rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Enlarge Digital Photos - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/061331efe25fcd40?hl=en
* A newbie request help selecting digital camera - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?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... - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad679aa87d2eb7b1?hl=en
* The Shot Seen 'Round the World - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15107f2ca666bb2e?hl=en
* Correct name for "pinhole lens" used in covert cameras? - 3 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a3f36ff97395b3f?hl=en
* grim news for photographers tourism and rights - 8 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Enlarge Digital Photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/061331efe25fcd40?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:13 pm
From: ray
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:52:30 -0400, Lloyd W. wrote:
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:79kh3iF1rhqjqU5@mid.individual.net...
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:01:16 -0700, thankyou wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, Thanks for your help.
>>>
>>> When enlarging ditial photos what size posters peserve the aspect
>>> ratio?
>>>
>>>
>>> I was thinnking around the 12" x 18" size posters.
>>>
>>> Thanks John
>>
>> Ones with the same aspect ratio. Can't you do simple division?
>
>
> he asked for help not an insult, you asshole
Ignoring the profanity, I thought the answer was quite self evident.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:26 pm
From: Jürgen Exner
thankyou <zzhereiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>With my limited messing with photos experience, I wanted to send the
>files over to a Walmart or Office max, but was concerned that the
>photos would not "fit" their fixed poster sizes.
Well, sensors come in different aspect ratios and therefore naturally
there are always photos that "don't fit" the standard paper. Happens all
the time and stores deal with it by automatically cropping.
If you want to avoid the store randomly cropping a part that might be
important to you then your only solution is to ask the store (the one
store you are going to!!!) what aspect ratio they are using and do the
cropping yourself in advance.
>Also, working with Ifanview and CanonDPP, the conversion to .jpg makes
>the files "too small" for a "poster" blow up.
Well, that's the purpose of JPEG. It reduces the file size at the cost
of picture quality. However there are many different JPEG compression
levels. Just choose the lowest possible compression (=highest quality)
and there should be no perceptible loss. Of course this is assuming that
the technical quality of the original picture was good enough for a big
enlargement.
Or choose a format that does lossless compression.
jue
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A newbie request help selecting digital camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:18 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-14 18:04:50 -0700, LOL <toofunny@noaddress.com> said:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
> <----------------->
>> Great info! THanks! I don't have a problem with info volume; I'm used to
>> that. Knowing where to look, tho' is 80% of the battle so to speak - I tried
>> Google but didn't know how to limit the search.
>>
>> So I'll save this (prob otehr posts, too) because it's a great place to get
>> started.
>>
>> Thanks again!
>>
>> - Kris
>>
>
> You do realize that you are taking advice from someone who has never even
> held a camera, don't you? All he does is read downloaded camera manuals and
> read websites about photography his whole sad life. Then he comes here and
> tries to pretend to know something about real cameras and real photography.
> He thinks he wins if he can fool others into believing that he's a some
> kind of "photographer", like some sad virtual-reality-game in his head.
> ASSAR is THE longest-lived resident pretend-photographer TROLL. Everyone
> who has subscribed to this group for less than month knows this.
>
> Enjoy your (ahem) "advice". :-)
>
> Too too funny! LOL!
...and Kris, if you hadn't noticed before, the above remark is from our
resident P&S troll who will try to hide his identity via constant
change, and has an agenda which is more destructive than helpful.
There are doubts in this Group of his ability to produce images as he
has yet to submit any sample of his work.
The best advice remains buy what works for you.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:25 pm
From: tony cooper
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
wrote:
>I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
>interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
>dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
>that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler ;)
I still suggest that you are a bit confused on this issue. You will
not find a dslr to be different than a slr as far as focussing. The
dslrs are not restricted to center focussing in auto focus. You can
focus at any point in the frame. You also have the ability to change
from auto focus to manual focus and never use auto focus. (That's
with a dslr and not a point & shoot. Some point & shoots have a
manual setting, but not all of them.)
You will not be restricted by the camera no matter what brand of dslr
you purchase. There may be something different to get used to, but I
can't imagine an experienced photographer not adapting in a matter of
minutes. You may have to read, or at least skim, the manual though.
I spent years using a slr before changing to a dslr. The only thing I
had to get used to was not being stingy with my shots. I still take
fewer shots than many dslr users because there's something ingrained
in my mind about more shots costing more money.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:43 pm
From: LOL
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:18:57 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-06-14 18:04:50 -0700, LOL <toofunny@noaddress.com> said:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>> <----------------->
>>> Great info! THanks! I don't have a problem with info volume; I'm used to
>>> that. Knowing where to look, tho' is 80% of the battle so to speak - I tried
>>> Google but didn't know how to limit the search.
>>>
>>> So I'll save this (prob otehr posts, too) because it's a great place to get
>>> started.
>>>
>>> Thanks again!
>>>
>>> - Kris
>>>
>>
>> You do realize that you are taking advice from someone who has never even
>> held a camera, don't you? All he does is read downloaded camera manuals and
>> read websites about photography his whole sad life. Then he comes here and
>> tries to pretend to know something about real cameras and real photography.
>> He thinks he wins if he can fool others into believing that he's a some
>> kind of "photographer", like some sad virtual-reality-game in his head.
>> ASSAR is THE longest-lived resident pretend-photographer TROLL. Everyone
>> who has subscribed to this group for less than month knows this.
>>
>> Enjoy your (ahem) "advice". :-)
>>
>> Too too funny! LOL!
>
>...and Kris, if you hadn't noticed before, the above remark is from our
>resident P&S troll who will try to hide his identity via constant
>change, and has an agenda which is more destructive than helpful.
>There are doubts in this Group of his ability to produce images as he
>has yet to submit any sample of his work.
>The best advice remains buy what works for you.
OH LOOK! It's the useless piece of shit pretend-photographer DSLR-TROLL
AGAIN! Don't believe anything he ever says!
LOL
You fuckingly childish idiot.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:48 pm
From: ASAAR
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:27:48 GMT, nick c wrote:
> I may be a lurker but I recognize good advice and feel compelled to
> say something. In the days of film I was (with momentary exceptions)
> a devoted Nikon user. With the onset of digital, I thought it wise to
> change to Canon 'cause Canon seemed to be more advanced than Nikon. I
> sold my F4 and F5 Nikon's, and all the associate equipment and went
> totally Canon. I've experienced the need of some repairs for my Canon
> equipment but on the whole, I've found the Canon system to be a good
> system. But I wasn't comfortable using Canon and I can't specifically
> say why. Several years passed and my pictures didn't reflect any
> technical problems, so to speak of. Least wise I was happy with them
> and since I pay my bills, that's all that counts. Yet, I didn't quite
> feel comfortable with the use my equipment.
>
> I'm not a pro but I do know pros. Discussing my situation with them, I
> was advised to think about going back to Nikon simply because I may
> have some sort of psychological attachment to Nikon equipment, since
> I've used Nikon equipment for over 50 years (I'm 81 years old and my
> right hand shakes). Since I have the means to indulge myself, I rented
> a Nikon D300, a Nikon 16-85 lens, and a Nikon SB-600 flash. A week
> later, I felt great. I felt comfortable using the Nikon D300, in fact
> I was so sold on the camera I sold all my Canon equipment and bought
> the D300 and the D700 Nikon cameras along with a bunch of lenses.
I hope that your 81 years haven't contributed to the discrepancy
shown by what some guy named nick posted about 5 months ago. If you
care to tie up the loose ends it would be appreciated.
> I have used both Canon and Nikon systems and have accumulated lenses
> for both systems. The camera in my bag has been the Canon 1DMKll. Many
> months ago I had been bitten by the update bug and pondered the
> thought of buying either the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. I looked at
> other cameras and many were reported as being good cameras but I
> favored getting either the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. Try as I
> might, I did my very best to zero in on getting one or the other
> camera. I read reports, questioned users, and could not readily decide
> which one to buy. Indecision led to procrastination. Finally, I could
> contain myself no further and I did the only thing one could do who
> labored with a muddled mind; I bought both cameras. Yeah, I bought
> the Canon 40D and the Nikon D300.
> I'm as happy now as a frog would be if he discovered he had two peckers.
If he discovered that both of them were his one assumes, and not
from two friends (or a single friend) happy to see him. :)
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 7:49 pm
From: ASAAR
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
> I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
> interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
> dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
> that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler ;)
Autofocus really can handle that concern, and that's pretty simple
compared with some of the added AF features that have evolved. Some
of today's P&S cameras also have multiple AF points. Nikon's entry
level DSLRs (D40, D60) only have three AF sensors, laid out in a
horizontal line and you can select the one that is used for some
shooting modes, but that's pretty limited. The older D50 has five AF
sensors, adding one above and one below the central AF point. The
D5000 isn't really an upgrade for the D60. It's positioned between
the D60 and the D90 which has 11 focus points as does the D5000.
The D300 and all of the Nikon's full frame DSLRs provide many
more. The D300 lets you use 11 or 51 autofocus points, 15 of the 51
being the more sensitive cross-type that are sensitive to both
horizontal and vertical patterns. In continuous servo mode where
you're shooting many consecutive shots of fast moving objects, such
as in nature or sports photography, the D300 will track the moving
objects as they move away from the selected AF sensor, transferring
control to adjacent AF sensors. For this you can choose to use 9,
21 or 51 focus points. Many DSLRs from other manufacturers also
have many AF focus points, but none of them are spread as widely
across the frame. Since the 51 point AF module is similar (or
identical), these 51 points aren't spread quite as widely across the
frame in the Full Frame D700, D3 or D3x as they are in the D300.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: wear from 1/4 Whitworth versus 1/4 UNC
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c88b466b5bf2732c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:21 pm
From: tnom@mucks.net
>There is no such thing as a 1/4-20 Whitworth thread. Its a 1/4-19
>thread.
Really? You better write your own book then. According to multiple
copies of "'The Machinery's Handbook" 1/4- 19 Whitworth is not
standard. 1/4 - 20 Whitworth is.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What a waste these groups are...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad679aa87d2eb7b1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:23 pm
From: Savageduck
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.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:38 pm
From: LOL
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:23:33 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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.
Oh LOOK! It's the DSLR-TROLL AGAIN!
I'm just mirroring your sickeningly childish behavior for the last how many
months. Don't you find it amusing? Everyone finds YOU so amusing! You
useless POS pretend-photographer DSLR-FUCKED-UP-TROLL.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 7:06 pm
From: tnom@mucks.net
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:13:15 +0100, "Bertram Paul" <dont@mail.me>
wrote:
>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.
With your inability to cope, I hope you aren't checking out
completely. http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Shot Seen 'Round the World
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15107f2ca666bb2e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:33 pm
From: "Frank ess"
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.
--
Frank ess
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:44 pm
From: tony cooper
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:06:47 GMT, the Omrud
<usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:36:41 GMT, the Omrud
>> <usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:41:01 +0100, Bruce <no@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's OK, though. We Americans are not interested in the shove
>>>>>>> ha'penny finals, the Aunt Sally cup matches, or the conkers death
>>>>>>> matches and we don't feel the least bit arrogant about it
>>>>>> However we don't make claims like "The Shot Seen 'Round the World" for
>>>>>> local UK or EU stuff.
>>>>> Don't we? Surely World Series Conkers is seen around the world
>>>>> (including the USA) on television?
>>
>> Unless it's played in the US, it can't be a "world" event. We have
>> claim to that.
>>
>>>>> And hasn't Shove Ha'penny been officially accepted as a new Olympic
>>>>> sport for London 2012?
>>>> We are eagerly looking forward to David Beckham and Eric Cantona to
>>>> tour the US with Dwile Flonking exhibition matches.
>>> I suspect that you had to look up the spelling, possibly from my last
>>> recollection of the Great Match on the Sands at Cromer in about 1973.
>>>
>>>> It's expected that the Spice Girls will do the girting.
>>> "girting"? Did you mean "gurning"? That's a North-West occupation,
>>> rather than East Anglia.
>>
>> Don't you follow your own National Sports?
>
>Hardly. I take part in sporting activities, but I can't grok the point
>of watching others do so.
>
>> "Girting" is dancing around a member of the flonking team.
>
>Ah, I see - I had forgotten the term. But the girting activity is not a
>separate action - it's part of the game which is undertaken by the
>current "fielding" side, as it might be in cricket or that American form
>of rounders you play. If the Spice Grils were to take time off from
>being Chief Scout in order to girt, then they would be Dwile Flonking
>themselves. You may not yet have a mental image of what a match looks like.
I admit to that. Readily. When I first saw the term, I thought that
some guy named Dwile was getting a lot of action. (If you know what I
mean. If you know what I mean. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
That's why you need to put a Dwile Flunking team on tour. From the
sound of it, it's not something silly like Morris Dancing. I'm sure
Americans would take to it.
I know of no American sport where the participants dance around the
opposing side. Participants and coaches often dance around the
referees or umpires over a disputed call, but it's a rather awkward
step since the essential moves are scuffing dirt and belly-bumping.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 3 of 3 ==
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! :)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Correct name for "pinhole lens" used in covert cameras?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a3f36ff97395b3f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:33 pm
From: The Correction Police
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:04:01 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:45:45 -0500, The Correction Police
><tcp@knowldegeisgood.com> wrote in
><ki3935pl4alvh9hdvdms1fp3m1bhpvh5km@4ax.com>:
>
>>Segue to r.p.d.: It is far, far, by far, easier to get a perfect figure on
>>a smaller lens than any larger one. The same holds true for all camera
>>lenses. This is precisely why larger diameter camera lenses will invariably
>>perform their worst at widest apertures. It is impossible for them to
>>figure glass that large to the proper curvatures, at any
>>consumer-acceptable costs that is. With smaller camera lenses this is
>>wholly possible, easily accomplished minute-by-minute, camera-by-camera.
>
>While most relatively large lenses aren't at their best wide open, the
>better ones are quite close, with superb optical quality, and at their
>best closed down by only 2-3 stops, which contradicts your claim. And
>their worst performance may well be stopped all the way down due to
>diffraction.
On the contrary, what you state precisely supports what I said and in no
way contradicts it. NO larger diameter camera lenses (i.e. DSLR glass) are
figured well enough to perform best at widest aperture. Well figured glass
will continuously provide a sharper and sharper image as the aperture is
enlarged (go study up on Dawes' Limit, something that few if any around
here comprehend). If you are using a 16" diameter diffraction limited
telescope mirror and stop it down to 6" the level of detail will degrade,
just as it should, limited by the diffraction. As you open up the aperture
the resolution gets better and better until you reach the full 16" diameter
lens, from which you can open the aperture no further. The highest
resolution available at the full 16" dia. aperture. This is how precision
optics are supposed to act. If their lenses cannot perform best at widest
aperture then that means that is not diffraction limited optics, = CRAP
GLASS. Smaller camera lenses do not suffer from this problem. The only
thing that degrades their image is by stopping down the lens, not opening
it up. Those smaller lenses are always butting up against the very limits
of diffraction (the limits of precision optics and the physics of light
itself). Just as what happens in precision diffraction-limited telescope
optics. Diffraction limited optics = the best of the best. The softness in
larger lenses is just due to poorly figured glass all around at all
apertures.
Really, go take a remedial course in optics and physics or something.
Trying to educate you fools is so fuckingly tedious.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 7:05 pm
From: Bob Larter
The Correction Police wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:56:58 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The Correction Police wrote:
>>> they left off. Taking a <5mW $10 green laser-pointer's optics and finely
>>> tuning it to <1.05 mRads divergence. As long as I'm in there fiddling with
>>> things I will also ramp-up the output to ~75mW.
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha!
>
> Oh ye of such vast ignorance, with an attention-deficit deeper than the
> Mariana Trench. Google for laser pot mod Some people adjust their's
> higher, to 150mW output, but I feel that that will shorten their life
> greatly. I do have one set that high, just for the life-expectancy
> experiment. It readily ignites a phosphorous match in under a second. It's
> still working two months later, but for how long. Granted it is only used
> intermittently.
>
> The ones I buy direct from China are actually $8 each, shipping incl., (not
> $10, but some people can't get them that inexpensive), all easily adjusted
> for a 75mW output. Their heat-sink is more than adequate to be tuned that
> high. The emergent beam of light clearly visible in a sunlit room after the
> exceptionally simple modification.
This is a complete & utter load of bullshit. Cheap Chinese laser
pointers do not use >75mW rated laser diodes. Attempting to put that
much power through one will kill it stone dead instantly. You obviously
don't have the faintest idea how to measure the output of a laser.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 7:22 pm
From: The Correction Police
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:05:22 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:
>The Correction Police wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:56:58 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Correction Police wrote:
>>>> they left off. Taking a <5mW $10 green laser-pointer's optics and finely
>>>> tuning it to <1.05 mRads divergence. As long as I'm in there fiddling with
>>>> things I will also ramp-up the output to ~75mW.
>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha!
>>
>> Oh ye of such vast ignorance, with an attention-deficit deeper than the
>> Mariana Trench. Google for laser pot mod Some people adjust their's
>> higher, to 150mW output, but I feel that that will shorten their life
>> greatly. I do have one set that high, just for the life-expectancy
>> experiment. It readily ignites a phosphorous match in under a second. It's
>> still working two months later, but for how long. Granted it is only used
>> intermittently.
>>
>> The ones I buy direct from China are actually $8 each, shipping incl., (not
>> $10, but some people can't get them that inexpensive), all easily adjusted
>> for a 75mW output. Their heat-sink is more than adequate to be tuned that
>> high. The emergent beam of light clearly visible in a sunlit room after the
>> exceptionally simple modification.
>
>This is a complete & utter load of bullshit. Cheap Chinese laser
>pointers do not use >75mW rated laser diodes. Attempting to put that
>much power through one will kill it stone dead instantly. You obviously
>don't have the faintest idea how to measure the output of a laser.
I built my own power-meter from one of the better DIY methods (uses an
inexpensive IR thermometer and an easy to fabricate sensor, in a sealed
environment). It's accurate to within 5%. Good enough for what I need it
for. YOU however are just an idiot troll desperate for my attention.
Now run along little boy. Go educate yourself or have your mommy do it for
you. Better yet, try the potentiometer modification (pot mod) on a cheap
Chinese laser and look into it. Tell me what you see.
I've only given you attention this long because I felt so sorry for how
desperate you are for it. Go latch onto someone else to get your much
needed attention. Consider yourself scraped out of the cleat of my boot,
just like any other dogshit I might have accidentally stepped in.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:48 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
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 L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 6:49 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:01:10 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>what becker should have done was leave the store.
>
>I agree. That was one of several better options available to Becker.
Why sure, right after a big guy with a gun tells you he
will tackle you if you leave???
>Also, the Loomis guard should have let it go, the rei security people
>should have smoothed it over and the police officer should have
>mediated the situation if that wasn't done. Everyone involved -
>including Becker - made errors in judgement.
But Becker, unlike the others, did nothing that was not legal.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 7:03 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
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.
>>And even then they do not have any authority of law.
>>Even if they post "No Whatever" signs they cannot arrest
>>anyone for doing "Whatever". All they can do at that
>>point is ask them to leave, and *not leaving* would then
>>be a criminal act (trespass).
>
>The rei store people did not arrest anyone.
Nobody said otherwise, what's your point? Why did you
not respond to the statement above?
"All they can do ... is ask them to leave", which is not
what they did at all.
>>>>Right, but arresting someone for not showing an ID is
>>>>harassement.
>
>The Loomis guard did not arrest anyone.
So why are you bringing it up? Nobody said they did.
>When two people are in an argument, and each is participating in the
>argument, neither can be claimed to be harassing the other.
When one of them has a gun and a badge, your statement
is not valid.
>>>BTW some where it was mentioned he had a fake ID, what was that about?
>>
>>Supposedly they found an ID in his wallet at the police
>>station which did not have his name or his picture on
>>it. It does *not* constitute a "Fake ID".
>
>Supposedly? He was carrying a passport not his own. He claimed he
>"found" it. You are correct that it was not a fake ID. It was a
>genuine ID, but not his.
So stop saying he had a "Fake ID", because he did not.
There is no law against being in posession of another
person's passport.
>>I am indeed ignorant of what that training is, and that
>>is why I am *not* making up something to hide that
>>ignorance, the way you do.
>
>You have made up several things. You have made up the claim that the
>Loomis guard detained Becker.
The Loomis guard ordered Becker to stay there, under
threat of violence. That is by definition detaining
him. It is not something that I made up. Your
statement above is a fabrication and dishonest.
>You have made up the claim that the
>Loomis guard swore that Becker broke a law. You have made up the
>claim that the Loomis guard did something illegal. None of these
>claims are in any way supported. You are making up your story as you
>go along.
They are all clearly valid.
>You have made up the absurd claim that failure to anticipate that
>someone shooting a guard without warning is incompetence on the
>guard's part. You have made up the claim that soldiers are instructed
>to die.
All clearly valid.
>It's a debatable point whether or not Becker was illegally arrested or
>even arrested at all. It's clear that he was taken into custody.
So it *is* clear that he was arrested.
And it is awful hard to see what part of that arrest was
legal.
>This was done in order to determine his identity and to determine
>whether or not he had priors.
Which is not legal.
>Since no charge was made, it can't be
>said that the detainment/arrest was made illegally. Bringing someone
>in for questioning is not illegal.
It is if there is no legal reason to do so, as was the
case here.
Refusing to produce an ID is not a legal cause for
arrest.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 7:15 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:56:16 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <dShhCNJmPSNKFAJi@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
>><chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Was it actually determined the arrest was illegal. It sounded like
>>> "breach of the peace" to me.
>>
>>according to the police report he was arrested for failure to provide
>>id, not being combative or breaching the peace. that's illegal.
>>period.
>
>I have read the police report you provided several times. In no place
>does it say that he was arrested for failure to provide an ID. It
>says that he refused to provide an ID, but not that he was arrested
>for this. The report says he was uncooperative and continuously told
>(the officer) that he could be anywhere he wanted to be and did not
>need to answer any questions. That's pretty close to being
>"combative".
Being close won't get it. He is legally entitled to
refuse to produce an ID *and* to refuse to answer
questions.
>The subject of the police report is "Susp Cir/Trespass/Obstruction".
>
>You've picked up Flim-Flam Floyd's habit of making up things to make
>the story better.
"Susp Cir" is not a crime. He was told not to leave, therefore he
*cannot* be trespassing. The "Obstruction" is what you continue to
claim he was not arrested for: refusing to answer questions and
provide an ID.
That is a classic illegal arrest virtually by definition.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 7:27 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:49:57 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <a5ma351qff3n0jspkrg70b1pl9nun9a4gd@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I have read the police report you provided several times. In no place
>>> does it say that he was arrested for failure to provide an ID. It
>>> says that he refused to provide an ID, but not that he was arrested
>>> for this.
>>
>>so what was he arrested for?
>
>Susp Cir/Trespass/Obstruction? Questioning?
Which means there was no *legal* basis to arrest him!
Get it through you head Tony, police are not allowed to
arrest people just to question them. (You've been
watching too many TV shows.)
>>> The report says he was uncooperative and continuously told
>>> (the officer) that he could be anywhere he wanted to be and did not
>>> need to answer any questions. That's pretty close to being
>>> "combative".
>>
>>it's his right to be anywhere he wants
>
>This is about his demeanor during questioning, not where he was.
He refused to answer questions, a right that is
specified in the US Constitution (See the 5th
Amendment).
Arresting him for informing a police officer of his
Constitutional right is not legal.
>>(other than trespass which is not the case here)
>
>Store Security, according to the police report, asked that Becker be
>Criminally Trespassed. This was later retracted by an rei management
>spokesperson, but it's my opinion that this was a reversal for PR
>reasons by review of management but that Store Security did make the
>request at the time. The "Trespass" could refer to this, not to a
>charge of trespassing.
The point is that he was illegally arrested, apparently
for "trespass" that resulted directly from his being
detained.
Do you understand the logic in telling someone, under
threat of violence, that they cannot leave and then
arresting them for staying put?
>>> The subject of the police report is "Susp Cir/Trespass/Obstruction".
>>
>>suspicious circumstance maybe. trespass clearly not since he was never
>>asked to leave, but rather to stay. as for obstruction, tacoma v.
>>jones and cases referenced therein show that refusal to provide id is
>>*not* obstruction.
>
>That was the lawyer arrested at a protest march or something? I read
>that a few days ago, but it seemed to be about refusal to provide an
>ID not being obstruction if that was the only obstructive thing done.
>I don't recall that the lawyer refused to identify himself.
>
>>> You've picked up Flim-Flam Floyd's habit of making up things to make
>>> the story better.
>>
>>ad hominems work wonders for bolstering your case.
>
>I'm not attacking your character, but I am saying that you have
>embellished the story by adding "facts" not known. Not as blatantly
>as Floyd, though.
Your use of fallacious Ad Hominem is well known. Worse,
your refusal to accept obvious facts and clear logic is
a blatant deficiency in *your* presentations, not mine.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 7:37 pm
From: tony cooper
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:
"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."
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."
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."
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.
RTFMaterial.
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.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 7:44 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:11:40 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:37:53 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:42:48 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>>>>Davidson) 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.
>
>You really aren't good at logical progression of thought. The Loomis
>guard had no authority to arrest Becker (and did not do so), and no
>authority to back-up any instruction to not leave. Even Becker could
>figure that out.
Where is your "logical progression"? The guard told
Becker not to leave, and threatened him with physical
violence.
That is a detetion by definition.
The guard detained Becker and you admit he had no
authority to do so, and still you claim that it is not
harassment! (Absurd, and totally lacking in logical
progression.)
>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.
It's probably legal too! The illegal part began as soon
as they asked Becker a question and he informed them
that he was not going to answer it. The only legal
course of action at that point, lacking any probably
cause, is to cease harassing him and let him leave.
>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.
>>>>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.
>>>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.
>I repeat: you are making stuff up as you go along. You aren't even
>making up plausible lies.
You are unable to follow a logical sequence. That is
your problem, not mine.
>>>>Both actions were illegal.
>>>
>>>Your statements are completely unsupported by anything reported about
>>>this case.
>>
>>Your memory is a bit short?
>
>My memory includes what was actually reported in Shane's own words and
>what is in the police report.
Your memory doesn't seem to have enough space to
remember the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America. (Not to mention a lot of other
information that applies...)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 7:53 pm
From: tony cooper
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.
>>>And even then they do not have any authority of law.
>>>Even if they post "No Whatever" signs they cannot arrest
>>>anyone for doing "Whatever". All they can do at that
>>>point is ask them to leave, and *not leaving* would then
>>>be a criminal act (trespass).
>>
>>The rei store people did not arrest anyone.
>
>Nobody said otherwise, what's your point? Why did you
>not respond to the statement above?
The statement was not made by me. It was made by Chris. Look at the
> marks.
>"All they can do ... is ask them to leave", which is not
>what they did at all.
>
>>>>>Right, but arresting someone for not showing an ID is
>>>>>harassement.
>>
>>The Loomis guard did not arrest anyone.
>
>So why are you bringing it up? Nobody said they did.
>
>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.
Let's add "definition" to the list of words you don't understand.
>It is not something that I made up.
Of course it is. Read the narrative.
>Your
>statement above is a fabrication and dishonest.
>
>>You have made up the claim that the
>>Loomis guard swore that Becker broke a law. You have made up the
>>claim that the Loomis guard did something illegal. None of these
>>claims are in any way supported. You are making up your story as you
>>go along.
>
>They are all clearly valid.
Now let's add "valid" to the list.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment