rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* The sponge tool in Photoshop - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e4a3f1b66a6eaa4a?hl=en
* Running OS X on my PC!!! - 14 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
* Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes? - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a72842738be30c46?hl=en
* Luxury ED Hardy Sunglasses - Discount ED Hardy Sunglasses - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1b8ee593e20e65a0?hl=en
* Anything for the Perfect Shot - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
* Another falls victim to the horror of P&S's - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/927bee75964a4ce4?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The sponge tool in Photoshop
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e4a3f1b66a6eaa4a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 7:51 pm
From: tony cooper
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:48:37 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:55:14 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm using photoshop elements 7.
>>>I understand what the Dodge and Burn tools do and have used them often
>>>to improve a photo but it's not clear what the Sponge tool does.
>>>How what the sponge tool be used to improve a photo?
>>>
>>The sponge tool either increases or decreases the saturation of color
>>on a selective basis. You use it on a small area of an image where
>>you want the color to be a bit different to emphasize or de-emphasize
>>that area. It's not a precise tool.
>>
>>I've used it where the photograph is of something reflective and the
>>reflection picks up the color of the background or something around it
>>on the edge or in some small place. I'll desaturate that reflective
>>spot. I've never had occasion to use it to increase saturation.
>>
>>There's no rule that says "Use the sponge here". This kind of change
>>can be done in several ways, and you try the various tools to see
>>which works best for the individual situation.
>
>Thanks Tony.
>I tried the Photoshop Elements help but there is not much information.
>How do you switch it from increasing saturation to decreasing
>saturation? I can now see that it is useful for toning down bright
>colours that catch the eye.
Look at the tool bar at the top where it says "Mode". It can be set
to either saturate or desaturate. The flow (amount of either) can be
set.
Google for "Elements tutorial (tool)" and insert the tool you want to
learn about. Follow the tutorials.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Running OS X on my PC!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 8:00 pm
From: "Larry Thong"
John McWilliams wrote:
>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>
> yeah, that's an intelligent move for folks who are mostly
> photographers!
At least PC users are smart enough to do it.
So what you are effectively saying is Mac users are dumb mindless idiots
that are nothing more than appliance operators. At least PC users know how
to get around their system. If you don't know the basic nuts and bolts of
your computer you shouldn't be allowed to use one. How do Mac users fix a
problem, other than upgrading to the next level of proprietary hardware?
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 8:08 pm
From: John McWilliams
Larry Thong wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>
>> yeah, that's an intelligent move for folks who are mostly
>> photographers!
>
> At least PC users are smart enough to do it.
Of course, many are, but won't. And a lot aren't smart enough. Mac users
have no edge in the cretin category, nor a very big one in the genius
category.
> So what you are effectively saying is Mac users are dumb mindless idiots
> that are nothing more than appliance operators. At least PC users know how
> to get around their system. If you don't know the basic nuts and bolts of
> your computer you shouldn't be allowed to use one. How do Mac users fix a
> problem, other than upgrading to the next level of proprietary hardware?
What eloquence! What provocative statements.
Bored?
--
lsmft
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 8:15 pm
From: "Larry Thong"
John McWilliams wrote:
>>> yeah, that's an intelligent move for folks who are mostly
>>> photographers!
>>
>> At least PC users are smart enough to do it.
>
> Of course, many are, but won't. And a lot aren't smart enough. Mac
> users have no edge in the cretin category, nor a very big one in the
> genius category.
There's no need for PC users to take a few extra steps to load OS X when
Windows XP does just fine and is much more secure and user friendly.
>> So what you are effectively saying is Mac users are dumb mindless
>> idiots that are nothing more than appliance operators. At least PC
>> users know how to get around their system. If you don't know the
>> basic nuts and bolts of your computer you shouldn't be allowed to
>> use one. How do Mac users fix a problem, other than upgrading to
>> the next level of proprietary hardware?
>
> What eloquence! What provocative statements.
Just trying to find out what makes the Mac so special and what
differentiates it from a PC? I'm really not seeing a difference here other
than you Mac guys get to pay an overpriced premium on the same hardware.
> Bored?
Never! I wish I were at times.
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 8:22 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-22 19:23:21 -0700, "Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> said:
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have something
> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
Rita,
Over the years the headers of your posts have consistently demonstrated
your use of MT-NewsWatcher for Intel Mac.
I understand you have this propensity for making provocative statements
from time to time, mostly with tongue in cheek humor.
You have demonstrated a method of installing and running OSX on a PC
and that is just fine.
Since there is OSX software you prefer to run over Wintel or Linux
versions, the question regarding your venom aimed at Mac users is
puzzling. This especially since there really is no sense of superiority
amongst us "Mac idiots". Many of us use Wintel machines in other
environments, and choose to own & use Macs as our machine of choice for
our own reasons, just as you have chosen to run OSX on a PC. The "sense
of superiority" you claim is a Wintel user perception
You are somewhat hypocritical when it comes to a "sense of
superiority", you make a point of letting us know whenever you have
made your next extravagant upgrade within your 18 month plan, detailing
your purchases and trumpeting the superiority of your current
equipment. (...and I certainly envy your D3x, D3 and vault of Nikkor
lenses, my lowly D300 not withstanding)
Many of us here have always accepted your contributions as humorous and
at time instructional, however with this post you have managed the
intructional and insulting as matched pair.
Also, nowhere in any of the current debate have I noted any of the "Mac
idiots" making claims of Wintel PC idiocy for any present in these NGs
not using Macs or like you, bright enough to run OSX on their PC.
So if you want to continue running OSX on your PC that is fine, even
though you make it obvious, based on your Nikon/Nikkor purchases, the
purchase price of a Mac Pro is well within your means.
Just note that not all of us "mac idiots" are actual idiots, just as
not all of the "Wintel PC idiots" are actual idiots.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 8:31 pm
From: "Larry Thong"
Savageduck wrote:
>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>
> Rita,
> Over the years the headers of your posts have consistently
> demonstrated your use of MT-NewsWatcher for Intel Mac.
> I understand you have this propensity for making provocative
> statements from time to time, mostly with tongue in cheek humor.
And that's all it was, a provocative statement that wasn't meant to be taken
as nothing more than "it can be done" type of post to demonstrate there
really is *NO* difference between the two platforms. The "Mac idiots"
reference wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular, just a cattle prod
to point to show the Mac cult follower they really have no magical Kool Aid.
Trust me; I don't want to upset the duck!!!
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 8:32 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-22 20:31:03 -0700, "Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>
>> Rita,
>> Over the years the headers of your posts have consistently
>> demonstrated your use of MT-NewsWatcher for Intel Mac.
>> I understand you have this propensity for making provocative
>> statements from time to time, mostly with tongue in cheek humor.
>
> And that's all it was, a provocative statement that wasn't meant to be
> taken as nothing more than "it can be done" type of post to demonstrate
> there really is *NO* difference between the two platforms. The "Mac
> idiots" reference wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular, just
> a cattle prod to point to show the Mac cult follower they really have
> no magical Kool Aid. Trust me; I don't want to upset the duck!!!
'duck understands.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 8:44 pm
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:22:09 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> This especially since there really is no sense of superiority
>amongst us "Mac idiots".
Oh, yeah. Sure there is. It's just for certain values of "us". You
may not be in that group, but many are. Boring twits, they are, too.
On both sides.
I don't really understand it, myself. Your stuff on the screen looks
the same to me as my stuff that is created on a PC.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 8:51 pm
From: "botox"
Actually the best way to run OSx on a pc is to buy the $240 dollar USB
dongle.
Including that piece you can build a machine that will be faster than
anything Apple sells at a fraction of the cost.
The operating system wars are over anyway--both Windows and Mac OS whatever
are going the way of Kodachrome.
Most users, sooner rather than later, will do almost everything via a
platform neutral browser using web based applications.
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 9:08 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-22 20:44:34 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:22:09 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> This especially since there really is no sense of superiority
>> amongst us "Mac idiots".
>
> Oh, yeah. Sure there is. It's just for certain values of "us". You
> may not be in that group, but many are. Boring twits, they are, too.
> On both sides.
>
> I don't really understand it, myself. Your stuff on the screen looks
> the same to me as my stuff that is created on a PC.
Strange isn't it?
I have issues with almost all evangelists, religious, political,
products, systems, and self aggrandizement.
If it works for me and not someone else, who am I to convince the other
person another tool might have different benefits they might find
useful. My Mac works for me within its limitation just as your PC works
for you within its limitations.
It is like the crowd running to Face Book, Twitter & iPhones, none of
these work for me and I choose not to join those crowds.
...and they will be blessed with my absence.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 9:32 pm
From: John McWilliams
botox wrote:
> Actually the best way to run OSx on a pc is to buy the $240 dollar USB
> dongle.
> Including that piece you can build a machine that will be faster than
> anything Apple sells at a fraction of the cost.
> The operating system wars are over anyway--both Windows and Mac OS
> whatever are going the way of Kodachrome.
> Most users, sooner rather than later, will do almost everything via a
> platform neutral browser using web based applications.
Er, no.
--
john mcwilliams
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 10:04 pm
From: ASAAR
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:08:45 -0700, John McWilliams bit:
> What eloquence! What provocative statements.
>
> Bored?
Trolled?
:)
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 10:09 pm
From: John McWilliams
ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:08:45 -0700, John McWilliams bit:
>
>> What eloquence! What provocative statements.
>>
>> Bored?
>
> Trolled?
>
> :)
>
Yowza.
'Ceptin' Rita is usually too intelligent to resort to such unvarnished
fishing, so I thought he'd take leave of his brain.
--
john mcwilliams
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 10:37 pm
From: Rich
On Jun 22, 10:23 pm, "Larry Thong" <larry_th...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have something
> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
Apple going to Intel was the last straw. The Apple II and subsequent
run-on-Motorola processor machines were innovative, a shot in the face
to the IBM P.C. and P.C. clone environment. But Intel is one of the
most repellent American companies, widely known for illegal and
unethical business practices. As for Apple's, friend of mine who went
into graphics processing in the 1980s said, "Apple users are a group
of computer-illiterates working on sub-standard machines." Compared to
the dedicated graphics workstations at the time, that was true.
Apple's future now hinges on the iPhone and less and less, the iPod.
In a perfect world, IBM and Motorola would have had the marketing
savvy to keep making and improving processors and in a really perfect
world, the DEC Alpha would still be around. The one bright spot in
the computer world as it is was how AMD's Althon (no longer) dominated
high-end machines for many years against flawed Intel offerings.
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 10:52 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-22 22:37:30 -0700, Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> said:
> On Jun 22, 10:23 pm, "Larry Thong" <larry_th...@shitstring.com> wrote:
>> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a fal
> se
>> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the
> same
>> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have someth
> ing
>> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have
> cute
>> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buyi
> ng
>> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>>
>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sa
> ke
>> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>
> Apple going to Intel was the last straw. The Apple II and subsequent
> run-on-Motorola processor machines were innovative, a shot in the face
> to the IBM P.C. and P.C. clone environment. But Intel is one of the
> most repellent American companies, widely known for illegal and
> unethical business practices. As for Apple's, friend of mine who went
> into graphics processing in the 1980s said, "Apple users are a group
> of computer-illiterates working on sub-standard machines." Compared to
> the dedicated graphics workstations at the time, that was true.
> Apple's future now hinges on the iPhone and less and less, the iPod.
> In a perfect world, IBM and Motorola would have had the marketing
> savvy to keep making and improving processors and in a really perfect
> world, the DEC Alpha would still be around. The one bright spot in
> the computer world as it is was how AMD's Althon (no longer) dominated
> high-end machines for many years against flawed Intel offerings.
Have you finally become completely unhinged?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a72842738be30c46?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 8:37 pm
From: Bob Larter
nospam wrote:
> In article <4a3dd3d6$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
>>>> convincing argument that proves this. Of course, I've never seen
>>>> convincing argument that anything over 300 improves, either.
>>> it depends on the image and viewing conditions.
>>>
>>> <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/>
>>>
>>> Laser printers used to be 300 dots per inch (dpi), but evolved to 600
>>> and even 1200 dpi. Why? People could see ragged edges on letters on 300
>>> dpi laser printers. At 600 dpi edges appear smoother. Some can tell the
>>> difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers if the paper quality is
>>> high.
>> That's for monochrome bi-level prints. Continuous tone images are much
>> less demanding. For example; dye-sub prints give good results at 100-150DPI.
>
> i find that to be extremely low, at least with ink jet printers, and
> can easily see a difference between that and 250-300 ppi (not dpi).
Inkjets aren't continuous tone, they use dithering.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 9:42 pm
From: Eric Stevens
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:37:19 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:
>nospam wrote:
>> In article <4a3dd3d6$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
>>>>> convincing argument that proves this. Of course, I've never seen
>>>>> convincing argument that anything over 300 improves, either.
>>>> it depends on the image and viewing conditions.
>>>>
>>>> <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/>
>>>>
>>>> Laser printers used to be 300 dots per inch (dpi), but evolved to 600
>>>> and even 1200 dpi. Why? People could see ragged edges on letters on 300
>>>> dpi laser printers. At 600 dpi edges appear smoother. Some can tell the
>>>> difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers if the paper quality is
>>>> high.
>>> That's for monochrome bi-level prints. Continuous tone images are much
>>> less demanding. For example; dye-sub prints give good results at 100-150DPI.
>>
>> i find that to be extremely low, at least with ink jet printers, and
>> can easily see a difference between that and 250-300 ppi (not dpi).
>
>Inkjets aren't continuous tone, they use dithering.
Epson printers can be continuous tone for all practical purposes.
Their printers control droplet size and make use of blending to mix
colours on the paper.
Eric Stevens
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:01 pm
From: John Navas
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:37:19 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote in <4a404def$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>nospam wrote:
>> In article <4a3dd3d6$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That's for monochrome bi-level prints. Continuous tone images are much
>>> less demanding. For example; dye-sub prints give good results at 100-150DPI.
>>
>> i find that to be extremely low, at least with ink jet printers, and
>> can easily see a difference between that and 250-300 ppi (not dpi).
>
>Inkjets aren't continuous tone, they use dithering.
And overlaying.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:02 pm
From: John Navas
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:42:26 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in
<i4n0455fq6n59b9a8ce9mas9noa0bs5hh1@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:37:19 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>Inkjets aren't continuous tone, they use dithering.
>
>Epson printers can be continuous tone for all practical purposes.
>Their printers control droplet size and make use of blending to mix
>colours on the paper.
Not without more colors.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Luxury ED Hardy Sunglasses - Discount ED Hardy Sunglasses
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1b8ee593e20e65a0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 9:36 pm
From: damo
Designer New Style Luxury ED Hardy Sunglasses fine quality.
You can check them:
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/ED-Hardy-Sunglasses.html
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Ed-Hardy-Sunglasses-100.html
And find more new fashionable apparels please view :
www.luxury-fashion.org
You can find what do you want here!
Welcome view our other pages or feel free contact us.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anything for the Perfect Shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 9:46 pm
From: John A.
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:55:00 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 20-06-09 11:01, John McWilliams wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 19-06-09 23:25, Matt Clara wrote:
>>>>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>>>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>>>
>>>> Those have been posted before, Matt. There are some good ones in there
>>>> (the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>>>>
>>>> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled
>>>> with computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and
>>>> they come right up again).
>>>
>>> Not a single popup using Safari just ten minutes ago.
>>
>> I was using Firefox with ad-block activated. This was not the pop-over
>> type, but drop boxes when scrolling or closing the page.
>
>Dump ad-block & use no-script instead. I didn't see any rubbish at all
>when viewing that page with Firefox + No-Script.
Me neither. SeaMonkey + no-ads.pac.
A proxy autoconfig file requires a little bit of code editing ability
to add to its blocking since it's essentially a javascript file with a
function to return a proxy based on a resource's URL, but it will work
with pretty much any browser since Netscape 2.0 and IE3.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:03 pm
From: John Navas
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:05:33 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <220620091805335238%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <bl9045ts540e69juvtjvjuitkj2l0amee2@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >assuming one gets their software from legitimate sources, the risk of
>> >malware is essentially zero. ...
>>
>> That's both dead wrong and dangerously naive -- there have been quite a
>> few cases of malware-infected software from legitimate sources.
>
>none with mac os x. ...
That you know of.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:07 pm
From: John Navas
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:29:32 -0500, Semi-Yawning <sy@here.com> wrote in
<e4b045lfs9voaniik2dubidmubvb585bdk@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:14:53 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:57:28 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>in <220620091657280123%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>>Laws here in the USA are pretty lax, and enforcement even laxer (largely
>>due to budget issues), so you'd be well advised here to scale back those
>>expectations here.
>>
>>Expert assessment is that food poisoning is way underreported and quite
>>common. I got food poisoning myself this weekend, which was fortunately
>>relatively mild, probably from some undercooked meat.
>
>Don't take this personally, just "typing out loud".
>
>"Food Poisoning" is the sign of a really weak body. Did you know that E.
>coli is a naturally occurring bacterium in your own gut? That's where it
>originated and why it is even named E. coli. [SNIP]
<http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/food_poisoning/prevalence.htm>:
Food Poisoning or Foodborne Illness - incidence
* 1,200-1,400 outbreaks of foodborne disease reported each year
in the US
* Estimated 76 million illnesses in the US annually
* Estimated 5,000 deaths in the US annually
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 11:08 pm
From: John Navas
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:55:55 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote in <h1p9a0$l1n$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:41:49 -0400, Alan Browne
>
>
>>> All we say is we don't waste money, effort and tears on AV software.
>>> [SNIP]
>>
>> Mac fans campaign incessantly for Macs and against PCs.
>> Mac advocacy is one of the biggest noise sources on the Internet.
>
>That's rubbish, John.
>
>However........
>
>By your protestations, I can see you really, deep down, desire a nice
>new Mac. You'll deny it of course, just as Alan did until I talked him
>into buying one. (He'll deny that, too!) :-)
That's childish, John.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another falls victim to the horror of P&S's
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/927bee75964a4ce4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 10:50 pm
From: Rich
On Jun 22, 12:02 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:03:04 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> wrote in
> <e80d5fc9-9a56-4f7d-80f4-8d0ba06df...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Heavy evident noise at 100 ISO.
>
> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=32138366
>
> Another lame troll.
> Image is 100% crop from a poorly focused shot at reduced resolution and
> quality, possibly with a dirty lens.
> I could easily manufacture similar dSLR images.
> Get a life and give it a rest.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
And focus effects noise...how? Not just noise, not nice, grainy film-
like noise, but ugly, blobby crappy processor noise.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 22 2009 10:52 pm
From: Rich
On Jun 22, 5:16 pm, ribbit <rib...@news.group> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > Heavy evident noise at 100 ISO.
>
> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=32138366
>
> The photo he is using for a supposed example was substantially under
> exposed and had the virtual ISO lifted so something like ISO 1200 by
> bring up the levels to 'look' like a correctly exposed image.
"Something like?" 3.5 stops? Rubbish.
==============================================================================
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