lot to get the film
developed.

I'm looking for info, so I can be an educated consumer and get what will work
for me. If the Canon Power Shot models are worth looking at, that's good to
know; if DSLR will be closer to what I want, it's good to know which are
reliable (and outdoors-capable).

I didn't mean to spark a war. I'm mainly trying to separate mere "snapshot
boxes", from cameras I can use to take decent-to-good photographs. My first
thought was DSLR, for the reasons I'd described, and I want to retain control
over focusing my pictures in whatver area of the frame I want, so I don't
like the sound of "auto-focus" - but if "point and shoot" includes some
quality items, I'm open to info on them as well.

Right now, the variety of types is bewildering, tho' I'm not impressed by
what I've seen in the under-$200-range (esp. when a lot of hoo-ha is made
over "color choice" - black is fine by me), so the info and links people have
generously provided here are a starting point for good cameras within my
price-range.

I know it takes time for people to offer info, regardless of their viewpoint,
so I appreciate that, and really did not mean to start an argument... =:-o

- Kris

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 10:05 pm
From: Kris Krieger

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:a6c735porber0uhbgao752k5gq0l3fgeo4@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:55:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a333f53$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>>Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>>> Kris K.
>>>
>>> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>>
>>Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
>>complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
>>want to downgrade to a digicam.
>
> Stooping to his level by insulting other cameras only serves to
> undermine your own credibility.
>
> Cameras are just tools, and no one tool is best for all jobs. dSLR
> cameras have their place. Compact bridge cameras have their place. P&S
> cameras have their place. Even cell phone cameras have their place.
> <http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/04/bart.transit.officer.murder.charge>

Like paint brushes. I use a 90-cent boar-bristle thing for brushing flux
onto my stained-glass copper foil prior to soldering; I also OTOH once paid
$75 (and that was back when a dollar was much "bigger") for an absolutely
perfect Kolinskij Sable art brush for doing lines that would range from 1/3"
thick, to *barely* a hairline, that's how perfectly the brush responded (now
my hands shake too much for that kind of work, but the principle stands).

I know the end result I want; also the $$ the budget allows me to spend. So
I need to mesh those. I was thinking DSLR, but maybe I do need to widen my
investigations? THe info is grist for the mill and I appreciate people
taking the time to offer me that info.

Good qoutes from Adams, BTW ;)

- Kris

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 10:10 pm
From: Kris Krieger

tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1rn535tcdk5m79rsbtf5u6jdavvpt24dd3@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
> wrote:
>
>>What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
>>control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to
>>where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've
>>been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are
>>merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality
>>photographs).
>
> I know of no digital camera that focuses everything in the center.

Oh, OK! See, I didn't even know *that* =:-o Now I do ;)

> I
> have a low-end point-and-shoot that my wife uses and a dslr that I
> use. In both cases there is one or more focusing brackets in view.
> In both cases, if you focus on an object using in the focusing
> bracket, depress the shutter button half-way, and move the camera, the
> camera will retain the focus as set. In other words, you can focus
> using the center focus bracket and then move the camera to have what
> is in focus in the edge of your image.
>
> My dslr can be set to full manual. As far as I know, all dslrs are
> the same.
>

Full manual sounds closest to my old film camera. I often like to do things
like, get close to, say, a big palm frond, and focus on, say, a tree frog
that I've "placed" in the lower third of the frame, so that it will be what
is in sharp focus. So that's why I have reservations about auto-focus - it
sounds cumbersome, BUT that might just be because it isn't what I think it
is...

- Kris

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 10:16 pm
From: Kris Krieger

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:voc7355igi208ita81d5ginitvllrkke0n@4ax.com:

[...]
>
> CR is a good general consumer resource, but does a poor job of
> evaluating specialized products like audio gear (especially speakers),
> cameras, and the like. Much better advice is contained in reviews by
> qualified reviewers, which are readily available on the Internet.
> Some of the best (IMHO):
> * http://www.dpreview.com
> * http://www.cameralabs.com
> * http://www.imaging-resource.com
> * http://www.steves-digicams.com
> * http://www.dcresource.com
>

THanks for the links!, all are now saved =:-D

- Kris

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 10:23 pm
From: Kris Krieger

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:5f3a35tuil28qq8hvkos1biisf840samg8@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:28 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
> <noone@nospam.com> wrote in <h110cp$37r$1@mouse.otenet.gr>:
>
>>Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography.
>
> True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is
> the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take great
> pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot take great
> pictures without a great photographer.

My worrry, tho' is spending a couple hundred $$ on one, and finding out that
it doesn't take crips pictures, or that the colors are off, or some other
flaw, because I didn't know what I was buying...

Granted, a True Artist can cerate art using ground rocks and a frayed reed
(liek the Lescaux etc cave art), but having th ebest tool one can get isn't a
bad thing, either <G!>

>
>>There are good, hi-end
>>P&S for example, if you are looking for convenience and compact size.
>
> Damned with faint praise. "P&S" is a favorite pejorative of insecure
> dSLR owners that badly mischaracterizes the better compact digital
> camera, no more appropriate for them than for a dSLR in automatic mode.
> The Panasonic DMC-FZ28, for example, has full manual control, RAW mode,
> and more total capability than any dSLR.

I wrote that one down ;)

>
>>... Advanced dSLR users use
>>what is called RAW, or digital negative, which is the raw output from the
>>camera sensor, with as few manipulation as possible (demosaicing and
>>compressing-you will do these on your computer, instead on-camera). ...
>
> Some do; others do not. RAW is not essential to great photography.
>

But it's good to know, because I also do computer graphics and 3D modeling,
so that part I understood :)

It's all grist for the proverbial mill :)

- Kris

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 10:28 pm
From: Kris Krieger

"Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in
news:h0ulam$rif$1@news.eternal-september.org:

>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C28B1A3AC29Ameadowmuffin@216.168.3.70...
>> "Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in news:h0uk4r$iem$1
>> @news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>
>>> http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wow, That was fast! I'm thinking that mylenses won't do - they're
>> early- 1970's vintage. So it's good to know that I can't jsut buy a
>> camera body -
>> that will save me some grief ;)
>>
>> I saved that document for future reference. I'm also opening the
>> website in
>> a new window ;)
>>
>> THanks!
>
> Kris, you are most welcome. It's always a good idea to build on what we
> already have and what we already know.
>
> As to modern digital SLRs, they are mostly all very good. I don't think
> you can go very far wrong.
>

Ah, OK, good to know, thanks :) Despite the "firestorm" ;) I'm getting some
great info and links, so I think i'm getting a great launching point to look
into this. I guess maybe most people go throguh several cameras, but I tend
to be a person who expends much thought deciding about my purchases, so I can
get something that will be a companion/partner, so to speak, for many years.

- Kris

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 10:32 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:53:56 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
wrote:

>Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in news:4a333f53$1
>@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
>
>> Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>>> Kris K.
>>>
>>>
>>> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>>
>> Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
>> complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
>> want to downgrade to a digicam.
>>
>
>I thought DSLR is a type of digicam?

Any camera that uses digital media to capture the image, and not film,
can be called a "digicam". The terms most commonly used are dslr
(digital single lens reflex) or, for cameras without
interchangeability of lenses, Point & Shoot or compact camera.

>I'm looking for info, so I can be an educated consumer and get what will work
>for me. If the Canon Power Shot models are worth looking at, that's good to
>know; if DSLR will be closer to what I want, it's good to know which are
>reliable (and outdoors-capable).

The Canon Power Shots are Point & Shoots or compact cameras. They
come with a wide variety of features, but - from what you have
described in your other posts - you should be looking at a dslr. The
entry level price for a dslr is about $450 with one kit lens. The
prices go up from there.

If you do look at the compact camera (Point & Shoots) models, read the
specs to make sure the model can be set to manual focus because that
seems to be important to you. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 is one that
does, but it sells for as much as a dslr does.

I'm not recommending the Lumix or any other camera. You have a long
way to go in research, and you should do it on your own.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 10:40 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:25:50 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>> type" P&S cameras.
>
> Since I don't know squat about them, that wouldn't be hard <LOL!!>
>
> Anyway, thanks for all the great info, and links!

Virtually all of it intended to be misleading. This was, after
all, the pathetic anti-DSLR troll you were responding to, who is
easily recognizable and changes his name *very* frequently because
he knows that if he doesn't do so, most people will quickly add his
name to their newsreader's kill files.

It's true that some *good* P&S cameras are capable of taking
excellent photos and they may be that you need, but they *all* have
severe limitations in many areas. First, if there isn't enough
light available, all digital cameras need to increase the ISO (in
other words, boost their light sensitivity - ISO is practically the
same as the ASA value used with film). Because they use much
smaller sensors than DSLRs, even a slight increase in sensitivity
degrades the image considerably. When the low base ISO is boosted
to 200 or 400 the images from P&S cameras become "noisy" and is
often easily seen without substantial magnification. Many DSLRs can
be used at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 and produce cleaner images than P&S
cameras. I have several of the better Canon Powershots and they're
nice, but they turn into little noise boxes when the lighting is
low.

Second, P&S cameras focus using contrast detection, which is
*much* slower than the phase detection used by DLSRs, which under
similar conditions is much quicker and more accurate. Try them out
in a camera store that allows you to test them. You'll see, easily.

P&S cameras have several other drawbacks (which others can point
out if they wish), but they still serve a purpose and most DSLR
owners find it convenient to also use a P&S. So if you get a one
and find that its limitations are sufficient to force you to get a
DSLR, all is not lost.

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 10:44 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:25:50 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
wrote:

>
>Yeah, $500 is absolute upper limit - $300 is preferable upper limit. A
>"Pro" setup simply is not in the budget.

Why did you wait so long to bring this up? At $300, you are limited
to compact cameras and to a camera that may not have the feature you
want the most: manual focus.

At $500, you are limited to the Nikon D40 with just the 18/55 lens for
a dslr, or some of the better compacts. (I don't know the compacts)

You can forget Canon or Pentax dslr unless you go used.

I suggest you read Steve's Digicams at http://www.steves-digicams.com/
and read the specs very carefully of the cameras in your price range.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 9:36 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:44:49 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Where is your "logical progression"? The guard told
>Becker not to leave, and threatened him with physical
>violence.
>
>That is a detetion by definition.

We've covered this, haven't we? Becker walked away from the guard.
He was not detained by the guard. He ignored the demand. It does not
meet the definition of detention.

>>You detain someone by force or by exercising the authority of law. The
>>Loomis guard did neither. Telling someone not to leave is not
>>detaining them.
>
>When the person doing so has a gun and a badge, and
>threatens physical violence if any attempt is made to
>leave, that *is* a detention.

No, it's detention when the person is actually detained.

>>Becker moved to the customer service line to pay for
>>his lock (?). You can hardly say Becker was detained when he moved
>>away from the Loomis guard and continued about his business.
>
>They told him not to leave the store. He didn't.

No, he didn't, but not because of the guard's demand. It was because
he stood there and argued until the police came. He could have walked
out at any time before that. He chose not to.
>
>>>>>and swore
>>>>>to a Seattle Police officer that he had broken a law.
>>>>
>>>>Where in the world do you get this?
>>>
>>>What do you suppose they told the officer? Some story
>>>about how they were having fun picking on an innocent
>>>guy??? Or what?
>>
>>I don't know. You want me to conjecture? OK, I *suppose* he told the
>>officer what is in the police report: "He was concerned about his
>>safety and was not sure if (Becker) was going to attempted (sic) to
>>grab the money that was going into the ATM machine (sic)."
>
>You don't seem to be able to follow logical progression
>Tony. That statement refers to what the guard claims
>was the reason to question Becker to start with. By the
>time the police officer arrived the money was in the
>ATM, not available to for anyone to "grab", and the
>officer certainly was not asking that Becker be arrested
>for having grabbed money or at that point being a threat
>to grab money.

That's the only statement that is reported that the guard made. Your
fabrication about swearing that he broke a law is just that: a
fabrication.

If you disagree, it's simple for you to prove that I'm wrong. Just
point out any statement in Becker's own narrative or the police report
where this is alleged. Go on...find a statement that supports your
claim.
>
>>>>Flim-Flam Floyd is at it again. You are now making stuff up.
>>>
>
>Still hanging in there with appeals to emotions rather
>than facts, eh? Fallacous Ad Hominem arguments do not
>lend credibility to you or to your otherwise illogical
>statements.

You are making stuff up. Fallacious stuff as well as "fallacous"
stuff.

Find anything in Becker's narrative or the police report that supports
your statement. Find anything in Becker's narrative or the police
report that states, infers, or hints at Becker being detained by
anyone except the police officer. Find anything that indicates that
Becker could not have walked out of the store at any time prior to the
arrival of the police.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 10:00 pm
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:15:23 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>"Susp Cir" is not a crime. He was told not to leave, therefore he
>*cannot* be trespassing.

I wanted to believe that, in all your posts, you've written something
that is accurate. I figured Flim-Flam Floyd or not, he's got to be
right about something.

The closest I could come is your statement that he was told not to
leave. I found this in Becker's narrative:

Him
When you're done over here, come talk to me.
Me
No, thanks.
Him
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.
Me
No, you won't.
Him
I'll call the cops.
Me
I can't stop you.

OK, the Loomis guard says "Don't try to leave". Floyd's right!

Wait a minute, though. Becker says "No, thanks" to the guard's demand
to come over and talk to him. And he doesn't return. He isn't
intimidated by the man, the badge, or the gun. Obviously, then,
Becker is aware that the Loomis guard's demand is meaningless
rhetoric. Why would Becker think the demand "Don't try to leave" is
any different?

Becker says in another place "I was not told to leave. I was told in
no uncertain terms that I could not leave", but he doesn't say who
told him that. Spunky little guy that he is, trained anarchist and
all, why does he accept that this demand must be obeyed? He refused
the demand to come back and talk. He refused the demand to produce
ID. Why does he accept the demand not to leave?

Why does he not just walk out of the store? When he could, that is.
It was too late when the police arrived.

I can only come up with a couple of reasons. One, he was too thick to
think of it. Two, he chose to stay. Not that he was detained, not
that he was forced to stay, but that he decided to stay. On his own.

Sorry, Floyd. I can't give you this one either.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 10:35 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:48:31 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:43:07 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <87k53e91v7.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
>>>><floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >>>>He broke no laws. The Loomis guard and the Seattle
>>>>> >>>>Police officer both did.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>What law did the Loomis guard break? Asking for an ID is not a
>>>>> >>>violation of the law.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>Tony, we know that you are aware that they did a lot
>>>>> >>more than that. They detained the individual
>>>>> >
>>>>> >The Loomis guard did not detain Becker.
>>>>>
>>>>> He told him not to leave, and that *is* detaining him, by
>>>>> definition.
>>>>
>>>>not only that but the guard threatened him with bodily harm, "if you
>>>>leave i'll tackle you."
>>>
>>>But he didn't tackle him, did he? Becker, undetained, moved away from
>>>the guard and went to the customer service line.
>>
>>WTF are you talking about? He was detained.
>>
>>And he was already in the customer service line.
>
>Floyd, I'm beginning to understand that you've never actually read the
>material about this incident. Here's what Shane said:

Out of context, and out of order, but I'll leave your
entire statement exactly as you wrote it to show
precisely how confused you are:

>"So I was in the customer service line to special order one. It was a
>long line and while I was waiting, I saw two of guys (employees of
>Loomis, as I later learned) refilling the ATM. I walked over and took
>a picture with my iPhone of them and more interestingly of the open
>ATM."

Okay, so we know he was not in the line when he took the photo. That
says nothing about when the guard talked to him, if or when he was
detained, or when and where any of that took place.

>and
>
>"He (the Loomis guard) went back to the ATM and conferred with his
>partner who was then making a call on his cell phone. My turn came up
>in line. I went to the counter. While ordering my part hitch lock at
>the desk, the real story started."

You seem to be unable to read. If the guard "went back to the ATM",
then clearly they were not at the ATM prior to that, which is apparently
when they were having their discussion, when Becker was threatened with
violence if he left. Becker then says "my turn came up in line", which
apparently means he was still in line. Note that the *guard* is the one
who moved "back to", not Becker.

>Here's what's in the police report: "...suddenly (Becker) walked
>around the corner toward (name blanked out) took a picture with his
>I-phone of the ATM machine (sic) while it was opened. (Becker)
>quickly walked away and got into the customer service line."

So right there you have another statement that Becker had returned
to the line *before* the guard began harassing him.

>Is there any possible way you can conclude anything other than what I
>stated? Becker was in line, then walked over to the machine which
>was around a corner and took the picture, then went - undetained -
>back to the line. Becker was never detained by the Loomis guard.

You last sentence is in error, and should have said:

Becker had not yet been detained by the Loomis guard, who then
proceed to move from the ATM to the line where Becker was waiting,
and put him under detention by threatening him with violence if
he attempted to leave.

>RTFMaterial.

You really do need a 6th grade level reading skill set to read the
stuff Tony. I am just astounded that anyone can read what you just
quoted and still maintain that it says anything like what you claim
it does. Your conclusions do not follow from the premises you give,
and are abjectly illogical.

>You make references to 6th grade reading skills, but you can't
>reconstruct the events accurately when the person's own narrative is
>there to read.

"They saw me take the picture. After they were done
filling the machine with money, the one with the
shaved head came over to me in line and said:

Him
When you're done over here, come talk to me.

Me
No, thanks.

Him
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you."

That is the correct order in which events took place. See
the initial statement by Shane Becker posted to the Internet
at http://iamshane.com/2009/05/09/of-atms-iphones-and-911/
and stop making up false accusations, adding in your incredible
Ad Hominems, and then doing a temporal shuffle of events in an
ill attempt at supporting things as you have falsely stated.

Just in case you missed it:

1) The money was already *in* the ATM when the Loomis
guard began talking to him. Any suggestion that his
refusal to discuss it or lack of ID could cause the
guard to be concerned with anyone about to "grab" the
money is illogical at best, and a deceitful untruth
at worst.

2) He was standing in line when the guard put him under
detention, telling him not to leave and threatening
him with violence if he did.

3) He was detained based soley on having taken a photograph.

4) He was arrested by Seattle Police officers for invoking
his Constitutional rights, which is an illegal police
action.

5) You should apologize for making so many false statements.

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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 11:15 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:03:35 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:54:40 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Ridiculous maybe but correct. A shop is PRIVATE property. The public is
>>>>>permitted to enter but the owner may place any (legal) restriction they
>>>>>wish on people entering. Such as no photography.
>>>>
>>>>They have to post it first, not after the fact.
>>>
>>>No they don't. Becker was not detained for taking a photograph, but
>>>your statement is incorrect.
>>
>>They don't??? They can charge someone for doing something
>>that was not prohibited until after it was done??? That is
>>so typical of your illogical responses here...
>>
>>Actually, the initial detainment *was* for taking a
>>photograph. He was arrested for not producing an ID.
>>
>>Get your facts straight.
>
>No, he was never detained for taking a photograph. Even Shane does
>not claim that in his narrative.

Straight facts:

"They saw me take the picture. After they were done
filling the machine with money, the one with the
shaved head came over to me in line and said:

Him
When you're done over here, come talk to me.

Me
No, thanks.

Him
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you."

At that point a Loomis guard, wearing a uniform with a
badge and in visible possession of a gun, has placed
Shane Becker under detention (arrest) and verbally
assaulted him. The only apparant reason is that Becker
took a picture.

Both the detention and the assault are criminal.

>>The Loomis guard ordered Becker to stay there, under
>>threat of violence. That is by definition detaining
>>him.
>
>No, that is a demand, but not a detention. The demand was not heeded.
>Becker walked away.

Becker did *not* walk away. He was in a line at the
Customer Service Counter, and he stayed there.. He also
did not try to leave the store, which is what it appears
he was told he could not do.

>Let's add "definition" to the list of words you don't understand.

You don't seem to understand that when a uniformed
person with a badge and a gun tells someone they cannot
leave at their own free will they are in fact under
"detention".

Black's Law Dictionary defines it as I've used it;
however, it is also interesting to note that Washington
State does *not* make the distinction between detainment
and arrest in the way that I have!

In the State of Washington, by definition, Becker was
placed under arrest by the Loomis Guard when he was told
not to leave.

Washington courts have cited this definition of "arrest":

"a show of authority sufficient to convey to any
reasonable person that voluntary departure from the
scene was not a reasonable alternative."
United States v Palmer, 603F.2d 1286, 1289 (8th Cir. 1979).

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Sunday, June 14, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 7 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Sunday, June 14, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 7 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic