rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Photomatix & HDR - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/438bde75c5450595?hl=en
* Is nothing sacred? :) Not in these groups or on E-bay! - 4 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/47a7464e2ecdc094?hl=en
* Recharging batteries in Japan - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cf03b4b254af5fa7?hl=en
* Why Use That POS Photomatix When There's Better Software? - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/756bc8a732d2cc09?hl=en
* How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers (was: Reason for so many focus
errors we see today?) - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1415c1c3e6a92134?hl=en
* Anything for the Perfect Shot - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
* ISP ending Usenet service: which free/cheap ones are best? - 7 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d3d77142c047e8f0?hl=en
* Olympus EP-1 focusing may doom it for DSLR users - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6b39aaf93aed311f?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photomatix & HDR
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/438bde75c5450595?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 7:24 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-29 06:56:03 -0700, Wayne R. <wruffner@KomKast.net> said:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote (with clarity & insight):
>
>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>> reasonable results.
>>
>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> To me it looks like it was shot 50 years ago and put in a magazine -
> it's got something about it but dang if I know what. Maybe it's the
> orange bark and yellow trees...
Well, I have been working on it, and have managed to get a better
balance. It was not taken in ideal lighting and was an experimental
first attempt at HDR.
With a little coaching, advice and tweeking this is where I got to;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HRD-1119-2021_tmD1w.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 7:43 am
From: bugbear
tony cooper wrote:
> The HDR examples I've seen are, to me, reminiscent of Thomas Kincade's
> "art". The gimmick factor outweighs everything else.
>
> That's not a knock on this technique. It's a comment regarding my own
> opinion of them. Photographs that do appeal to me are not necessarily
> appealing to others.
Well, here's a photo I took to illustrate the lighting
I used to photograph some saw teeth (one of my other hobbies
involves hand tools).
http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/saw_how_top_close.jpg
I make no claims for "Art" in this photo, since its purpose
was purely illustrative.
However, I found HDR techniques by far the most convenient way
to capture it.
And no unnatural colours (depending on your opinion
of my room's wallpaper :-)
BugBear
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 7:44 am
From: Too Funny!
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:24:04 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-06-29 06:56:03 -0700, Wayne R. <wruffner@KomKast.net> said:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:31:58 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote (with clarity & insight):
>>
>>> I have been dabbling with HDR both with CS4 (OK , but not great) &
>>> Photomatix Pro, which seems to give a fair degree of flexibility and
>>> reasonable results.
>>>
>>> Here is an image I have been working with from a recent Yosemite road
>>> trip. 3 exposures -1: 0: +1.
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yosemite-19-20-21-HDRtm-Dc1w.jpg
>>>
>>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> To me it looks like it was shot 50 years ago and put in a magazine -
>> it's got something about it but dang if I know what. Maybe it's the
>> orange bark and yellow trees...
>
>Well, I have been working on it, and have managed to get a better
>balance. It was not taken in ideal lighting
Yeah, that nasty ol' midday sunlight causes all sorts of huge color shifts
like that. I regularly use a midday-sunlight filter at all times to try to
prevent it. You should get one! LOL!
Did you mention the stone in your shoe yet. That your girdle was too tight?
Forgot your glasses? Or how about ... you don't even know how to use a
camera yet. That, at least, will be believable.
>and was an experimental
>first attempt at HDR.
SUUUUUURE it was. LOL!
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 8:38 am
From: bugbear
Savageduck wrote:
>
> Well just so you can see what I was working with here are the 3
> exposures resized only, no PP:
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1119w.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1120w.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1121w.jpg
Hmm; Im not really seeing any major difficulties in that
last exposure, but just to show willing I put the images
through hugin, with default settings throughout.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/bugbear33/photo_tech/hugin.jpg
BugBear
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 9:21 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-29 08:38:11 -0700, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>>
>> Well just so you can see what I was working with here are the 3
>> exposures resized only, no PP:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1119w.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1120w.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/1121w.jpg
>
> Hmm; Im not really seeing any major difficulties in that
> last exposure, but just to show willing I put the images
> through hugin, with default settings throughout.
>
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/bugbear33/photo_tech/hugin.jpg
>
> BugBear
Not bad considering you did not have the raw files. Those jpegs were
presented to demonstrate what I had done, and for others to see what
they might be able to do (with the limitation of the jpegs.)
...but the your result still did not provide the shadow recovery to the
point of view of my naked eye at the location.
It was one of those, "you had to be there" sort of scenes. It was 11:00
AM lighting.
The scene presented to my eye at the time did not have shadows as deep
as those in any of the 3 exposures. I knew the clouds would be blown if
I exposed to reveal the shadow detail I was actually seeing.
Matrix metering was not able to get to an acceptable solution, so
center weight was used at center of the image.
I thought this to be an appropriate time to try HDR and made that
choice, just as I made the choice to put my HDR naivety out here so I
could learn.
Only knowing the principles of HDR and not having used it before, I was
ignorant of some of what I should have done in planning the shot. Now I
know.
All in all though this has been an interesting exercise and I have
learned a lot
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 10:41 am
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:15:47 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-06-29 05:50:51 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> -----------<Le Snip>-----------------------
>
>> The HDR examples I've seen are, to me, reminiscent of Thomas Kincade's
>> "art". The gimmick factor outweighs everything else.
>
>The horror! The horror!
>>
>> That's not a knock on this technique. It's a comment regarding my own
>> opinion of them. Photographs that do appeal to me are not necessarily
>> appealing to others.
>
>Ken posted this link http://www.pbase.com/moorlands which gives me hope
>that some subtle results are achievable with HDR processing.
>What I am learning is, a fair degree of planning is needed to get
>decent results with HDR. Trying to save an image or capture in
>difficult light needs good preparation and I have seen examples which
>led me to believe it is possible to get pleasing results.
>
>The image I used for my initiation into HDR was not well planned as
>there were several factors I was ignorant of when I made the decission
>to try. I took the multiple exposures knowing this was going to be a
>learning project for me, and not knowing where it was going to lead, or
>the results I would get.
>
>I just used -1;0;+1 for the 3 exposures as I knew the concept and the
>ability of my D300. I did not know I should have minimally been using a
>-2 to +2 range with a minimum of 3 exposures, or as many as 9.
>
>Anyway I find the concept interesting, and I know pleasing results are
>achievable (please let them be far removed from your Kincade analogy!!)
>:-)
>
>...and I need all sorts of things to keep me out of bars with this
>retirement deal that I am just getting used to.
My comments are in no way a reflection on your efforts. I'm an
inveterate experimenter in Photoshop. I completely understand the
motivation to learn and master any type of technique.
I'll try things like post-processing in high key just to play around.
I may not like the results, but the trip is interesting.
I've never been one to criticize styles that I don't particularly care
for. It's kinda like anchovies on pizza: not for me, but I recognize
that my tastes are not universal.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 10:52 am
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:43:53 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> The HDR examples I've seen are, to me, reminiscent of Thomas Kincade's
>> "art". The gimmick factor outweighs everything else.
>>
>> That's not a knock on this technique. It's a comment regarding my own
>> opinion of them. Photographs that do appeal to me are not necessarily
>> appealing to others.
>
>Well, here's a photo I took to illustrate the lighting
>I used to photograph some saw teeth (one of my other hobbies
>involves hand tools).
>
>http://galootcentral.com/components/cpgalbums/userpics/10152/saw_how_top_close.jpg
>
>I make no claims for "Art" in this photo, since its purpose
>was purely illustrative.
>
>However, I found HDR techniques by far the most convenient way
>to capture it.
>
>And no unnatural colours (depending on your opinion
>of my room's wallpaper :-)
>
> BugBear
If that's HDR, it's minimalist enough to not be glaringly so. I am
much more impressed by the Rube Goldberg copy stand. I've put
together some similar contraptions for straight-down photography of
objects.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is nothing sacred? :) Not in these groups or on E-bay!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/47a7464e2ecdc094?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 7:34 am
From: Annika1980
On Jun 29, 1:40 am, ribbit <rib...@news.group> wrote:
> Robert Coe wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:38:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > : Ebay ad: see last image
> > :
> > :http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300326063462&viewi...
> > :
> > : Post I did in May:
> > :
> > :http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=14030
>
> > That's a nice picture, Rich. Good composition and technically correct. You had
> > me fooled; I didn't think you even owned a camera.
>
> > Bob
>
> Seriously Bob...
> Those who need to continually post links to mundane happy snaps and then
> abuse anyone who calls them that... Seem to have fooled many people. It
> seems you've fallen for it too. Does that tell you anything about your
> ability to judge character?
>
> At what point did you think Rich was not a good or even just a competent
> photographer?
>
> I used to post my commercial and non commercial photo and announce them
> specifically in these groups once. At about the time a jackass from
> Tennessee got his nose out of joint because I told him his 'pics' were
> crap... He stole a client's proof album off my web site ...took a few of
> my quite average photos (which I always leave in there to pad the size),
> altered them and re-posted them trying to ridicule me when he had no
> answer to the plain truth - he was posting happy snaps and not very good
> ones at that.
>
> I get about 10% junk with my wedding photography. Instead of getting 600
> usable frames, I end up with 540... Way more than I need to deliver.
>
> He's lucky to get 10% technically correct and then has to sort out those
> he didn't cut heads off and mess up the composure with! ROTFL. I know
> because when I downloaded his pbase and AOL sites, looking for images
> he'd stolen from me, I got all his crap wedding and family portrait
> photos too!
>
> Usenet changed for me about that time. Similar behaviour by a few
> zealots probably affected many photographers in much the same way at
> about the same time or earlier.
>
> Lisa Horton endured more hostility and disgusting personal attacks than
> anyone... She was as good a photographer as Rich. Do you see her posts
> any more? For that matter, do you see any of her Photos?
>
> I have no doubt Rich could go head to head with the best of them on
> technical images. Don't take the Mickey out of him (or anyone else)just
> because he (they) chooses not to.
>
> Take some worldly advise Bob... Those who need to YELL ABOUT THEIR
> PHOTOS are the insecure ones who need uneducated posters to keep telling
> them how good they are lest they realise how bad they are.
>
> --
> D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
> With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
> I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!
Obsess much?
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:47 am
From: Rich
On Jun 28, 2:38 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ebay ad: see last image
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300326063462&viewi...
>
> Post I did in May:
>
> http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=14030
The guy emailed me on Ebay and asked if it was wrong to have used the
image. I explained to him about using someone's else's images for
personal commercial gain. It was a case of clear misunderstanding on
this guy's part.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:17 pm
From: abo mahab
Descriptions of Allah
Published by Alyaa on 2009/4/19 (38 reads) The Qur'an, however,
attributes to Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) certain descriptions like
for instance:
The Beneficent is firmly established on the throne.( 20:5 )
Everything will perish except his Countenance.( 28:88 )
That you are brought up under my eye.( 20:29 )
Allah's hand is above their hands.( 48:10 )
The heavens are rolled in his right hand.( 39:67 )
One whom I created with my two hands.( 38:75 )
And the like. How can we understand these descriptions? Does Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) have organs similar to ours? These and other
verses in the Qur'an are part of what is called allegorical verses in
the holy book whose real meaning only Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala)
knows. This is referred to in the following verse:
It is He who has sent down to you the book, in it are verses of
established meaning, they are the foundation of the book while others
are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversion follow what
is allegorical in it seeking discord and attempting to interpolate it.
No one, however, knows its real interpretation except Allah. Those who
are firmly grounded in knowledge say: we believe in it; each is from
our lord. No one will remember except those who have reason.( 3:7 )
Based on this verse and following the injunctions of prophet Muhammad
p.b.u.h. Early scholars including leaders of the major four schools of
thought took the following attitude. They said: we believe in these
descriptions of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) but leave the knowledge of
their reality to Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala). We should abstain from
interpreting them on the lines of similar descriptions ascribed to
humans; this is simply because as prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h. Warned us:
think of Allah's creation and never think of Allah, for you will never
appreciate him as he deserves.(6) also Muslim scholars said that
whatever we think of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala), he is totally
different from what we think about him. In sahih Muslim Abu Hurairah
said: people will continue to argue and dispute until it is said: this
is the creation of Allah who created Allah? Whoever finds anything
like this let him say: i believe in Allah.(7) we glorify Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) from the imagined description that might come to
our minds. This is because it is impossible for Allah (Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala) to be similar to mortals. Commenting on the verse that says:
The Beneficent is firmly established on the throne.( 20:5 )
Ummu Salama wife of prophet Muhammad said: it is not possible to
imagine how, but the divine establishment on the throne is not
unknown; faith requires that we accept this without any questions for
denying it borders on disbelief. The same attitude is adopted by early
scholars like Imam Malek and many others. Prominent scholars even
today have the same conviction. Another group of scholars, however,
tend to interpret these divine attributes in such a manner that
becomes the glory of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) although they warn
against taking them to be literally equivalent to human qualities. One
example of their approach is their interpretation of verse 75 chapter
38 where they took the two hands of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) to be
only for confirmation and to assert Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala)'s care
of his slave Adam.
In addition to the above two approaches the closer of which to Islamic
creed is the former although the latter is not excluded, there were
some perverted attitudes influenced by alien philosophies like the
Greek and other philosophies. One claimed that all these descriptions
are identical to human ones. Another group gave incarnate descriptions
of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) while a third group went to the other
extreme and denied all description of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala).
These groups died in the bud; and the only ones that remained to exist
are the first two which are very close to each other. The Qur'an gives
us a conclusive answer when it says about Allah (Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala):
Nothing is like Him and He is the Hearer, the Seer. ( 42:11 )
Based on this verse we can safely confirm these descriptions but we do
not compare them to any others. Rather we believe in them and accept
them as they are.
Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) does not perish:
Every soul will taste of death; and you will be paid your wages on the
day of judgement. Whoever is removed from the fire and is made to
enter paradise, he indeed is triumphant; and the life of the world is
but comfort of illusion. (3:185 )
One God in Heaven and Earth:
And He it is who is in heaven is God, and in the earth God; and he is
the Wise, the Knower. And blessed be he unto whom belongs the
sovereignty of heavens and earth and what is between them and with him
is the knowledge of the hour; and to him you will be returned. And
those unto whom they cry instead of him possess no power of
intercession, save them who bear witness to the truth in a state of
knowledge. If you ask them who created them, they will surely say:
Allah. How then are they turned away?( 43:84-88 )
Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) is the only lord of all:
Lord of the east and the west, there is no God save him. So choose him
alone for your defender. (73:9 )
A conclusive verse about Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) is the one
towards the end of chapter two that says:
Unto Allah belongs whatsoever is in heavens and whatsoever is in the
earth; and whether you reveal what is in yourselves or conceal it
Allah will bring you to account for it. He will forgive whom he will
and he will punish whom he will and Allah is capable of all things.
The messenger (Muhammad) believed in that which was revealed to him
from his Lord and so did believers. Each one believed in Allah, His
angels, His books and His messengers; and they said: we heard and we
obeyed. Your forgiveness our Lord. Unto You is the journeying. Allah
tasks not a soul beyond its capacity. For it is that which it has
earned and against it is that which it committed. Our Lord! Condemn us
not if we forget or err. Our Lord! Lay not on us such a burden as you
did lay on those before us. Our Lord! Impose not on us that which we
have not the strength to bear. And pardon us, forgive us and have
mercy on. You are our protector. So grant us victory over disbelieving
folk. ( 2:284-286 )
The ninety nine attributes:
Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h. Said: "Allah has ninety nine names one
hundred minus one, whoever counts them will enter paradise".(8) the
Qur'an also confirms this fact:
Unto Allah belong the most beautiful attributes, appeal to Him through
them; and leave the company of those who blaspheme his names. They
will be requited what they used to do.( 7:180 )
And again:
Allah: there is no God save Him. His are the most beautiful names.
( 20:8 )
So according to these statements and verses of the Qur'an what are the
ninety nine names of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala)? They are mentioned
in the Qur'an. We already quoted the greatest verse in the Qur'an
called the verse of the divine chair 2:255. Sometimes the Qur'an
mentions a number of these divine names together. Sometimes a couple
of them conclude some verses of the Qur'an and this happens very often
in the holy book. Numerous verses are concluded with two attributes of
Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) that are appropriate to the context and
the theme of the verses. If the context is one that extols the power
and wisdom of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala), then the conclusion is
thus: and he is the mighty, the wise. If the verse speaks about
forgiveness and mercy, then the conclusion is thus: and he is the all-
forgiving, the merciful and so on and so forth. Most of the time many
verses are concluded with two attributes; and very rarely with one.
Before we review the ninety nine names or attributes of Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) let us quote a few verses that mention several
divine names. In chapter 59 we read:
He is Allah, than whom there is no other God; the Knower of the unseen
and visible. He is the Beneficent, the Merciful. He is Allah, than
whom there is no other God, the Sovereign Lord, the Holy One, the
Peace, the Keeper of faith, the Guardian, the Majestic, the Compeller,
the Superb. Glorified be Allah from all that they ascribe as partners
(to him). He is Allah the Creator, the Evolver, the Fashioner. His are
the most beautiful names; and He is the Mighty, the Wise.( 59:22-24 )
Now that we have reviewed some divine attributes, let us enumerate the
ninety nine names that any one who counts them and believes in them
will enter paradise.
Allah is: the Beneficent, the Merciful, the Sovereign, the Holy One,
the Source of Peace, the Guardian of Faith, the Overwhelming, the
Mighty, the Irresistible, the Supreme, the Creator, the Evolver, the
Fashioner, the Ever Forgiving, the Subduer, the Grantor of Bounties,
the Provider, the All-Knowing Judge, the All- Knower, the Withholder,
the Extender, the Abaser, the Exalter, the Honourer, the Humiliator,
the All-Hearer, the All-Seer, the Arbiter, the Justice, Beyond All
Comprehension, the All-Aware, the Most Forebearing, the Glorious, the
Oft- Forgiver, the Most Thankful, the Mot High, the Greatest, the
Guardian, the Saviour, the Holder of Careful Accounts, the Majestic,
the Generous, the Watcher, the Rresponder, the All-Eembracing, the
Wise, the Most Loving, the Owner of Glory, the Resurrector, the
Witness, the Truth, the Most Trusted One, the Powerful, the Steadfast,
the Patron, the Praiseworthy, the Keeper of All Statistics, the
Beginner of Creation, the Restorer of life, the Giver of life, the
Causer of death, the Ever Living, the Self Subsisting, the Founder,
the Deserver of all Praise and Honour, the One, the Eternal Absolute,
the Capable, the Omnipotent, the Forwarder, the Giver of Respite, the
First, the Last, the Manifest, the Invisible, the Protector, the Most
Eminent, the Source of All Good, the Acceptor of Repentance, the
Punisher, the Pardoner, the Most Kind, the Owner of the Universe, the
Lord of Majesty, Bounty and Honour, the Just, the Gatherer, the Self
Sufficient, the Giver of Wealth, the Preventer, the Harmer, the Giver
of Profit, the Light, the Guide, the Orginator, the Everlasting, the
Inheritor, the Most Upright, the Most Patient.
These are the important divine names agreed upon by many scholars
based on the Qur'an. It is not enough, however, to enter paradise just
to count the ninety nine divine attributes mentioned earlier, but one
has to believe in them seriously and to manifest his belief in pious
actions. So it is not simply a lip service to them; but rather the
sincere commitment to these attributes that brings salvation and
bliss.
There are also other names of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala); some
scholars counted more than two hundred as Imam al-Qurtubi says in his
Qur'anic interpretation volume 7 page 325. One may notice some
similarities in the names, or may even claim the existence of
repetition among them. This is not the case. It is only the difficulty
to translate their meanings that might give this wrong impression.
I remember once an argument between a Muslim scholar and a Christian
priest. The latter imagined that he caught something against Islam
when he said: you blame us for saying that god is a trinity while you
have ninety nine gods. The Muslim scholar laughed and then said: don't
confuse between attributes or names of the one god, and the trinity
which is three persons. These attributes describe the only one god in
his capacities, qualities and actions. They all refer to the same god,
the one divine being.
Some perverted people evolved some so-called miracles around number
19. They said that it is composed of two simple numbers, namely 1
which is the first simple number. Thus they claim that it refers to
god being the first, and 9 which is the last simple number, thus,
according to them it refers to god as the last. Based on these claims
they said that this number refers to Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) the
first and the last and they thus claim that it is the foundation of
the Qur'an. They then took one more step and said that the first verse
in the Qur'an which occurs at the beginning of every chapter of the
holy book namely: in the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful
is composed in Arabic of 19 letters. Then they began to make baseless
conclusions. They even reached the extreme and said that the day of
judgement will take place after more than 250 years or so and their
leader finally declared himself a messenger of Allah (Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala)! The fact of the matter is that the whole theory falls to
ashes when we confirm that the said verse on which they based their
theory is, in fact, 21 letters and not 19. The Qur'an or god, for that
matter, does not need these baseless claims. He is enough for
believers and his book the Qur'an, introduces him without the need of
any further theories.
God is not Muhammad:
Some non-Muslim writers call Muslims Muhammadans and Islam
Muhammadanism as an analogy of Christianity called after Jesus Christ,
Buddhism called after buddha etc. Muslims do not worship Muhammad or
any other. Their only deity is Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) the god.
Muhammad was nothing but the trusted conveyer of Allah (Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala)'s message. The most honourable title given to Muhammad in the
holy Qur'an is that he is the slave and messenger of Allah (Subhanahu
Wa Ta'ala) almighty. He himself warned his followers not to raise him
above his human status. He said: only say i am the slave and messenger
of Allah.(9)
Another important distortion that has to be clear is the claim that
the Qur'an is the word of Muhammad. Time and again the Qur'an asserts
that it is the revelation of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala). The Qur'an
says:
And if he (Muhammad) had invented false sayings concerning Us, We
would assuredly had taken him by the right hand; and We would have
then severed his life artery.( 69:44-46 )
About the Qur'an we read in the same holy book:
It is the revelation of the Lord of the Worlds; the Honest Spirit
descended with it unto your heart (Muhammad) so that you may be one of
the warners, in a clear Arabic tongue.( 29:192-195 )
Muhammad p.b.u.h. Was not the first but the last messenger of Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala). A series of prophets before him were sent by
Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) to different people at various times
conveying the same message of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala). The problem
of some people is that they do not understand the position of
prophets. On the one hand these prophets were not self appointed
individuals who claimed divine descent but they were chosen by Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) based on their piety and righteous deeds. And as
all previous messages were changed or lost, Muhammad, the praised one,
was sent by Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) with the last message to the
worlds. He is the last messenger simply because his message is the
culmination and completion of all previous messages. That is why Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) preserved the Qur'an. The holy book Muslims have
today is exactly the same book revealed to Muhammad p.b.u.h. Over
fourteen centuries ago. Why then should we have another message or
another prophet?
To conclude, this is how Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) is described in
the Qur'an the word of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) to all the worlds.
It is time to listen to Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) and believe in his
word that shows us the way to him and to salvation. This booklet is
just an attempt to guide the fair minded people to Allah (Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala) the Almighty the Only Lord.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:47 pm
From: Eric Stevens
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:47:42 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Jun 28, 2:38 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ebay ad: see last image
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300326063462&viewi...
>>
>> Post I did in May:
>>
>> http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=14030
>
>The guy emailed me on Ebay and asked if it was wrong to have used the
>image. I explained to him about using someone's else's images for
>personal commercial gain. It was a case of clear misunderstanding on
>this guy's part.
But wasn't he also claiming that _your_ image had been taken via _his_
lens? That's not quite straight either.
Eric Stevens
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Recharging batteries in Japan
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cf03b4b254af5fa7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 8:06 am
From: Jürgen Exner
"James King" <machocraig@hotmail.com> wrote:
>We live in the US and plan to visit Japan next week.
>I am going to take Nikon D90 and Canon SD 890 cameras.
>Do I need an adaptor to charge batteries in Japan?
No, you will need a batterie charger, just like anywhere else.
Did you mean to ask, if your need an adapter to use your existing
batterie charger in Japan?
That depends. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_mains_power_plugs,_voltages_and_frequencies
in general no, but in particular in this case details can be finicky.
You didn't say what charger you are using, actually just the specs would
be interesting, voltage and frequency.
Japan has even lower nominal voltage than the US (100V versus 120V)
which may or may not be enough for your charger. If it isn't (how is
your charger rated?), then you need a transformer anyway instead of a
simple plug adapter.
Frequency may be different (some areas 50Hz versus universal 60Hz),
however most charger are universal and don't care (how is your charger
rated?).
And while the plugs in Japan are type A, too, there seem to be some
peculiarities in older installations, you may want to read the
country-specific details in that list above
>Jorge
I thought your name is James King?
jue
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Use That POS Photomatix When There's Better Software?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/756bc8a732d2cc09?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 8:57 am
From: bugbear
Ken wrote:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/moorlands
>
> Hi you may be interested to know why about a week ago I started looking
> at HDR? It is because I came across this gallery and was very impressed.
> Take alook and let me know what you think. The guyuses Photomatix.
Hmm. If you look at that guy's photo's BEFORE he used HDR they also
have that "a little more saturated and contrasty than nature" look.
My conclusion is that he's been messing with tone-mapping (in
the general sense) for a very long time, and has mastered it,
at least to the degree that he can achieve what he's aiming for.
I suspect that even if the HDR software gave results that weren't
what he wanted, his "usual techniques" in PhotoShop (or similar)
would soon have things back on track.
BugBear
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers (was: Reason for so many
focus errors we see today?)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1415c1c3e6a92134?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 9:02 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009062906520711272-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-06-29 05:44:41 -0700, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
> said:
>
>>
>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:i2ma451te3528rni8k9ts34mujtatb2frb@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:28:58 +0100, "whisky-dave"
>>> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes in a manor of speaking. The new Apple iPhone, when used as a
>>>> camera
>>>> you touch the screen to select what you want the camera to focus on.
>>>
>>> Some Nikon [e.g. D300] cameras allow you to select the point of the
>>> image you wish to focus on.
>>
>> How do they do that, or how it is achived. ?
>
> For the iPhone I suspect there is a programmed option, how it is
> implemented, I would just be guessing.
>
> As far as the D300 and some other Nikon DSLRs go, up to 51 focus points
> including 51 point 3D tracking, manually selectable using the multi
> selector, single point AF, dynamic area AF, predictive focus tracking (51
> pnt 3D tracking), Auto-area AF.
So you have to decide what you want in focus before taking the shot.
For me that's another thing to add to shutter delay.
If you're taking a shot and you have a cobweb in the corner of the shot
a potrait of a person wearign a hat in the centre and a UFO flying above
thier head
how would the camra know where to focus.
Easy if you have spot AF, but that makes framing difficult.
It'd be nice to be able to get home and them decide which of the 3 (in this
case)
images should be the sharp, one, two or all 3.
I guess I could always dig out my old Polaroid Land 110B with the f64 stop
pin hole,
but I don't think I can get the film, and it won't fit in my pocket like my
P&S :)
I'd prefer to focus after the pictures been taken, perhaps not possible yet,
but in the future I believe that it will be possible, and I don't mean by
artificially
sharpening via contrast control.
>
> ...and then there is manual focus as a final option.
Although I don't do it that much, it is/would be still my preferred method
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 9:19 am
From: Jürgen Exner
"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>
>> As far as the D300 and some other Nikon DSLRs go, up to 51 focus points
>> including 51 point 3D tracking, manually selectable using the multi
>> selector, single point AF, dynamic area AF, predictive focus tracking (51
>> pnt 3D tracking), Auto-area AF.
>
>So you have to decide what you want in focus before taking the shot.
Well, yeah, usually it is a good thing to decide what you want in focus
before taking the shot. For me that's standard practice, don't know
about others, thou.
>For me that's another thing to add to shutter delay.
>
>If you're taking a shot and you have a cobweb in the corner of the shot
>a potrait of a person wearign a hat in the centre and a UFO flying above
>thier head
>how would the camra know where to focus.
At least my camera will cycle through different likely objects if you
release the half-pressed shutter and and then half-press it again.
>Easy if you have spot AF, but that makes framing difficult.
Why? That's the other standard way I am using: if the camera doesn't get
the focus object right by the let's say the third try then move the
center to the desired object, half-press the shutter, re-frame, and
click.
>> ...and then there is manual focus as a final option.
>Although I don't do it that much, it is/would be still my preferred method
If all else fails, yes, as a last resort. Certainly not always but most
of the time automatic focus is more accurate, faster, and also quicker
to use.
jue
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:07 pm
From: Eric Stevens
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:44:41 +0100, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:i2ma451te3528rni8k9ts34mujtatb2frb@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:28:58 +0100, "whisky-dave"
>> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>
>>>
>
>
>>>> Do you honestly think that any automatic focusing system in the world is
>>>> ever going to be smart enough to figure out if you want the leading edge
>>>> of
>>>> that small-butterfly's wing, the antennae, or the further wing edges in
>>>> precise focus?
>>>
>>>Yes in a manor of speaking. The new Apple iPhone, when used as a camera
>>>you touch the screen to select what you want the camera to focus on.
>>
>> Some Nikon [e.g. D300] cameras allow you to select the point of the
>> image you wish to focus on.
>
>How do they do that, or how it is achived. ?
>
See
http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Nikon-D300-Digital-SLR-Camera-Pg2.shtml
Under the heading of 'Auto-area AF' you will see an animation of a
single focus point leaping around the view finder window. In fact it
doesn't leap: you move it around with the multi-control button which
acts as a set of cursor keys. You can work the button with your right
thumb while peering through the view finder.
Eric Stevens
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anything for the Perfect Shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 9:30 am
From: John Navas
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:25:09 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<FHk1m.48316$OO7.29963@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>Bill Graham wrote:
>[]
>> You could be right. But, the things I don't like about Vista are the
>> idiot proofing.....I want an operating system that expects the user
>> to know what he is doing. (Even if I don't) That's how I learn. So, I
>> will like W7 if it allows me to do what I want. I hate VISTA because
>> it makes it hard for me to do what I want.....
>
>Although I would strongly advise against it, turning off User
>Authorisation Control (UAC) will remove a lot of the "idiot proofing".
>
> http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/disable-user-account-control-uac-the-easy-way-on-windows-vista/
Kinda like taking the seatbelts out of a car so you don't have to
"waste" time and space buckling up.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ISP ending Usenet service: which free/cheap ones are best?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d3d77142c047e8f0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 10:09 am
From: Paul Furman
SMS wrote:
> AKT wrote:
>> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>>
>>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>>
>> Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
>
> Depending on where you are, you might look for a provider that isn't
> discontinuing Usenet, rather than looking for free Usenet service.
>
> But check out "https://news.individual.net/".
I've been fine with the free motzarella.org service for about a week.
Funny though, when I tried reading this thread last night, I had reached
the daily limit:
http://www.eternal-september.org/
"The number of connections per day and per user has been limited to 1200."
Which is fine really... if I reach that limit I should go out & play in
the sun for a while <g>.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 10:47 am
From: Miles
* Paul Furman wrote, On 6/29/2009 10:09:
> SMS wrote:
>> AKT wrote:
>>> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>>>
>>>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>>>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>>> Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
>> Depending on where you are, you might look for a provider that isn't
>> discontinuing Usenet, rather than looking for free Usenet service.
>>
>> But check out "https://news.individual.net/".
>
> I've been fine with the free motzarella.org service for about a week.
> Funny though, when I tried reading this thread last night, I had reached
> the daily limit:
> http://www.eternal-september.org/
> "The number of connections per day and per user has been limited to 1200."
> Which is fine really... if I reach that limit I should go out & play in
> the sun for a while <g>.
>
Perhaps you are downloading the msgs in their entirety, not simply the
headers?
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 10:48 am
From: "Lumpy"
Miles wrote:
> Perhaps you are downloading the msgs in their entirety, not simply the
> headers?
From six different, cross-posted newsgroups!
Pay the fuckin' 13 bucks per year for individual.net
from the Univ of Berlin.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Something Years
www.LumpyMusic.com
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:17 am
From: Paul Furman
Miles wrote:
> * Paul Furman wrote, On 6/29/2009 10:09:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> AKT wrote:
>>>> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>>>>
>>>>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>>>>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>>>> Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
>>> Depending on where you are, you might look for a provider that isn't
>>> discontinuing Usenet, rather than looking for free Usenet service.
>>>
>>> But check out "https://news.individual.net/".
>>
>> I've been fine with the free motzarella.org service for about a week.
>> Funny though, when I tried reading this thread last night, I had
>> reached the daily limit:
>> http://www.eternal-september.org/
>> "The number of connections per day and per user has been limited to
>> 1200."
>> Which is fine really... if I reach that limit I should go out & play
>> in the sun for a while <g>.
>>
>
> Perhaps you are downloading the msgs in their entirety, not simply the
> headers?
Just headers and I actually read a fairly small percentage. There are 4
photo groups I frequent (11 others I rarely visit but header counts
load) and I use a lot of filters to mark as read as well as marking
cross-posted threads ignored so a whole lot of headers... I kind of
doubt I actually viewed 1,200 messages yesterday though I guess it's
possible... I flip through them pretty quickly with hot keys in thunderbird.
--
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:22 am
From: John Navas
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:48:45 -0700, "Lumpy"
<lumpy@digitalcartography.com> wrote in
<7asd5lF1vr6giU1@mid.individual.net>:
>Miles wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you are downloading the msgs in their entirety, not simply the
>> headers?
>
>From six different, cross-posted newsgroups!
>
>Pay the fuckin' 13 bucks per year for individual.net
>from the Univ of Berlin.
Usenet-News
Current prices for Lifetime Block download accounts
Block size Cost/block
2 GB $ 2.00 1.00 USD/GB
5 GB $ 3.00 0.60 USD/GB
10 GB $ 5.00 0.50 USD/GB
20 GB $ 8.00 0.40 USD/GB
30 GB $ 10.00 0.33 USD/GB
50 GB $ 15.00 0.30 USD/GB
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:48 am
From: Miles
* Paul Furman wrote, On 6/29/2009 11:17:
> Miles wrote:
>> * Paul Furman wrote, On 6/29/2009 10:09:
>>> SMS wrote:
>>>> AKT wrote:
>>>>> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>>>>>
>>> I've been fine with the free motzarella.org service for about a week.
>>> Funny though, when I tried reading this thread last night, I had
>>> reached the daily limit:
>>> http://www.eternal-september.org/
>>> "The number of connections per day and per user has been limited to
>>> 1200."
>>> Which is fine really... if I reach that limit I should go out & play
>>> in the sun for a while <g>.
>>>
>> Perhaps you are downloading the msgs in their entirety, not simply the
>> headers?
>
> Just headers and I actually read a fairly small percentage. There are 4
> photo groups I frequent (11 others I rarely visit but header counts
> load) and I use a lot of filters to mark as read as well as marking
> cross-posted threads ignored so a whole lot of headers... I kind of
> doubt I actually viewed 1,200 messages yesterday though I guess it's
> possible... I flip through them pretty quickly with hot keys in thunderbird.
>
Interesting, yesterday I registered with motzarella and opened 14
groups with 20,341 msgs. Opened perhaps 100 of those headers to
ascertain importance and mark in red (Thunderbird coloring). Also had
to change all from sort by ascending to descending, but don't believe
that would be seen on their computers.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 12:20 pm
From: Paul Furman
Miles wrote:
> * Paul Furman wrote, On 6/29/2009 11:17:
>> Miles wrote:
>>> * Paul Furman wrote, On 6/29/2009 10:09:
>>>
>>>> I've been fine with the free motzarella.org service for about a
>>>> week. Funny though, when I tried reading this thread last night, I
>>>> had reached the daily limit:
>>>> http://www.eternal-september.org/
>>>> "The number of connections per day and per user has been limited to
>>>> 1200."
>>>> Which is fine really... if I reach that limit I should go out & play
>>>> in the sun for a while <g>.
>>>>
>>> Perhaps you are downloading the msgs in their entirety, not simply
>>> the headers?
>>
>> Just headers and I actually read a fairly small percentage. There are
>> 4 photo groups I frequent (11 others I rarely visit but header counts
>> load) and I use a lot of filters to mark as read as well as marking
>> cross-posted threads ignored so a whole lot of headers... I kind of
>> doubt I actually viewed 1,200 messages yesterday though I guess it's
>> possible... I flip through them pretty quickly with hot keys in
>> thunderbird.
>
> Interesting, yesterday I registered with motzarella and opened 14 groups
> with 20,341 msgs. Opened perhaps 100 of those headers to ascertain
> importance and mark in red (Thunderbird coloring). Also had to change
> all from sort by ascending to descending, but don't believe that would
> be seen on their computers.
Good point. I must have actually opened 1,200 messages yesterday because
when I first set it up I had to download a zillion messages to get up to
date.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus EP-1 focusing may doom it for DSLR users
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6b39aaf93aed311f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 29 2009 11:09 am
From: Paul Furman
bugbear wrote:
> Sigh ... More Morons To Educate wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:51:51 -0400, Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <fgfc45hrndge6k7l9edgruervvuq9ei2v5@4ax.com>, Steven Wandy
>>> <swandy@si.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure about that. When I was using my last P&S (Canon G7) my major
>>>> disappointment was the IQ - especially in low light or at higher ISOs
>>>> - and the EP1 will certainly be an improvement there.
>>> P&S may be getting better but their shutter lag is still deficient. The
>>> main pro of DSLR's over P&S, and also the EP-1 over P&S from the looks
>>> of the samples, is the IQ as you say. Point and Shoots can have great
>>> results in daylight, often can't see the difference from a DSLR, but in
>>> low light conditions Point and Shoots are poor.
>>
>> Too bad that you missed the moonlight shot and starlight-only shots that
>> were posted from a P&S camera about a week ago.
>
> Link?
He posted a few pics last week and pulled them before I got a chance to
see them. If anyone saved copies, I'd be interested in an email... just
remove hyphens around the -@-.
==============================================================================
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