Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 11 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 7:45 am
From: "Matt Clara"

"John Martin" <johnmartin99@invalid.tt.net> wrote in message
news:slrnh2vgl7.3h2.johnmartin99@dogstar.talktalk.net...
> On 2009-06-10, Matt Clara <none@myexpense.com> wrote:
>> "AKT" <akt@null.void> wrote in message
>> news:090620090938243222%akt@null.void...
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> Comcast did the same thing months ago now. CHeck out these guys:
>> http://usenet-news.net/
>> They allow you to buy bandwidth by the block, so I paid $10 about 6
>> months
>> ago. For that sum I received 30GB of data transfer. I do freqent some
>> binary groups, like alt.binaries.3d.poser, but even with those images I'm
>> downloading, in that 6 months I've used less than 1 GB of data. At this
>> rate, 30GB is going to last 15 years. Best $10 I've spent in some time.
>>
>> Their retention is good, though not all posts show up--in some instances
>> I'm
>> not seeing the first post in a thread, but can see all of the responses
>> to
>> that post and chime in if I'd like--good enough for me!
>>
>
> Albasani is free
>

Yes, and I have a contract with my provider, along with tech support if
needed, and [insert name of any free usenet provider] users do not.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 9:53 am
From: Don Lancaster

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

OMG is not currently reachable.
Besides, that would be forgery.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

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

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 8:29 am
From: John McWilliams

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:46:48 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
> wrote in <87d49ctacn.fld@apaflo.com>:
>
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:01:18 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>> wrote in <8763f4vagx.fld@apaflo.com>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:09:28 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>>>> wrote in <87zlcgvnzb.fld@apaflo.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Cohen <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I don't use PhotoShop, but the method is rather
>>>>>>>> generic.
>>>>>> Keep the term *generic* in mind. This is not, was it was
>>>>>> explicitly stated, a PhotoShop method, nor specific to any
>>>>>> particular editor.
>>>>> The OP asked for a method in Photoshop Elements.
>>>> This will blow you mind John, but the OP is not the only person
>>>> who will read what was in that article. Likewise the OP may not
>>>> always be using that same software.
>>> Not to worry -- my mind still seems to be pretty much the same (for
>>> better or for worse). I personally think it's not terribly helpful to
>>> suggest a solution that's not responsive to the original question, but
>>> then I'm guessing you weren't paying all that much attention to the
>>> original question ... hmmm? ;)
>>>
>>> "Stay on target, Luke, stay on target!"
>> Did you by any chance notice that my article actually was
>> useful, and the video you recommended was not?
>
> Once again we'll have to agree to disagree. [gasp!]
> What I actually posted was a number of different responsive solutions.

It may be helpful, John, to know that Floyd has never been wrong in the
photo NGs....

--
john mcwilliams

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 8:57 am
From: John Navas

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:29:01 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote in <h0ojft$5r6$1@news.eternal-september.org>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:46:48 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>> wrote in <87d49ctacn.fld@apaflo.com>:
>>
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:01:18 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>>> wrote in <8763f4vagx.fld@apaflo.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:09:28 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>>>>> wrote in <87zlcgvnzb.fld@apaflo.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Cohen <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I don't use PhotoShop, but the method is rather
>>>>>>>>> generic.
>>>>>>> Keep the term *generic* in mind. This is not, was it was
>>>>>>> explicitly stated, a PhotoShop method, nor specific to any
>>>>>>> particular editor.
>>>>>> The OP asked for a method in Photoshop Elements.
>>>>> This will blow you mind John, but the OP is not the only person
>>>>> who will read what was in that article. Likewise the OP may not
>>>>> always be using that same software.
>>>> Not to worry -- my mind still seems to be pretty much the same (for
>>>> better or for worse). I personally think it's not terribly helpful to
>>>> suggest a solution that's not responsive to the original question, but
>>>> then I'm guessing you weren't paying all that much attention to the
>>>> original question ... hmmm? ;)
>>>>
>>>> "Stay on target, Luke, stay on target!"
>>> Did you by any chance notice that my article actually was
>>> useful, and the video you recommended was not?
>>
>> Once again we'll have to agree to disagree. [gasp!]
>> What I actually posted was a number of different responsive solutions.
>
>It may be helpful, John, to know that Floyd has never been wrong in the
>photo NGs....

Thanks for the tip. ;)

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

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 8:58 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-10 08:13:08 -0700, C J Campbell
<christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> said:

> On 2009-06-09 07:26:08 -0700, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> said:
>
>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>
>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>>
>> Regards Brian
>>
>
> Create a new layer and use Gaussian blur to blur the entire picture to
> what you want. Then use the History brush to paint back the portions
> you want sharp.

Actually CJ, that seems to be a pretty simple & elegant solution which
should work for the OP and his copy of Elements.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 9:17 am
From: John Navas

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:58:45 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
<2009061008584599374-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom>:

>On 2009-06-10 08:13:08 -0700, C J Campbell
><christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> On 2009-06-09 07:26:08 -0700, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> said:
>>
>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>
>>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.

>> Create a new layer and use Gaussian blur to blur the entire picture to
>> what you want. Then use the History brush to paint back the portions
>> you want sharp.
>
>Actually CJ, that seems to be a pretty simple & elegant solution which
>should work for the OP and his copy of Elements.

There is no History Brush in Elements, only in full Photoshop.
Work-around:
<http://www.adobetutorialz.com/articles/336/1/How-can-I-simulate-Photoshop%92s-History-brush-when-using-Elements%3F>

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

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 9:37 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-10 08:13:08 -0700, C J Campbell
<christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> said:

I just tried that technique, and as a quick fix it does a pretty good
job and is very easy. Certainly other work might need to be done on the
final product, but the effect is simple to implement.

Here is your technique used on the snapshot I had done a quick fix on
earlier. It could do with some other work, but it demonstrates the
effect.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Jeni_0290a3w.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 9:39 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-10 09:17:40 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> said:

> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:58:45 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
> <2009061008584599374-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom>:
>
>> On 2009-06-10 08:13:08 -0700, C J Campbell
>> <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On 2009-06-09 07:26:08 -0700, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> said:
>>>
>>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>>
>>>> I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>
>>> Create a new layer and use Gaussian blur to blur the entire picture to
>>> what you want. Then use the History brush to paint back the portions
>>> you want sharp.
>>
>> Actually CJ, that seems to be a pretty simple & elegant solution which
>> should work for the OP and his copy of Elements.
>
> There is no History Brush in Elements, only in full Photoshop.
> Work-around:
> <http://www.adobetutorialz.com/articles/336/1/How-can-I-simulate-Photoshop%92s-History-brush-when-using-Elements%3F>

Oops!
>
I haven't used Elements for years.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 8:56 am
From: John Navas

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:09:53 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <100620091109532326%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <q8du25hgr4n333sehs0hhg83m26g6ijf6k@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> Wasn't an option for me, since Canon orphaned its excellent FD mount
>> >> >> lenses, but the Leica-branded lens on my FZ28 is likewise excellent.
>> >> >
>> >> >the fd mount needed an overhaul.
>> >>
>> >> To the contrary, arguably the most rugged and durable mount of any SLR
>> >> system, but expensive and a bit less convenient for casual users.
>> >
>> >uh, no. canon tried to further the fd mount and quickly realized it
>> >needed a complete overhaul. the mechanics of the fd mount made it very
>> >difficult to extend its functionality for autofocus and other features.
>> >there was also no wiping action to help keep electronic contacts clean.
>> >they also took the opportunity for changing the mount to woo nikon
>> >users. it worked out very well.
>>
>> On the contrary, the breech lock mount was excellent, and original FD
>> glass is still highly prized. The problem came from the "new FD"
>> bayonet kludge meant to placate casual users, and orphaning the FD mount
>> very nearly cost Canon the pro market, forcing it to nearly give away
>> high end lenses for quite a few years.
>
>it has nothing at all to do with the new fd mount. stated very simply,
>the fd mount limited canon's future. they tried to update it and ended
>up with a kludge. they *had* to overhaul it to remain competitive,
>unlike minolta who changed mounts for no apparent reason.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

>and as i
>said, it gave canon an opportunity to woo nikon users by allowing nikon
>lenses to work on a canon body (complicating the ef mount) and taking
>the pro market from nikon. it was a very smart move.

Simply not true.

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

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 9:45 am
From: nospam

In article <fslv255h344u2q2av7o7kq5cml890ctia4@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >and as i
> >said, it gave canon an opportunity to woo nikon users by allowing nikon
> >lenses to work on a canon body (complicating the ef mount) and taking
> >the pro market from nikon. it was a very smart move.
>
> Simply not true.

it's exactly true.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 11:21 am
From: George Kerby

On 6/10/09 11:45 AM, in article 100620091245490162%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <fslv255h344u2q2av7o7kq5cml890ctia4@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>> and as i
>>> said, it gave canon an opportunity to woo nikon users by allowing nikon
>>> lenses to work on a canon body (complicating the ef mount) and taking
>>> the pro market from nikon. it was a very smart move.
>>
>> Simply not true.
>
> it's exactly true.
NavASS can't handle the Truth!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 9:46 am
From: Chris H

In message <h0obkl$rcc$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:x2gqbdI73mLKFA+0@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <h0log3$f9$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
>> writes
>>>
>>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>news:+ATJmVC3aSLKFAdv@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>which you've already admited were never carried for self defense
>>>> You are mixing two distinct and complete separate things.
>>>>
>>>>>so perhaps you could tell me why they were carried.
>>>> Official guns for self defence by members of the Police, military etc.
>>>> This has not changed an in fact there are more guns carried for this
>>>> purpose.
>>>
>>>I wonder why ?
>>
>> The amount of armed crime has gone up in real terms.... as the number of
>> private legal guns has sharply declined.
>
>Do yuo really think there is a link here.

As I have pointed out several times there IS NO LINK BETWEEN LEGAL AND
ILLEGAL GUNS IN THE UK

>Do you really think a person with a sporting gun has any chance of reducing
>armed crime.

As I have pointed out several times there IS NO LINK BETWEEN LEGAL AND
ILLEGAL GUNS IN THE UK

>I think iof you gave everyone a gun that wanted one for sport I
>don't
>think armed crime would fall.

As I have pointed out several times there IS NO LINK BETWEEN LEGAL AND
ILLEGAL GUNS IN THE UK

>> ANY link between legal and illegal guns is counter productive to your
>> argument. However as I have continually pointed out there is no cause
>> and effect link between the two in the UK. In the USA it is a different
>> matter.
>
>But our 'culture' grows closer and closer to US culture almost daily.

I agree

>> I agree... they carry the sort of guns that were NEVER legal in the UK
>> for civilians.
>
>Perghaps that's because civilians wouldn;t really need such guns.
>So wouldn';t it be best to keep them illegal.

No it would be best to spend the money on removing them. That is the
money you preferred to see used on removing guns that were not a danger
to the public. Why do you support the illegal uses of guns?

>and they were wrong, and he lost his life because of that mistake.
>It's bad enough that it happened without arming more police.

Due to you preference for spending all the money and resources on
removing the legal guns there is no money and resources to stop the
illegal guns so they have to arm more police.

That is the direct result of the your supported action of removing the
legal guns,

>Any person in teh UK seen carrying a gun
>is most likely to be carryign an illegal weapon
Yes

> and be reported to the
>police.

Not usually. You are living in a very strange world that is not
connected to reality.

>But if they are such things as legal guns on the street how would you know
>whether or not to report it.

Not at all. You report ALL guns seen on the street.

>Anything that is illegal should be 'off' the street.

However you want them on the street. This is clear from your instance
that we should waste all the time, money and resources removing the
legal guns whilst not targeting the illegal ones.

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1066490/Mac-10-sub-machine-gun-
>killer-jailed-35-years-murdering-men-drug-deal-bloodbath.html
>
>I really don;t care whether they are brought legally or illegally it the use
>they are put
>to is what concerns me.

No it isn't you support the use of all the money, time and resources to
remove the legal guns rather than tackle the illegal ones that are a
danger to the community

>> Anything over a speeding/parking ticket was enough to stop you getting
>> an FAC and if the police had a long list of data on you they could
>> refuse even if they had not got as far as arresting you yet.
>
>So remind me how Mr Hamilton managed to kill 16 .

Good question. The local gun clubs that knew him AND his local police
recommended he did not have his FAC renewed. So why did a senior police
officer overrule the local firearms team?

>>
>> I agree. SO instead of stooping the illegal guns you favour spending all
>> the money and resources on removing the legal guns that were not hurting
>> anyone whilst kids were getting killed on the streets all because you
>> are afraid of your own shadow.
>
>I have no way of stopping illegal guns any more that I have of stopping
>illegal
>cars,

Yes you do but you wanted to spend all the money, time and resources
removing the legal guns that were not a threat to anyone and not tackle
the problem of illegal guns that do kill and injur many in the UK

>I can get it reported. If I see someone carrying a gun, then unless is't a
>policeman
>the chances are it's illegal and I can report it.

You can report it anyway. The Police ALWAYS reacted as though it was
illegal until proved otherwise.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How common are plug-in charge leads for small digicam
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3b8f3614655a4947?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 11:49 am
From: kathie

I got my subcompact Casio Exilim Z60 a couple of years ago.

It's been irritating to take the battery out for charging. (My
digicam has some problem and doesn't hold the date/time for 20
seconds.)

It would be much better to have a charger socket on the camera.

Does the typical low-to-mid market subcompact digicam nowadays have
a charge socket? Or would I still have to take the battery out to
charge it?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 12:50 pm
From: John Navas

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:49:52 +0100, kathie <tom@tom.com> wrote in
<Xns9C26C9BBED8EA64A18E@newsfarm.ams2.highwinds-media.com>:

>I got my subcompact Casio Exilim Z60 a couple of years ago.
>
>It's been irritating to take the battery out for charging. (My
>digicam has some problem and doesn't hold the date/time for 20
>seconds.)
>
>It would be much better to have a charger socket on the camera.
>
>Does the typical low-to-mid market subcompact digicam nowadays have
>a charge socket? Or would I still have to take the battery out to
>charge it?

The ones I'm familiar with all require the battery to be removed for
charging, which has the advantage of being able to charge a 2nd battery
while the 1st is in use, but they don't forget settings in the process.

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

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 1:32 pm
From: Ofnuts

kathie wrote:
> I got my subcompact Casio Exilim Z60 a couple of years ago.
>
> It's been irritating to take the battery out for charging. (My
> digicam has some problem and doesn't hold the date/time for 20
> seconds.)
>
> It would be much better to have a charger socket on the camera.
>
> Does the typical low-to-mid market subcompact digicam nowadays have
> a charge socket?

Or would I still have to take the battery out to
> charge it?

Yes

But you can also get a second battery, so your camera is battery-less
only for the time required to swap them. And you get some spare power
for those days where you use the flash often.

--
Bertrand

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How Much Is That Keystone In The Window
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e17c686a87fa7756?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 12:51 pm
From: Hachiroku ハチロク

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:36:42 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:05:20 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:00:42 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>> I drove over to Cocoa, Florida, today. In the downtown area there's a
>>> store that's full of junk (or treasures, depending on your interest)
>>> that's been there for over 30 years. I've been in it and purchased
>>> some things, but it's now closed and doesn't look like it's been open
>>> for a couple of years.
>>>
>>> I shot this through a very dusty window:
>>> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/1474lab.jpg
>>
>>Nice. What do you have for a camera?
>>
> Nikon D40.

Wow. They can be had at discount stores relatively inexpensively. Nice
quality.

Lenses, on the other hand...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: The Road Less Travelled, Due July 19th, 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b358cb0f0fb31833?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 1:06 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 10-06-09 07:43, Bowser wrote:
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message

>>
>> I was just reacting to your SI image that represents the mandate.
>
> Yeah, it was the only shot I could find in my archives that sort of fit
> it. Then again, the mandate doesn't *exclude* shots of dirt roads, does it?
>
> Heh, heh....

Politician at heart.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 1:40 pm
From: "Pete D"

"Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote in message
news:4a2ed372$0$11511$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:4a2e0ac3$0$32382$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote in message
>> news:4a2d7dcc$0$11539$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>> Courtesy of our Canadian friend, the new mandate is "The Road Less
>>> Travelled." The due date for this mandate is July 19th, 2009. I had to
>>> extend the due date a bit to accomodate my work and vacation schedule,
>>> but it'll give us more time to shoot some originals rather than
>>> submitting archive shots. So please avoid the archive shots for this
>>> one!
>>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/road_less_traveled
>>>
>>> The photo in the gallery is from Southern Utah, taken shortly before the
>>> road became impassable by SUV.
>>
>> Dang, was looking to start putting some entries in these shootouts and
>> this mandate would be great for a trip I am doing up through some of the
>> Aussie desert areas next month.
>
> Send them whenever you can and I'll post them. How far off the date would
> you estimate?

Be back the end of July, definately be out of range of everything for the
ten days prior.

I will certainly post some shots when I get back.

Pete

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 2:09 pm
From: "Bowser"

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:avqdncBYP-Oyj63XnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 10-06-09 07:43, Bowser wrote:
>>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>> I was just reacting to your SI image that represents the mandate.
>>
>> Yeah, it was the only shot I could find in my archives that sort of fit
>> it. Then again, the mandate doesn't *exclude* shots of dirt roads, does
>> it?
>>
>> Heh, heh....
>
> Politician at heart.

Hey, no need to be insulting.

;-)

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 2:09 pm
From: "Bowser"

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:58fa03fb-8703-4013-867f-8e51faf7c6cf@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 10, 7:43 am, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote:

>
> Yeah, it was the only shot I could find in my archives that sort of fit
> it.
> Then again, the mandate doesn't *exclude* shots of dirt roads, does it?

>I suspect we'll see more than one of them.

Hope so. I just live for literal translations of mandates.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 3:07 pm
From: Annika1980

On Jun 10, 5:09 pm, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote:

> >I suspect we'll see more than one of them.
>
> Hope so. I just live for literal translations of mandates.

A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
Mandate Less Entered."

I don't wanna spoil it for ya, but I have good info that Alan Browne
is currently arranging colored squares on a lightbox in the shape of a
country road.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 3:41 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 10-06-09 18:07, Annika1980 wrote:
> On Jun 10, 5:09 pm, "Bowser"<u...@gone.now> wrote:
>
>>> I suspect we'll see more than one of them.
>> Hope so. I just live for literal translations of mandates.
>
> A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
> cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
> The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
> Mandate Less Entered."
>
> I don't wanna spoil it for ya, but I have good info that Alan Browne
> is currently arranging colored squares on a lightbox in the shape of a
> country road.

Just proves I can't confide anything in you without you blabbing it all
over usenet.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Light Meter Repair
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d8cbc5737da1a35?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 3:09 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Nicko" <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f9c5274-c793-44b5-9b38-72ca24a832ef@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 9, 11:46 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
> "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:...
> >I have an old Sekonic Flashmate L3088 light meter which lost its incident
> >light metering hemisphere, or at least most of it. The slider is still
> >there.
>
> > I bought a new slider / hemisphere (about $40CDN) and am trying to
> > figure
> > out how to get the old slider off so that I can put the new one on.
>
> > There doesn't seem to be any screws to remove, and nothing seems to pop
> > or
> > slide off. Any ideas how to make this repair short of taking it in to
> > repair shop?
>
> > Thanks for the info.
>
> > Take Care,
> > Dudley
>
> Sorry, I think I got the model no. wrong. The label is a bit worn, but I'm
> told it looks like L-308B.
>
> Any info greatly appreciated.

http://www.cameramanuals.org/flashes_meters/sekonic_l-308bii.pdf

If you look at page 3 of this PDF user manual (enlarge the heck out of
it), it shows how to fit and remove an accessory flat lumidisc to the
unit. I wouldn't be surprised if the original sliding dome snaps on
and off in exactly the same manner, but just doesn't have a tab
("strap eyelet" in the PDF) for doing so. That would indicate that
the dome snaps off starting at the top (front) edge of the meter. I
would try *gently* prying it up at that location.

HTH.

--
YOP...

Thanks, Nick, for the info. I appreciate it a lot. I'll get my son to
check it out, and we'll give it a try.

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon PowerShot SX10 IS - any good?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/afb1d7a1a6711842?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 5:08 pm
From: "Miguel"

"Ken" <none@none.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje
news:4a2b8068$0$23996$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:78vrhiF1o36j6U1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje
>> news:4a29863f$0$23996$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:78t9kkF1nl6rnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje
>>>> news:4a295c68$0$18239$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:78o0umF1mskckU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> "Ken" <none@none.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje
>>>>>> news:4a26b33c$0$18252$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clair Johnston" <cbj0129@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:O42Ll.36274$v8.14800@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clair thanks for the informative I was beginning to have doubts
>>>>>>>>> but NOT really as the movable LCD is something I had an old
>>>>>>>>> Olympus and miss. So this feature alone is worth extra points.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you decide to get the camera, let us know your thoughts after a
>>>>>>>> reasonable period of use. Remember to read the manual to make full
>>>>>>>> use of the camera.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clair
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My opinion posted to the Dpreview site.
>>>>>>> It sure beats my sons Panasonic FZ18 by a very long margin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Opinion
>>>>>>> A few weeks on and so far so good. The best 'straight from the
>>>>>>> camera' shots with any digital camera I have owned. The colours are
>>>>>>> so authentic and the pictures are very sharp. Even my wife is very
>>>>>>> impressed and she is not interested in photography. There is minimal
>>>>>>> need for post shot processing - just a little sharpening in my case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Problems
>>>>>>> Only two aspects which nearly made me send the camera back after a
>>>>>>> few days. It was only the superb shots that stopped me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Firstly not being able to access the scenes options without using
>>>>>>> the control wheel/dial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secondly, and really repeating myself, but my total disbelief that
>>>>>>> Canon could have such a clumsy physical control as the control
>>>>>>> wheel/dial. I am still not used to it as it is hit and miss - poor
>>>>>>> show on this Canon!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken, does the PowerShot SX10 IS posible the playback of the audio of
>>>>>> the videos?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because I read a problem with this option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Miguel M. Yalán
>>>>>> http://mmyv.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Miguel
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure I fully understand your question???
>>>>>
>>>>> I never use my camnera for video clips but have just tried and it
>>>>> takes good quality videos with sound?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask again and I will get back to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Ken, thanks for your answer, after that you use the SX10 to video
>>>> clips, can you listen in the same camera the recorded audio?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Miguel M. Yalán
>>>> http://mmyv.com
>>>
>>> In a word Yes.
>>> Ken
>>
>>
>> Thank you, I am thinking to buy a new camera but I don't decide yet if It
>> could be the PowerShot SX10 or the PowerShot G10.
>>
>> --
>> Miguel M. Yalán
>> http://mmyv.com
>
> I had the same thoughts but chose the SX10 because of the Canon Cashback &
> the shop doing an extra discount coupon I got the SX10 for £244 net. The
> G10 would of been nearer £400 which was more than I really wanted to
> spend. If money was no object and the G10 had a bit more zoom I would of
> bought the G10 as it would be almost small enough to carry in my pocket.
>
> I have no regrets about buying the SX10. I spent six months undecided what
> to buy and the Canon Cashback was the deciding factor. The shots from the
> camera are excellent needing minimal tweaking - straightening, cropping &
> sharpening. I find myself for the first time using Picasa as it handles
> these simple tweaks very well especially the straightening tool which is
> the best I have used.

Ken, thank you

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Beach of Lima
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ac061813caeaab1c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 5:11 pm
From: "Miguel"

"Hans Kruse" <hans.kruse@mail.tele.dk> escribió en el mensaje
news:49b1c238$0$90272$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> "Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:71dff2FkkojoU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Hello, in this summer, I did some photos to one of the Beaches of Lima,
>> It will be interesting to know your
>> opinions.
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3331940146/
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3331940154/
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3331940160/
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3331940166/
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3331974784/
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3331141831/
>>
>> --
> Well, choose some better weather, at least.

Yes, the next time.

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photos of Holy Week
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c415a0e9bf6ba6d9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2009 5:09 pm
From: "Miguel"

"WW" <ccco@nospambresnan.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:O5-dnTMG9qEX_37UnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@bresnan.com...
>
> "Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:74g0qpF1364tuU3@mid.individual.net...
>> Hello:
>>
>> I finalized the photos of Holy Week:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3429567932/
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3430071545/
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3437356092/
>>
>> And this is the complete history:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/sets/72157616503495443/
>>
>> Thanks to all the comments about photography, always they are
>> interesting.
>>
>> --
>> Miguel M. Yalán
>> http://mmyv.com
>
> Thanks for photos. Enjoyed them. Warren

Thank your visit.

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic