Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 13 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anything for the Perfect Shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 21 2009 11:59 pm
From: "Bill Graham"

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:210620090236077163%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <aitr35hm4rf5mmmms81lnqc9j8mefsaues@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> >There aren't any proven Mac viruses in the wild.
>> >>
>> >> That site doesn't agree with you.
>> >
>> >that's because it's wrong.
>>
>> You can't prove that.
>
> that site hasn't proved its case. there are no mac viruses in the wild.
> the only malware is what the user installs themselves. anyone can be
> tricked into installing something that isn't what it's claimed to be.

Yes. And we live in a world where 95% of everything isn't what its, "claimed
to be".

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 12:21 am
From: Chris H

In message <h8qo35da3pc5i6sfuv8703t15rmbg01hjs@4ax.com>, Semi-Yawning
<sy@here.com> writes
>On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:14 -0400, "Matt Clara" <none@myexpense.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>>Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
>I fail to see what's so odd about some of those shots with the
>photographers who are vying for unique angles and positions.

The photos are quite humorous. Some are clearly staged others "fake"
Accept them for what they are and stop being such an arse.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a72842738be30c46?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 12:29 am
From: Bob Williams

Bob Larter wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:35:44 -0700, Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net>
>> wrote in <kMR_l.9352$FI5.6956@newsfe12.iad>:
>>
>>> Some people LIKE the shallow depth of field effect, because it keeps
>>> mundane backgrounds from distracting the eye from the central image.
>>> In fact, one reason that many people CHOOSE a DSLR over a good P/S,
>>> is because it is much harder to get a shallow depth of field with
>>> small sensor cameras like most P/S on the market.
>>
>> Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
>> can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
>> <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
>>
>
> Hrm. The bokeh in that shot is pretty ugly, & you can clearly see the
> cars in the background.
>
> Here's a DLSR shot with moderately shallow DoF (F4.0)(warning - large
> file):
> <http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4710.jpg>
>

Bob,
IMHO, the DOF in your image is way too shallow.
As others have observed, even the bee, which is, or should be, part of
the main subject is not in sharp focus.
In John's picture, if he WANTED to blur the auto some more, he could do
so in a few seconds with Photoshop or similar photo editor.
In your case, there is NOTHING that you or all the kings horses and all
the kings men can do to bring the bee and other parts of the cotton boll
into sharp focus.
As far as good looking bokeh is concerned, that is a concept I just
can't appreciate.
To me, any bokeh in an image is a FAULT and not a feature.
The less, the better. None at all is optimum.
Fortunately, that too can be reduced or eliminated with a little
Photoshop legerdemain.
So the Artsy crowd will not get all upset with this critique, let me
emphasize that this is just my opinion. I respect other opinions even if
I may disagree with them.
Bob Williams

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 12:47 am
From: "Pete D"

>
> The phenomenon of the pretend-photographer usenet trolls yelling "You NEED
> a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase:
>
> "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
> a foolish thing."

Interestingly I see no one actually doing this, just one twat yelling "A P&S
CAN DO EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE ELSE IS A WANKER", good for you, do what
makes you happy mate.

Cheers and keep up the good work you are keeping us amused.

Pete

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:18 am
From: John Turco

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> David J Taylor wrote:
> > Alfred Molon wrote:
> >> http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
> >
> > Warning - this Web site has "music" on many pages!
> >
> > David
>
> .. meaning that I, for one, will simply switch away from that site.
>
> David

Hello, David:

I readily concur! Glitzy embellishments are not only extremely annoying,
but, they take >much< longer to load, if one is on a slow connection.

These offending Web designers have no consideration for dial-up users
(such as myself), apparently.

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

PS: I didn't click the original poster's (Alfred Molon) link; I was
just making a general comment.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

Marty Fremen wrote:
>
> ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
> . Knowledgeable
> > managers have started to criticize Olympus's management for not
> > realizing how popular the camera was going to be, so it's going to
> > be in very short supply for a very long time,
>
> That's why they made such a crap website, to limit demand to a level
> they could cope with. Never underestimate the Japanese!

Hello, Marty:

Quite right! Those inscrutable devils are so damned cunning, it's
a mystery why they lost World War II...they must have suffered a
collective "brain outage," at Midway? <g>

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:18 am
From: John Turco

ASAAR wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:45:48 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> >> At $300, you are limited to compact cameras and to a
> >> camera that may not have the feature you
> >> want the most: manual focus.
> >
> > What about refurbished cameras? Are they too risky...?
>
> Used cameras can be risky, but factory refurbished cameras should
> be at least as reliable as new cameras. I've bought several P&S and
> DSLRs from Adorama and B&H, and they've all been indistinguishable
> from new models. The downside is a 90 day vs. a year warranty, but
> the price savings would more than cover several extended warrantees.
> I do without them (well, I got one a couple of years ago) and
> haven't needed any yet. KEH is supposed to be good for used cameras
> and *maybe* Adorama.

Hello, ASAAR:

I've nothing against refurbished products, and even prefer them, in
many cases. Nonetheless, where DSLR's are concerned, it might be a
better idea, to limit purchases to brand-new merchandise.

This is due to the fact that such cameras have "focal-plane" shutters,
whose "lifetimes" can be relatively short. (50,000 actuations is the
norm, for entry-level models.)

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

tony cooper wrote:

> The dslr market is extremely competitive. Discounts are small by
> legitimate dealers because they don't have that much margin to work
> with. Some of the package deals look good, but only because the
> package includes a "$200 tripod" and a "$100" camera bag that is
> included practically for free. What the buyer will get is a cheap
> tripod and a shoddy camera bag neither of which could ever be sold at
> the price listed. One of the other scams is listing a camera without
> a battery (when the battery is included in a reputable dealer's price)
> and then adding an over-priced non-OEM battery as a condition of the
> offer.

Hello, Tony:

This putrid practice of removing items from a manufacturer's package,
and then selling them separately, is called "unbundling."

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

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

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

ASAAR wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:14:26 -0500, John Turco wrote:
>
> >> It would have been just as enjoyable had the "shot" never happened
> >> and the Yanks ended up beating "Dem Bums" instead! :)
> >
> > Those "other" New York Giants did ruin my evening, about 17 months ago.
> > They put on a late "rally" of their own, and dashed the New England
> > Patriots' dream of an unprecedented 19-0 season and Super Bowl title.
>
> Did the Giants really dash the Patriot's dream, or did a certain
> playboy quarterback spend too much party time before rather than
> after the game?

Hello, ASAAR:

Huh? Tony Romo plays for the Dallas Cowgirls, does he not? ;-)

Joking aside, if New England's offensive line had done a better job
of protecting Tom Brady - or, if the Pats' defensive line had sacked
his New York counterpart (Eli Manning), before the latter heaved
that crucial, 32-yard pass to David Tyree - nobody would've been
discussing Brady's sex life, afterward.

> > I guess that one could logically say (in this day and age of global
> > electronic media) Giants wide receiver David Tyree made "The Catch
> > Seen And Heard - And Replayed, Over And Over Again - 'Round The
> > World." :-P
>
> Is it really only global? It seems to me that if Coover got his
> facts straight about the "Universal Baseball Association", football
> may also be beyond global.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Universal_Baseball_Association,_Inc.,_J._Henry_Waugh,_Prop.

Hmmm..."universal," you say? I wonder who the Martians bet on, in
Super Bowl XLII? <g>

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

Chris H wrote:
>
> In message <4A39BF13.AAF53A01@concentric.net>, John Turco

> >Basketball is an American invention, which became internationally
> >popular. It's probably the world's most widespread team sport, in
> >fact.
>
> Not compared to football

Hello, Chris:

All right...read it and weep. <g>

Wikipedia - James Naismith <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Naismith>

"Basketball is today played by more than 300 million people worldwide, making it
one of the most popular team sports.[5] In North America, basketball has produced
some of the most-admired athletes of the 20th century. Polls conducted by ESPN and
the Associated Press named basketball player Michael Jordan respectively first and
second greatest North American athlete of the 20th century, and both polls featured
fellow basketballers Wilt Chamberlain (of KU, like Naismith) and Bill Russell in the
Top 20."

Still, I've never fathomed all this shameless gushing over Michael Jordan. To me
(as well, I'd imagine, to >any< sane and impartial observer), the greatest of all
basketball players, BY FAR, was Wilt Chamberlain (1936-1999).

Wikepedia - Wilt Chamberlain
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain>

Wikepedia - List of career achievements by Wilt Chamberlain
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Career_achievements_of_Wilt_Chamberlain>

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> Chris H wrote:
> > In message <4A39BF13.AAF53A01@concentric.net>, John Turco

> >>> Baseball, American Football and the like are relay only of
> >>> interest in the USA. So *any* event in Baseball only has local
> >>> interest.
> >>>
> >>> The problem is that Americans think that things that are important
> >>> only to Americans are of global significance.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello, Chris:
> >>
> >> Basketball is an American invention, which became internationally
> >> popular. It's probably the world's most widespread team sport, in
> >> fact.
> >
> > Not compared to football
>
> Don't be too sure about that. Basketball of sorts can be played in a
> residential driveway or a tennis court or just about anywhere else that
> there's a small expanse of pavement and a place to hang a hoop. Football
> (either real football or soccer) needs more space. I suspect that worldwide
> you'll find that more people regularly play basketball in one variation or
> another than football.

Hello, John:

I could hardly have stated it better, myself (and I, too, shoot "hoops" in
my driveway, sometimes).

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

Chris H wrote:
>
> In message <h1d8ge19v0@news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
> <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> writes
> >Chris H wrote:
> >Don't be too sure about that. Basketball of sorts can be played in a
> >residential driveway or a tennis court or just about anywhere else that
> >there's a small expanse of pavement and a place to hang a hoop. Football
> >(either real football
> I assume you mean Rugby Football?
>
> >or soccer) needs more space. I suspect that worldwide you'll find that
> >more people regularly play basketball in one variation or>another than
> >football.
>
> Whilst it may be common to find basket ball hoops on the wall of a US
> house it is very rare in the UK and Europe.
>
> Kids play football in the street. In fact where I live you can see half
> a dozen knock abouts in progress... none of them play basketball. It is
> the same when I lived in Germany.
>
> Basket ball, like baseball is quite uncommon outside the USA.
>
> On a week end hundreds of thousands play football and millions watch in
> the UK. Where I am we have two adult football teams and about 30 junior
> teams (not counting the school teams) There *was* (but no longer) one
> basketball team. So on that score football (in organised teams) out
> does basketball by about 50-1
>
> BTW Basketball is not that common in schools either, though I did play
> it at one school.
>
> It is the same when I have been in Europe. Seeing anyone play basket
> ball is comparatively rare.

Hello, Chris:

Here is my orginal comment (which had been deleted, in subsequent
replies):

"Basketball is an American invention, which became internationally
popular. It's probably the world's most widespread team sport, in
fact."

You see, by "widespread," I'd meant that basketball is, most likely,
moderately popular (at least), in more countries, that any other
team sport.

For instance, soccer has never been very well-loved (by the general
public), here in North America; I'd guess that basketball is bigger -
in both continental Europe and Great Britain - than soccer is, in
either the U.S.A. or Canada.

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

Lucifer Luciferase Lucent Lucid the Light and Knowledge Bringer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:14:11 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:

> >Basketball is an American invention, which became internationally
> >popular. It's probably the world's most widespread team sport, in
> >fact.
> >
>
> Technically the main game-play concept of basketball is a Mesoamerican
> invention.
>
> http://www.aztec-history.com/aztec-ball-game.html

Hello, Lucifer:

Yeah, I first heard this odd theory, during the pregame telecast of the
1973 NCAA championship game (UCLA 87, Memphis 66). However, >modern<
basketball was definitely invented in Springfield, Massachusetts
(U.S.A.), during 1891, by a Canadian named James Naismith (1861-1939).

More info:

Wikipedia - James Naismith
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Naismith>

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

PS: I'm aware that you're not a fan of Wikipedia, but, the linked
article only confirms the basic facts that I'd already learned,
long ago.

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:34 am
From: Chris H

Why? Wiki is notoriously unreliable.
Basket ball is a minority sport outside the USA. It is hardly played in
many countries

Football is the national sport of many nations. It is played where every
there is something kickable. I have not see a country that does not
play football and it is the normal first choice for kids everywhere.

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

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:41 am
From: Chris H

In message <4A3F3E84.511EF5F5@concentric.net>, John Turco
<jtur@concentric.net> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>>
>> In message <h1d8ge19v0@news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
>> <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> writes
>> >Chris H wrote:
>> >Don't be too sure about that. Basketball of sorts can be played in a
>> >residential driveway or a tennis court or just about anywhere else that
>> >there's a small expanse of pavement and a place to hang a hoop. Football
>> >(either real football
>> I assume you mean Rugby Football?
>>
>> >or soccer) needs more space. I suspect that worldwide you'll find that
>> >more people regularly play basketball in one variation or>another than
>> >football.
>>
>> Whilst it may be common to find basket ball hoops on the wall of a US
>> house it is very rare in the UK and Europe.
>>
>> Kids play football in the street. In fact where I live you can see half
>> a dozen knock abouts in progress... none of them play basketball. It is
>> the same when I lived in Germany.
>>
>> Basket ball, like baseball is quite uncommon outside the USA.
>>
>> On a week end hundreds of thousands play football and millions watch in
>> the UK. Where I am we have two adult football teams and about 30 junior
>> teams (not counting the school teams) There *was* (but no longer) one
>> basketball team. So on that score football (in organised teams) out
>> does basketball by about 50-1
>>
>> BTW Basketball is not that common in schools either, though I did play
>> it at one school.
>>
>> It is the same when I have been in Europe. Seeing anyone play basket
>> ball is comparatively rare.
>
>
>Hello, Chris:
>
>Here is my orginal comment (which had been deleted, in subsequent
>replies):
>
> "Basketball is an American invention, which became internationally
> popular. It's probably the world's most widespread team sport, in
> fact."
>
>You see, by "widespread," I'd meant that basketball is, most likely,
>moderately popular (at least), in more countries, that any other
>team sport.

This is patently not true... I suggest you travel a bit. You will rarely
see basketball played outside the USA. Football on the other hand is on
every street corner.

>For instance, soccer has never been very well-loved (by the general
>public), here in North America;

True

>I'd guess that basketball is bigger -
>in both continental Europe and Great Britain - than soccer is, in
>either the U.S.A. or Canada.

Completely false. Basketball is probably less played than any other team
sport in Europe, Africa, Asia etc. Football (soccer) is usually the
first choice. Travel a bit and you will see what I mean.

You may have seen hoops in UK schools but this is for the girls game of
netball. IT is amusing that both basketball (netball) and baseball
(rounders) are girls games outside the USA

Ask anyone outside the USA and they will tell you there are always a few
kids playing football on the street or in the park. For football you
only need one and something to kick.

In fact the US invention of skate boarding is more popular in Europe
than basketball.

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

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 2:33 am
From: Chris H

In message <4A3F3E7C.CD50C6E3@concentric.net>, John Turco
<jtur@concentric.net> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>>
>> In message <4A39BF13.AAF53A01@concentric.net>, John Turco
>
><edited for brevity>
>
>> >Basketball is an American invention, which became internationally
>> >popular. It's probably the world's most widespread team sport, in
>> >fact.
>>
>> Not compared to football
>
>
>Hello, Chris:
>
>All right...read it and weep. <g>
>
> Wikipedia - James Naismith <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Naismith>
>
> "Basketball is today played by more than 300 million people worldwide,
>making it
> one of the most popular team sports.[5] In North America, basketball

Not that reference [5] does not exist... Do you have anything else?
That number of 300 million seems some what high.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football
Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer, is a
team sport played between two teams of eleven players, and is widely
considered to be the most popular sport in the world

^ "Team Sports". Catastrophic Injuries in High School and College
Sports. Champaign: Human Kinetics. pp. p57. ISBN 0873226747. "Soccer is
the most popular sport in the world, and its popularity is growing in
the United States. It has been estimated that there were 22 million
soccer players in the world in the early 1980s, and that number is
increasing. In the United States soccer is now a major sport at both the
high school and college levels"

^ Dunning, Eric. "The development of soccer as a world game". Sport
Matters: Sociological Studies of Sport, Violence and Civilisation.
London: Routledge. pp. p103. ISBN 0415064139. "During the twentieth
century, soccer emerged as the world's most popular team sport"

^ Guttman, Allen. "The Diffusion of Sports and the Problem of Cultural
Imperialism". in Eric Dunning, Joseph A. Maguire, Robert E. Pearton. The
Sports Process: A Comparative and Developmental Approach. Champaign:
Human Kinetics. pp. p129. ISBN 0880116242. "the game is complex enough
not to be invented independently by many preliterate cultures and yet
simple enough to become the world's most popular team sport"

^ Blain, Rebecca. "The World's Most Beloved Sport - The History of
Soccer". fussballportal.de. Archived from the original on 2009-06-06.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071230053134/http://germany2006.fussballpor
tal.de/history.php. Retrieved on 2007-10-07.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_association_football_clubs

of course if you add in Rugby (union and league) Australian rules etc
each of which are globally larger than basketball you will see that
outside the USA basketball is relatively unknown rather than the worlds
most popular sport. You only have to look at the membership of the Man-U
fan club. 97% of it is outside the UK...

Put it another way... you will not find a non US news channel that does
not mention football at least once a day. They may mention basketball
once a year if you are lucky.

Where, apart from the USA is basketball any more than a minority sport?
Football is the national sport of many countries.

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

==============================================================================
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: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

tony cooper wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:17:28 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> >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
> >
> >
> >Hello, Tony:
> >
> >Are you claiming Keystone manufactured the two antiques, shown in
> >your photograph?
>
> I'm not "claiming" anything. The camera on the right has a plate on
> it that says "Keystone (something) Inc." The middle word seems to
> start with the letter "i".

Hello, Tony:

Oh, okay.

> I'm not saying anything about the other camera.

Perhaps, those ol' "Keystone Kops" should investigate the shop in
question? <g>

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Trick Kodak z1285s to recharge regular rechargable batteries?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d80b9951f5765f8b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:
> []
> > Hello, David:
> >
> > Kodak's "EasyShare" docks are intended for convenience, mainly.
> > They're not truly "needed," as the cameras' battery packs/cells are
> > always removable.
>
>
> Interesting, John. I had always been put off such cameras because of the
> dock (and the poor reputation of the software). I would still look at
> Panasonic first were I in the market for something other than a DSLR.
>
> David

Hello, David:

Yes, I no longer install Kodak's "EasyShare" program, anymore, as it had proved
to be slightly flaky and something of a resource hog.

The primary reason that I >ever< bothered with it, at all, was its capability
of displaying and editing the proprietary RAW files (with the KDC extention),
created by my P850. (I almost never shoot RAW, so, it was no huge loss.)

In recent years, I've occasionally used Kodak's "Camera Connection" software,
to copy images from digicams, to my computer (because, at times, I tire of
removing the SD card and placing it into a reader). A dock is unnecessary,
as a direct USB connection is established, instead.

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:54 am
From: "David J Taylor"

John Turco wrote:
[]
> Hello, David:
>
> Yes, I no longer install Kodak's "EasyShare" program, anymore, as it
> had proved to be slightly flaky and something of a resource hog.
>
> The primary reason that I >ever< bothered with it, at all, was its
> capability of displaying and editing the proprietary RAW files (with
> the KDC extention), created by my P850. (I almost never shoot RAW,
> so, it was no huge loss.)
>
> In recent years, I've occasionally used Kodak's "Camera Connection"
> software, to copy images from digicams, to my computer (because, at
> times, I tire of removing the SD card and placing it into a reader).
> A dock is unnecessary,
> as a direct USB connection is established, instead.
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

Thanks for the insight, John. I've hardly ever used the USB connection
either, just put the SD card in a reader (either built into the PC or
separate).

Cheers,
David

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

Chris H wrote:
>
> In message <9b011af2-8097-4351-8219-39ca3663a237@e24g2000vbe.googlegroup
> s.com>, Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> writes
> >On Jun 18, 4:35 am, Bruce <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >HERE is the camera you SHOULD have built!
> >>
> >> Olympus has made it clear that the E-P1 is just the first of a range of
> >> Micro Four Thirds cameras. You will probably get your wish in one of
> >> the subsequent models.
> >>
> >> I am surprised you aren't praising Olympus for their decision to make
> >> the E-P1 with a metal body. ;-)
> >
> >But it ISN'T!!!!! It's an $800 PLASTIC nightmare clad in a thin sheet
> >of aluminum!!!!
>
> So what? The Space Shuttle is made of plastic in many areas as are most
> luxury cars. Saying it is "plastic" is like saying it's "metal" a
> generic term.
>
> I remember some toys in my childhood that were a metal alloy that was
> very cheap and appalling quality of mouldings. The plastic ones were far
> superior.

Hello, Chris:

During the 1960's, I recall taking apart some of my metal, Japanese-made
toy cars, and discovering that their bodies were crafted from soup cans
(e.g., "Campbell's")! The painted-on labelling was still intact, on the
undersides.

> Large parts of Nikon and Cannon cameras are plastic too... All you are
> doing is showing your prejudice rather than any sensible point

Now, don't let Rich Anderson's incessant trolling provoke you. He's just
a poor, functionally-illiterate garbage man/ditch digger, residing in
the frigid Canadian wilderness...I suspect that his abnormally small (and
highly defective) brain, was further and irreversibly damaged by frostbite,
decades ago. <G>

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

Savageduck wrote:

> The Lionel trains, Dinkey and Corgi cars were always some of the finest
> castings. There was a lot of crap cast from antinomy/tin alloy. The
> thing I find amusing today is the knee jerk reaction to lead paint in
> toys, I can remember when the entire toy was a lead casting! Those cast
> lead soldiers are a valuable commodity today.

Hello, Savageduck:

Away back when, I only owned one Lionel and "American Flyer" electric
train set, apiece. They weren't the really large-scale versions, either,
and had plastic-bodied locomotives and cars; fun to use, regardless.

As for die cast vehicles, please don't forget these hallowed names:

Burago
Ertl
Hot Wheels
Johnny Lightning
Matchbox
TootsieToy

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

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

Hello, Rich:

You're almost correct, for once. The Kodak DC4800 (introduced during 2000)
gained a bit of notoriety, among a small percentage of its owners, due to a
certain design flaw: Its plastic body would develop cracks (and sometimes,
even, severe ones).

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

michael adams wrote:
>
> "ransley" <Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c8067016-b4d0-4c44-8d44-574f426f52b4@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > How often should a printer left idle be made to print a photo to keep
> > the heads clean-working, are the jets in the cartrige, so if they clog
> > you just buy a new ink cartrige? Ive idled mine for months and printed
> > fine the other day, I was just wondering what is a safe time frame for
> > an idle period.
>
> Depends on the make.
>
> To test it, you don't print a photo, that would waste ink. Most have a test page
> - maybe on the utilities tab on the print dialogue box - otherwise just draw some
> different coloured lines or small circles in a DTP program and print those out.
>
> In most brands HP for certain, the jets are in cartridge. This makes cartridges
> more expensive but easier to clean, and blocked jets aren't the end of the world.
> Just but a new cartridge if cleaning fails. Some cartridges are chipped but others
> can be refilled - there's even a market in empty HP cartridges on eBay.
>
> One exception is Epson. They use a different technology with piezo electric
> jets - the others work on heat or something - which are in the printer
> and if the jets get blocked and the inbuilt cleaning routine won't work
> then you're into witchcraft and gizmos. Including cleaning cartridges
> or doing it yourself with Windex, ammonia, sponges etc. Keeping the thing
> working can be a hobby in itself.

Hello, Michael:

Your remarks, eerily echo my personal experiences (i.e., having owned, both a
trouble-free Hewlett-Packard "Photosmart D7160" and an infernal predecessor,
the Epson "Stylus Photo 825").

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reaction to the white Olympus EP-1
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/243da06fb19f04bd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:19 am
From: John Turco

RichA wrote:
>
> "THEY'RE UGLY, SIR! UGLY AS SIN!"

Hello, Rich:

There, there...don't feel too bad, that your children look like >you<, instead
of their mother. :-D

Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: tefl in thailand , arbeit im ausland , ban thailand , auswandern jobs ,
arbeiten asien , auswandern thailand , führerschein thailand , ,
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/75fa5e01a862817f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:54 am
From: we2ew223

tefl in thailand , arbeit im ausland , ban thailand , auswandern
jobs , arbeiten asien , auswandern thailand , führerschein
thailand , ,

*
*
*
+++ IN THAILAND LEBEN +++ IN THAILAND ARBEITEN +++
*
http://WWW.LEBEN-ARBEITEN-IN-ASIEN.NET
http://WWW.LEBEN-ARBEITEN-IN-ASIEN.NET
http://WWW.LEBEN-ARBEITEN-IN-ASIEN.NET
http://WWW.LEBEN-ARBEITEN-IN-ASIEN.NET
http://WWW.LEBEN-ARBEITEN-IN-ASIEN.NET
http://WWW.LEBEN-ARBEITEN-IN-ASIEN.NET
*
*
*

wetter thailand emigrate to thailand
sale in thailand stellenangebote in asien
thailand vietnam arbeit im ausland
realestate in thailand working in asia
work in thailand arbeiten thailand
arbeit in thailand www auswandern
jobs in thailand estate in thailand
arbeiten in thailand emigrate to thailand
arbeiten in asien estate in thailand
tefl in thailand zollbestimmungen thailand
arbeit in ausland asien thailand
chiangmai thailand thailand karte
auswandern aus deutschland resort thailand
arbeit in thailand auswanderung thailand
apartment in thailand job in asien
auswandern thailand work in thailand
wetter thailand arbeit im ausland
nach asien realestate in thailand
arbeit in thailand auswandern nach thailand
living thailand working overseas

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Raw vs jpeg
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/777d94edbf18935c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 1:56 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>

RAW Can Be Nonsense wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:50:21 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <lyndonr-202B92.13381319062009@news.newsguy.com>,
>> Lyndon <lyndonr@Some-Isp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am interested in buying a new dig camera. It will
>>> be a modified camera that I intend to primarily only shoot
>>> in monochrome mode and see little reason to ever shoot in color.
>>> However, the camera I most wanted does not do the RAW
>>> format. So, with intent to only shoot in monochrome, is there
>>> any disadvantage in not having the raw format available?
>>>
>>> Lyndon
>> This is very simple. If you intend to do a lot of photo manipulation in
>> Photoshop or some other photo editor, shooting in raw is a good idea. If
>> you do not intend to do much manipulation in a photo editor, raw is
>> overkill.
>
> Let us be reminded too where the popularity of RAW formats originated. In
> the earlier years of DSLRs their in-camera RAW to JPG conversion process
> was abominable. People spending that much on cameras couldn't tolerate the
> color-balance, compression artifacts, and sharpening decisions that were
> being made for them by the pencil-pushing tech-head firmware programmers,
> those who knew absolutely nothing about real photography. Purchasers of

Your insults here should be hurled at the marketing men who insisted
(correctly as it turns out) that sharpness sells to end users. Most
cameras are by default slightly over sharpened in the firmware.

> these cameras demanded access to the original sensor data so they could do
> the conversion themselves, painstakingly trying to repair their camera's
> glaring firmware programming problems and other imaging defects.

The maximum quality JPEG even out of early cameras like the Kodak DC-120
wasn't that far off the mark from a standards point of view. It did have
a RAW mode though so that you could do a more complex demosaic and white
balance afterwards. Despite only being a 1Mpixel camera it found a place
for a while in scientific photography because of this feature.

There are still faults in the JPEG *decoders* that do lead to problems
when shooting images that have fine black detail against saturated red
or blues in them. Flowers and jazz or rock concerts for instance. In
these circumstances RAW wins hands down because you do not get the JPEG
subsampled chroma problems damaging the image resolution.
>
> Many DSLRs still suffer from this poor conversion problem because owners of
> them are more than happy to be jumping through needless editing hoops
> trying to repair what their camera fails to provide in the first place. As
> long as they are willing to do all this then the camera companies see no
> need to make the conversion process better in the camera itself. Instead
> they are quite content to also sell them overpriced and required RAW
> editing software so the DSLR owner can repair all these defects on their
> own. Just another way to make more money from fools. They primarily succeed
> on the principle of, "There's one born every minute."

The current crop of JPEG converters in modern cameras have no difficulty
in making near perfect high quality JPEGs that are the optimum encoding
of their input data. There are no compromises on accuracy for speed now.

RAW gives you the option to sort out white balance and retain both deep
shadow detail and highlights afterwards whereas the decision of the JPEG
converter is pretty much final. The initial 12bit image has the dynamic
range to support detail in both the brides dress and the grooms black
velvet suit but not in a JPEG conversion unless you are very lucky.
>
> Today's cameras designed to sell based on their JPG output alone do a
> remarkable job of the in-camera conversion where little to no extra editing
> is ever needed. You would be hard-pressed to champion what these cameras
> provide in one step by processing the RAW data externally on your own. If

Pretty much agree unless you are shooting a scene with high dynamic
range and details in the extremes that really matter to the content. Or
in a challenging light environment that is outside what the autowhite
balance can handle reliably - sports under HPS lights for instance.

> you buy a good camera that handles this conversion process correctly in the
> first place then access to a RAW file format is far far less important then
> the lens affixed to that camera and other capabilities of that camera.

The continual increase in the number of pixels in the small cameras is
getting pretty silly these days. Again marketting knows that a simple
number sells on a mine is bigger than yours basis. But we have reached
the point where more pixels doesn't mean more useful data.

Regards,
Martin Brown

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

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

Monday, June 22, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, June 22, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic